Council Agenda
City of Westminster
Title: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Wednesday 2 May 2007
Time: 7.00pm
Westminster Council House Venue: 97-113 Marylebone Road, London NW1
Members: All Councillors are hereby summoned to attend the Meeting for the transaction of the business set out below.
Admission to the public gallery is by ticket, issued from the ground floor reception at Council House from 6.30pm.
Please telephone if you are attending the meeting in a wheelchair or have difficulty walking up steps. There is wheelchair access by a side entrance.
An Induction loop operates to enhance sound for anyone wearing a hearing aid or using a T transmitter. If you require any further information, please contact Nigel Tonkin.
Tel: 020 7641 2756 Fax: 020 7641 8077 Minicom: 020 7641 5912 Email: [email protected] Corporate Website: www.westminster.gov.uk
2
1. Appointment of Relief Chairman
To appoint a relief Chairman.
2. Minutes
To sign the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 21 March 2007.
3. Notice of Vacancy
To note that Councillor Michael Vearncombe, Member for Marylebone High Street ward, resigned from the Council on Tuesday 27 March 2007. A by- election to fill the vacancy is being held on Thursday 3 May 2007.
4. Lord Mayor's Communications
(a) The Lord Mayor to report that, at the invitation of Her Majesty, he attended and greeted the President of the Republic of Ghana and Mrs Kufour at their formal arrival in the UK at the start of their State Visit to this country.
(b) The Lord Mayor to report that, alongside the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, he led the Walk of Witness march – starting from Whitehall Place, Westminster – to mark the 200 th anniversary of the abolition of the Slave Trade.
(c) The Lord Mayor to report that, on behalf of the Council and Citizens of the City of Westminster, he sent loyal greetings to Her Majesty The Queen on the occasion of her birthday on 21 April.
5. Vote of Thanks
To the retiring Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, Councillor Alexander Nicoll and Mrs Grania Nicoll.
6. Declarations of Interests (if any)
To receive declarations of interests from Members and Officers of the Council.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 3
7. Public Interest Report of the District Auditor - Objection to the City Council’s Accounts for 2003/04 re: Settlement with Dame Shirley Porter and others
To consider the report of the Director of Legal and Administrative Pages Services and the appended Public Interest Report. 5 - 22
8. Petitions and Deputations (if any)
9 Questions
(Standing Order 9 limits the questions to matters relevant to the general work or procedure of the Council).
10. Councillor Issues
(a) Councillor David Boothroyd – Council leaseholders
(b) Councillor Gwyneth Hampson – Lets Skip the Rest – dealing with waste
11. Statements on Urgent Matters Pursuant to Standing Order 4(3) (if any)
(Standing Order 4(3) provides that with the approval of the Chairman of the Meeting, the Leader of the Council may make a statement on an urgent matter and the Leader of the Opposition will have an equivalent right to reply).
12. Cabinet Reports
To receive and consider the following Cabinet reports:-
(A) Cabinet Reports Pages
Date
16 April 23 - 26
(B) Cabinet Committee Reports
Date
11 April (Building Schools for the Future) 27
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 4
(C) Individual Cabinet Member Decisions
Period
8 March 2007 to 19 April 2007 28 - 39
13. Committee Reports
To receive and consider the following Committee reports:
Committee Date Pages
Resources and Corporate Services 26 March 40 - 41 Health and Community Services 2 April 42 - 44 Built Environment 3 April 45 - 48 Children and Young People 4 April 49 Westminster Scrutiny Commission 17 April 50 - 51 * General Purposes 20 April 52 Audit and Performance 24 April To Follow
*There is a recommendation for decision in the above report.
14. Notice of Motion – Street Markets
To be proposed by Councillor Audrey Lewis and seconded by Councillor Steve Summers:
“This Council recognises the important contribution that street markets make in providing consumer choice and building community life and character in their neighbourhoods and welcomes the recognition that street markets are receiving through schemes such as Westminster's Market Trader of the Year competition.
To strengthen our existing street markets this Council agrees that the people who shop in and live near street markets and the traders who work there should be given a larger say in how they are managed."
Westminster City Hall Victoria Street London SW1 20 April 2007 Director of Legal and Administrative Services
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 5
Date: 2 nd May 2007
Subject: Public Interest Report of the District Auditor (Objection to the City CITY OF WESTMINSTER Council’s Accounts for 2003/04 re. Settlement with Dame Shirley Porter and Others)
Executive Summary and Recommendations
Summary
The District Auditor issued a Public Interest Report on 15 th March 2007 concerning his rejection of certain objections to the City Council’s accounts for the year 2003/4.
The City Council is now required to consider the report and decide what action (if any) to take in response. A notice containing a summary of what has been decided (which must have been approved by the Auditor) has to be published in a newspaper circulating in the area of the City Council.
The subject matter of the report concerns objections to the City Council’s accounts for 2003/4 by the Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Dimoldenberg, and others, following the settlement of £12.3m agreed with Dame Shirley Porter and others in April 2004 in respect of sums she had been ordered to pay the City Council by way of “surcharge”, interest and costs in relation to the so called “Homes for Votes” affair. The total sum due at the time of the settlement was in the order of £44m and the objection was made on the basis that the City Council failed to recover the full amount due.
On every major issue considered by the District Auditor, the arguments of the objectors have been rejected and the position maintained by the City Council throughout, upheld.
A copy of the Public Interest Report is attached as Appendix 1.
Recommendations:
1. That the District Auditor’s Public Interest report of 15 th March 2007 be noted and no further action be taken in respect thereof, save for the publication of the statement referred to in paragraph 2.2 below
2. That the statement set out in Appendix 2 be approved.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 6
Council Meeting City of Westminster
Item No:
Date: 2nd May 2007
Classification: For General Release
Title of Report: Public Interest Report of the District Auditor (Objection to the City Council’s Accounts for 2003/04 re. Settlement with Dame Shirley Porter and Others)
Report of: Director of Legal and Administrative Services
Wards involved: All
Policy context: Low Council Tax
Financial summary: The total costs of responding to the Objection and in respect of the District Auditors fees are estimated at £427,000 which will be apportioned between the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account.
Report Author: Colin Wilson
Contact details 020 7641 2710 Email: [email protected]
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 7
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 The criticisms levelled at the Council by the objectors can be summarised as follows:
• The Council took too long to pursue the debt and this gave Dame Shirley Porter the time she needed to remove her assets from the jurisdiction of the British courts;
• The Council lacked the will to pursue the debt and therefore did not make sufficient efforts; and
• The approach taken by the Council in the final mediation process was flawed and in consequence the amount accepted in settlement was inadequate.
1.2 The key findings of the report are:
• That the Council acted reasonably in the recovery action that it took.
• That a reasonable settlement was agreed in the circumstances.
• That whilst recognising that the objectors strongly believe the Council has been deficient in its pursuit of Dame Shirley Porter since the surcharge was imposed, this belief is “misguided and simply wrong”.
• That it is now time to bring this matter to a close and move on from the past.
1.3 On every major issue considered by the Auditor, the arguments of the objectors have been rejected and the position maintained by the City Council throughout, upheld. It is not considered necessary or appropriate to further summarise the Public Interest Report as it is, as required by the Audit Commission Act, attached in full as Appendix 1.
2.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
2.1 Under Section 11 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, as amended, the full Council must consider the Public Interest Report, in public, within one month or such extended period as may be allowed by the District Auditor. An extension of time has been agreed to allow the report to be considered at this scheduled meeting.
2.2 At the meeting, the Council must decide –
(a) whether the report requires the Council to take any action or whether any recommendation is to be accepted; and
(b) what, if any, action to take in response to the report or recommendations.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 8
In this case, no specific recommendation is made, although the District Auditor stresses that it is now time to bring the matter to a close and move on from the past.
2.3 As soon as practicable after the meeting, the City Council must notify the District Auditor of its decision, and publish a notice containing a summary thereof in a local newspaper.
3.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 Of the total settlement of £12,300,000, after payment of costs to third parties, the sum due to Westminster of £12,000,000 was received in 2004. As agreed by Cabinet Urgency Committee in July 2004, after paying over the amount due to the Audit Commission of £1,016,000 in respect of costs they had incurred, £6,596,000 (60%) was paid into a fund for Housing Investment, and £4,388,000 (40%) to the General Fund.
3.2 The final costs of responding to the objection to the accounts are estimated as follows: £ £ Westminster’s costs - Internal legal costs 23,000 - External legal costs 179,000 202,000 - District Auditor’s costs 225,000 427,000
3.3 These are being met from existing budgets, including a reserve set up for Audit costs in the 2004/05 accounts.
3.4 However the total costs are chargeable onto services in proportion to the allocation of the settlement received and thus of this estimated total, £171,000 (40%) will be met by the General Fund and £256,000 (60%) by the Housing Revenue Account.
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 The issue of the Public Interest Report, and the rejection by the District Auditor of the objection to the accounts for 2003/4, brings this long running matter to a conclusion. As the District Auditor says in his own conclusions, the question is “did (the City Council) in all the circumstances that prevailed at the time make a reasonable recovery of the monies due to Westminster’s taxpayers? I am satisfied that it did. In my view it is now time to bring this matter to a close and move on from the past”. The City Council is invited to endorse this sentiment by approving the statement set out in Appendix 2, which has been approved by the City Council’s District Auditor.
If you have any queries about this report or wish to inspect one of the background papers please contact C. Wilson on 020 7641 2710; fax 020 7641Background 3325 email [email protected]. Papers: None
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 9
APPENDIX 1
Audit Commission
Public Interest Report March 2007
Public Interest Report
City of Westminster
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 10
Public Interest Report March 2007
Public Interest Report City of Westminster © Audit Commission 2007
The Audit Commission is an independent body responsible for ensuring that public money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively, to achieve high-quality local services for the public. Our remit covers around 11,000 bodies in England, which between them spend more than £180 billion of public money each year. Our work covers local government, health, housing, community safety and fire and rescue services.
As an independent watchdog, we provide important information on the quality of public services. As a driving force for improvement in those services, we provide practical recommendations and spread best practice. As an independent auditor, we ensure that public services are good value for money and that public money is properly spent.
For further information on the work of the Commission please contact: Audit Commission, 1st Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4HQ Tel: 020 7828 1212 Fax: 020 7976 6187 Textphone (minicom): 020 7630 0421 www.audit-commission.gov.uk
Contents
Summary Report
Introduction
Main findings
How long it took to pursue the debt
The recovery effort
The mediation process
Conclusions
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 11
Summary Report
Introduction
1. This report concerns the long running saga of the Westminster ‘Homes for Votes’ affair. I am writing this in the hope that it will assist in drawing the matter to a close. I have decided to issue this report in the public interest under section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 due to the substantial public and media interest in the attempt by the City of Westminster [the Council] to recover a substantial sum of money due from Dame Shirley Porter. She was ordered to pay this amount by the Court as a result of the losses to the Council incurred by her and another’s wilful misconduct. The inability to make a full recovery has been the subject of an objection to the Council's 2003/04 accounts and this report also summarises the detailed findings of my investigation into the issues raised by the objectors.
2. In January 1994 the then external auditor to the Council issued his provisional findings and views that Dame Shirley Porter and others had a case to answer in respect of the 'Homes for Votes' affair. This dated back to the mid-1980s and concerned the sale of Council homes in Westminster in marginal wards with the aim of influencing voting patterns in the area. The auditor issued his final report in May 1996 confirming his provisional view and surcharging Dame Shirley Porter and others. This was on the basis that the sale of the Council homes had been for an improper purpose and therefore unlawful. Dame Shirley Porter and others became personally liable for the loss to the Council caused by their wilful misconduct.
3. On appeal, the High Court in December 1997 upheld the auditor's surcharge. This decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal in April 1999. Finally, in December 2001, the House of Lords upheld the auditor's surcharge. With interest and costs, the total amount due from Dame Shirley Porter and one other under the auditor’s surcharge was approximately £33 million at that time.
4. In April 2004 the Council settled for £12.3 million in full and final settlement of the debt due from Dame Shirley Porter. It is this settlement, and the allegations that the Council had been deficient in its recovery action, that is the subject of this report.
5. In considering the actions of the Council, I have had to judge the reasonableness of the actions of the time. It has been suggested, with the benefit of hindsight, that maybe more could have been done at the time. For instance, I have accepted that more could have been spent on investigations earlier, but I have equally recognised that the Council could then quite legitimately have been criticised for spending money at a stage when there was no guarantee of the surcharge being upheld by the Courts. Overall, it is my view that the Council acted reasonably in the recovery action that it took. In so doing, it was balancing the need to recover the monies owed for the benefit of local taxpayers whilst being conscious that expenditure on the
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 12
recovery process itself would also fall on local taxpayers. I am satisfied that a reasonable settlement was agreed in the circumstances.
6. The objection to the 2003/04 accounts was wide ranging. I have, however, restricted my detailed investigations to the allegations of negligence and deficiency, my main focus being whether there ought to have been greater recovery for the benefit of the Westminster local taxpayer. I am aware that the lead objectors were instrumental in the 1990s in bringing the then auditor's attention to the 'Homes for Votes' affair. I commend the objectors for their determination and persistence in ensuring that Dame Shirley Porter was brought to account by way of surcharge. However, whilst recognising that they strongly believe the Council has been deficient in its pursuit of Dame Shirley Porter since the surcharge was imposed, in my view this belief is misguided and simply wrong.
Main findings
7. Much of the criticism levelled at the Council can be summarised as follows:
• the Council took too long to pursue the debt and this gave Dame Shirley Porter the time she needed to remove her assets from the jurisdiction of the British Courts;
• the Council lacked the will to pursue the debt and therefore did not make sufficient effort; and
• the approach taken by the Council in the final mediation process was flawed and in consequence the amount accepted in settlement was inadequate.
How Long it took to Pursue the Debt
8. There is no doubt that it has taken a long time to collect the debt resulting from the 'Homes for Votes' affair; indeed, nearly eight years passed between the date of the auditor's certificate of surcharge and the final settlement. This, however, does not take account of the fact that the debt was not actually due until December 2001. The settlement was in April 2004 such that the above period is, more properly, described as just over two years. In considering whether the Council acted, reasonably, the different circumstances before and after the House of Lords' judgement of December 2001 has to be taken into account.
Prior to the House of Lords Judgement of December 2001
9. Following the publication of the auditor's provisional views that there was a case to answer in January 1994, the Council sought legal advice on whether it could take recovery proceedings at that stage. The advice received was that any such recovery action would fail as there was no debt due and therefore no legal cause of action.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 13
10. After the auditor had issued his certificate and surcharge in May 1996, the Council appointed a specialist firm of external solicitors to act on its behalf in the recovery process. Indeed, throughout the recovery process the Council has taken extensive legal advice both from specialist solicitors and Leading and Junior Counsel as required. I am satisfied that the Council engaged external lawyers with the appropriate skill and experience.
11. The Council took Leading Counsel's advice in July 1996, shortly after the auditor had issued the certificates of surcharge. He advised that there was still no cause of action as the debt would not be payable until after the final resolution of the appeal lodged by Dame Shirley Porter. Counsel also advised, however, that there was a “significant prospect” that the Court may grant a Mareva injunction [ie an order freezing assets worldwide]. This aspect of the Counsel’s advice was highlighted by the objectors and was a major plank in their arguments.
12. It was important, therefore, for me to assess whether the advice to the Council was that it could and should have issued proceedings for a Mareva injunction at this stage. After all, freezing Dame Shirley Porter’s assets then might have meant that there were significantly greater assets available for eventual recovery. A full reading, however, of Counsel’s advice was that seeking a Mareva injunction at that stage would go against the then law. This would, therefore, require the Council to seek to change the law by taking the application all the way to the House of Lords with the substantial cost this would involve. In addition, Counsel stated that there were further impediments to seeking a Mareva injunction. First, he advised that there were difficulties in obtaining the British Court’s permission to serve proceedings outside their jurisdiction and second, that there were risks to the Council in that it would have to give a cross-undertaking to pay damages should Dame Shirley Porter be successful on appeal. In discussion with Counsel, it was agreed that such a course of action would be premature. I am satisfied that the Council was acting reasonably in taking the view that pre-emptive action to protect the Council’s position was not, at this stage, realistically possible.
13. This legal advice was revisited after the High Court upheld the auditor's surcharge in December 1997 and the advice remained unchanged. In April 1999, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision and thereby the certificates of surcharge. In some ways, this vindicated the Council’s caution. There was, as a matter of law, no enforceable debt against Dame Shirley Porter until the decision of the House of Lords in December 2001. Therefore, the Council would, between the Court of Appeal and House of Lords stages, have been at risk of being criticised if it had incurred significant amounts of public expenditure in undertaking recovery action against Dame Shirley Porter and the surcharges had then not been upheld.
14. The Council had, however, engaged investigators during this period to carry out some preliminary work on identifying Dame Shirley Porter's assets. Initially it engaged a firm of forensic accountants to look into publicly available information to ascertain the whereabouts of her assets and, subsequently, a well known firm of investigators to make further enquiries. Later, after the House of Lords' decision, the Council engaged a second well-known
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 14
investigatory company to carry out some more detailed work, including talking to informants.
15. It was clear from this work that most of Dame Shirley Porter's assets had been moved out of the country. Large amounts had been settled in trust in the early 1980s. It would appear that Dame Shirley Porter had transferred the majority of her remaining assets to her husband and/or offshore trusts by the late 1990s, that is, prior to the debt becoming due.
Following the House of Lords' Judgement of December 2001
16. To understand the process of recovery following the House of Lords' decision, it is important to be aware of the chronology of events. The key events are as follows:
• 13 December 2001: the House of Lords upholds the auditor's certificate of surcharge. On the same day, the Council wrote to Dame Shirley Porter requiring payment within the 14 day period after which the debt would become enforceable.
• 28 December 2001: the Council starts recovery proceedings including obtaining a worldwide freezing and disclosure order against Dame Shirley Porter.
• January 2002: Dame Shirley Porter makes disclosure of £300,000 worth of assets.
• January /February 2002: the Council appoints a different firm of investigators, in particular to look into information from certain former employees of Dame Shirley Porter’s financial advisers.
• April 2002: application by the Council for summary judgement against Dame Shirley Porter.
• July 2002: summary judgement for the payment of the debt against Dame Shirley Porter granted by the Court.
• September 2002: Dame Shirley Porter lodges an appeal against this judgement.
• November 2002: the Council makes an application for a wider freezing and disclosure order.
• December 2002: Dame Shirley Porter's appeal of the summary judgement struck out.
• February 2003: the Court grants wider freezing and disclosure order.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 15
• January to June 2003: the Council’s solicitors maintain a dialogue with an informant while being mindful that the information was likely to have been obtained illegally, i.e. a 'tainted' source.
• March 2003: the first of a number of disclosure orders granted against Dame Shirley Porter's financial advisers and others.
• 30 June 2003: BBC radio programme makes public the ‘tainted source’ information.
• July 2003: the Council obtains the first of a number of Court orders in Guernsey [freezing and disclosure orders] and the British Virgin Islands [disclosure].
• January 2004: the Council starts ‘sham trust’ proceedings in Guernsey.
• April 2004: settlement reached with Dame Shirley Porter.
Orders against Dame Shirley Porter
17. Following the House of Lords decision, and shortly after the debt became enforceable, the Council obtained worldwide freezing and disclosure orders against Dame Shirley Porter. I am advised that these are draconian orders not granted lightly by the Courts. The freezing orders restrained Dame Shirley Porter from dealing with or in any way diminishing the value of her assets up to the value of £33 million and she also had to make disclosure with regard to the same. Being the standard form of such orders, this only required disclosure with regard to current and not former assets.
18. Dame Shirley Porter made disclosure in January 2002 of approximately £300,000 worth of assets. From this time on, the Council was seeking and acting upon extensive legal advice both from specialist solicitors and Counsel. The Council sought Leading Counsel's advice in February 2002 as to the next steps and was not advised that it could seek any further orders in addition to those it had already obtained.
19. Over the next six or seven months the Council pursued further information from investigators. The information obtained provided greater clarity as to the structure of Dame Shirley Porter's offshore trusts. The Council’s solicitors also wrote to Dame Shirley Porter’s solicitors on a number of occasions, asking what had happened to her previous wealth. Dame Shirley Porter’s solicitors repeatedly refused to provide this information. The information obtained from informants and the paper trail established in correspondence with Dame Shirley Porter’s solicitors put the Council in a position to make an application for a wider disclosure order. This would then require Dame Shirley Porter to account for what had happened to her previous reputed wealth. The informant information was available from September 2002 and the Council sought Counsel’s advice on issuing proceedings for a wider order in the same month.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 16
20. The Council applied for the wider order in November 2002 and it was granted in February 2003. This order required Dame Shirley Porter to identify and provide full details of any transactions worth over £100,000 in relation to her assets from January 1994 to the date of the order. I am satisfied that the Council acted reasonably in not seeking the wider freezing and disclosure orders against Dame Shirley Porter until November 2002. It was acting on legal advice that it would be unlikely that such orders would be granted until the Council had sufficient evidence to demonstrate their need to the Courts.
21. On 18 February 2003 Dame Shirley Porter wrote to the Council to say that she was not going “to participate in the latest proceedings any further”.
Orders against Others
22. The objectors have claimed that the Council should have sought disclosure orders against others, in particular Dame Shirley Porter's financial advisers, earlier than it did. The Council did consider such action but the external legal advice was that it was not appropriate to follow such a line until after the wider disclosure order against Dame Shirley Porter had been obtained. The Council was advised that the letter from Dame Shirley Porter in February 2003 refusing to participate in proceedings any further put the Council in a strong position to argue to the Court that it had to pursue third parties for the information. From March 2003 onwards it obtained a number of disclosure orders against the financial advisers and other parties [six in total].
23. I am satisfied that the Council acted reasonably in the way it pursued recovery via third parties, in particular Dame Shirley Porter's financial advisers. I am of the view, moreover, that the Council would have been unlikely to have gained any financial advantage had it obtained such orders earlier as it would appear that Dame Shirley Porter's assets had already been moved out of the jurisdiction of the British Courts and into the offshore trusts well before this time.
Use of Informants
24. Shortly after the House of Lords' decision in 2001, the Council engaged the second company of investigators to assist in tracking down Dame Shirley Porter's assets, primarily by obtaining information from various informants. That company was successful in putting the Council in touch with a number of informants. This led to the information as to the offshore trust/company structure which allowed the Council to obtain the wider freezing and disclosure orders noted above. Throughout, the Council acted in accordance with its independent legal advice on how it should best use the informant information.
25. In early 2003 the Council was contacted by an informant with information on Dame Shirley Porter's affairs. The objectors have raised concerns that this information was not relied upon at an early stage. Whilst it is true that this information, together with the information obtained by Court orders against Dame Shirley Porter’s financial advisers, turned out to be important to the Council's later recovery action in Guernsey, solicitors and Counsel had
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 17
advised caution in its use. The informant was suspected of having obtained this information illegally. Thus, the strategy was to wait until the information became public so that it could be used legitimately. In the event, the Council's caution was justified as the informant was subsequently convicted of the criminal offence of unlawful and unauthorised interception of electronic communications.
The BBC programme
26. Much has been made by the objectors of a BBC radio programme broadcast in June 2003. The programme did add something to the Council's knowledge of Dame Shirley Porter's financial affairs. However, so also had the fruits of the disclosure orders against Dame Shirley Porter’s financial advisers. Furthermore, the Council’s strategy of waiting for the making public of the information obtained illegally noted in paragraph 25 above was vindicated, and thus the Council was free to now use this information to support further recovery action in the Courts.
27. In July 2003 the Council obtained the first of a series of Court orders in both Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands. It was the information from the financial advisers and the illegally obtained information, made public in the BBC programme, and the resulting disclosure orders obtained in Guernsey that gave the Council the hard, up-to-date evidence that enabled it to commence 'sham trust' and other proceedings in Guernsey. It was this sequence of events that eventually led to the mediation and settlement.
Alternative Actions
28. Questions have also been raised as to why the Council did not take alternative courses of action, in particular seeking legal advice and commencing legal proceedings abroad and seeking to make Dame Shirley Porter bankrupt.
29. In fact the Council did seek legal advice abroad: in Israel, Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands. Ultimately, and in accordance with the advice of its independent legal advisers, the Council decided not to mount legal proceedings abroad other than in Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands. This was due to the significant difficulties that were likely to be encountered and the information that suggested that Dame Shirley Porter's assets had already been moved to the offshore trusts in Guernsey. In these circumstances, and in the absence of reliable evidence that significant assets existed abroad other than in the trusts, I accept that the Council acted reasonably in its approach to seeking foreign legal advice and commencing legal action abroad.
30. The Council also considered whether to petition for the bankruptcy of Dame Shirley Porter. The advice to the Council, however, was that in all likelihood the proceedings would need to be issued in Israel, that they would be contested, might not succeed and would be enormously expensive.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 18
The Recovery Effort
31. I have also considered certain aspects of the objectors’ allegations that the Council lacked the political will to seek recovery from Dame Shirley Porter and this therefore led to insufficient effort being made. The three issues I considered in this regard were the extent to which the recovery action was not sufficiently financed, that settlement with Dame Shirley Porter was considered at too an early stage, and that unduly negative comments were made to the press.
Financing the Recovery Action
32. The Council has argued that it spent the money that it was beneficial to spend, that all action recommended by its independent legal advisers was taken and that no such action was not taken on account of budgetary constraints. I am satisfied that the Council appointed specialists in the field and acted reasonably in committing the expenditure that it did, some £1.6 million. That is not, however, to say that the Council could not have spent more on the recovery process.
33. The objectors raised concerns about the way in which the Council officers monitored and controlled the costs of the recovery process. In particular, they alleged that a letter to the Council's legal advisers exhorting them to use junior lawyers where appropriate demonstrated the Council's reluctance to pursue recovery vigorously. Similarly, they made the same point about officers querying a potential overspend on the investigator's agreed budget.
34. I would have expected the Council to adopt a prudent approach when committing itself to expenditure of this nature. In this situation, it had the difficult task of assessing how much it should commit to the recovery process when the amount that might be recovered was unpredictable. I consider it was correct for the Council's officers to seek the most economic means, using staff of the appropriate grade and cost to undertake recovery. Indeed, it demonstrates that the Council had taken into account the proper stewardship of public funds entrusted to it and I am satisfied that the Council acted reasonably in spending the amount it did on the recovery process.
Early consideration of settlement
35. It has been alleged that the Council was from an early stage considering settlement with Dame Shirley Porter and that this had a material adverse effect on its recovery efforts. It is true that at various stages officers were considering settlement but I take the view, however, that it was appropriate for the Council to consider, at every stage, including early on in the recovery process, whether the public interest, in particular that of local taxpayers, was best served by pursuing the debt or seeking to settle. After all, it was further public funds that were being spent at every step of the way with no guarantee of recovery. Furthermore, looked at overall, it is apparent that the Council actively pursued Dame Shirley Porter from the date the debt became legally
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 19
due. I remain unconvinced that considering settlement along the way had a negative impact on the overall recovery.
Press comments
36. Similarly, the objectors complained that there were repeated media briefings of a negative nature by the Council and that these undermined the chances of recovery. In my view, selective quotations from the media prove very little. I am not persuaded, moreover, that such media quotations as I have seen would have undermined the legal action being taken by the Council.
The mediation process
37. In April 2004 the Council received legal advice that the Council was in a position of some strength. It had recently won a Court battle and there was a reasonable prospect of making some recovery from its recently launched sham trust proceedings. However, it also faced what was likely to be a long and expensive challenge as to whether or not the Guernsey Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. This was unlikely to establish anything of substance and would leave the Council with no certainty of the final outcome. The Council's legal advisers therefore advised that mediation was a good idea at that time.
38. The fact that the overall debt owed by Dame Shirley Porter was in the region of £44 million [including additional claims, interest and costs] does not necessarily mean that a settlement of £12.3 million was a bad deal. There is a need to consider the position of the Council in the light of a complex recovery process inhibited by the lack of cause of action before December 2001. Furthermore, there was the need to consider that most of Dame Shirley Porter's assets had already been transferred abroad by the time the debt became due and recovery action was realistically possible.
39. Before negotiating the settlement the Council agreed a settlement strategy that contained a 'bottom line' figure based on a number of risk factors. These were the costs to date, anticipated future costs if proceedings continued and, importantly, independent legal advice from Counsel as to the chances of successful recovery action in respect of each of the offshore trusts. Overall, the Council contends that the £12.3 million finally agreed was a 'good deal' as it was significantly more than the 'bottom line' figure and was well within Council's risk analysis. Indeed, applying Counsel’s advice as to chances of recovery from each of the offshore trusts, a figure of £6.5 million was a more likely level of recovery.
40. I have noted, moreover, that the whole of the value ascribed to Dame Shirley Porter’s wealth by her former financial adviser [approximately £20 million] less the value of the monies placed in trust by Dame Shirley Porter prior to 1994 and therefore outside of the sham trust proceedings [approximately £8 million] is roughly approximate to the amount of settlement, £12.3 million.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 20
41. I have carefully reviewed the Council’s asserted justification and concluded that the Council did act reasonably in formulating both the ‘bottom line’ figure and the final amount for settlement. So critical is this to the objectors’ case that I have taken independent legal advice on this issue. My legal adviser reviewed the substantial documentation gathered together during the investigation and assessed the Council’s legal action as a matter of private and public law. Her advice, which I have accepted, is that in the circumstances the figure settled upon was not unreasonable.
42. Finally, concerns have been raised both with regard to the settlement containing confidentiality clauses and it not having undertakings that would have allowed later action if further assets were to be identified. I am advised that it is extremely common for settlements of this nature to have clauses as to confidentiality and, moreover, that without these clauses it would have been unlikely that Dame Shirley Porter would have agreed to settle. Similarly, if the Council had not agreed to the settlement being final then, in my view, it would not have been acceptable to the other side, finality being, after all, one of the main benefits to Dame Shirley Porter.
Conclusions
43. It is not my responsibility, as auditor, to substitute my judgement for that of the Council. Rather, I have to consider the Council’s decision making processes and whether it has adequately discharged its fiduciary duty. Whilst I recognise that the Council settled for considerably less than the amount surcharged, I am satisfied that it acted reasonably in its recovery action and did not therefore fail in its fiduciary duty. The Council had to balance the certainty of a lesser sum against the potential for a larger one and I have concluded that the final settlement was, in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time, reasonable.
44. This is not to say that other actions may not have led to a different outcome. With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to point to some alternative approaches that could have been taken and actions that could have been taken earlier. However, I have had to form a view on whether the action taken was reasonable at the time. Given the circumstances outlined in this report, in particular the extensive reliance on expert independent legal advice and the fact that no one was, at the time, able to reliably identify any significant assets owned by Dame Shirley Porter over and above those already known by the Council, I am satisfied that the approach followed by the Council was reasonable.
45. It would seem to me that the recovery process has been hampered by both the success of Dame Shirley Porter in moving the majority of her assets abroad prior to the debt becoming due and the length of time it took to get that far. Neither of these factors was within the Council’s control. Her remaining assets would seem to have been moved early on in the surcharge process, at a point in time when the Council was not realistically able to take legal action. Given this, recovery of the full amount was always going to be very difficult.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 21
46 . Finally, I recognise that many will not be satisfied with the final outcome, as it would appear, given her recent visits back to the UK, that Dame Shirley Porter still has access to considerable funds. However, I have been considering the period of time leading up to the settlement in 2004. The Council must be judged on the reasonableness of its actions at that time and not with the benefit of hindsight. The question is, did it, in all the circumstances that prevailed at the time, make a reasonable recovery of the monies due to Westminster's taxpayers?
I am satisfied that it did. In my view, it is now time to bring this matter to a close and move on from the past.
Les Kidner District Auditor 15 March 2007
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 22
APPENDIX 2
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT RE: SETTLEMENT WITH DAME SHIRLEY PORTER AND OTHERS
SUMMARY OF DECISION PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE AUDIT COMMISSION ACT 1998
On 15 th March 2007 the District Auditor published a public interest report concerning his rejection of certain objections to the City Council’s accounts for the year 2003/4.
The subject matter of the report concerns objections to the City Council’s accounts for 2003/4 following a settlement of £12.3 million agreed with Dame Shirley Porter and others in April 2004 in respect of sums she had been ordered to pay the City Council by way of “surcharge”, interest and costs in relation to the so called “homes for Votes” affair. The total sum due at the time of the settlement was in the order of £44 million and the objection was made on the basis that the City Council had failed to recover the full amount due.
The main conclusions of the Public Interest report are:-
(1) That the Council acted reasonably in the recovery action that it took.
(2) That a reasonable settlement was agreed in the circumstances.
(3) That whilst recognising that the objectors strongly believe the Council has been deficient in its pursuit of Dame Shirley Porter since the surcharge was imposed, this belief is “misguided and simply wrong”.
(4) That it is now time to bring this matter to a close and move on from the past.
The City Council has noted the District Auditor’s findings and his rejection of the objection and agrees with his conclusions.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 23
REPORT OF THE CABINET ON 16 APRIL 2007
The following Members of the Cabinet were present:
Councillors: Sir Simon Milton - Leader of the Council Colin Barrow - Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Support Services Robert Davis - Chief Whip and Cabinet Member for Planning Ian Adams - Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Services Daniel Astaire - Cabinet Member for Customer and Community Services Alan Bradley - Cabinet Member for Street Environment Danny Chalkley - Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport Angela Harvey - Cabinet Member for Housing Audrey Lewis - Cabinet Member for Community Protection and Licensing Sarah Richardson - Cabinet Member for Children’s Services
Also Present: Councillors Alastair Moss and Barrie Taylor
The following paragraphs refer to issues upon which the Cabinet took executive decisions:
1. Annual Audit and Inspection Letter
(a) We have considered a report on the Auditor’s Annual Audit and Inspection Letter. The Annual Letter provides an overall summary of the Audit Commission’s assessment of the Council, based on its work during the course of the year. The key elements being: the audit of financial statements; the annual governance report; and the use of resources assessment. The Letter has been circulated to all Members of the Council.
(b) Les Kidner, the Council’s relationship manager and Auditor, and the Audit Manager, Martin Searle, attended our meeting. Mr Kidner introduced the Annual Letter which amounted to a very positive report on the Authority. The City Council is judged as providing good value for money and is assessed as improving strongly. In addition all service scores are good or excellent. The Auditor has given an unqualified opinion on the Council’s statement of accounts and pension fund for the year ended 31 March 2006 and, last month, issued a public interest report on his decision not to uphold the objection to the Council’s 2003/04 accounts. (NB: This is the subject of a separate report on the Council agenda).
(c) Arising from his work the Auditor had identified two key actions for the Council relating to (i) services provided through contracts with third parties and (ii) the level of balances. Mr Kidner informed the Cabinet that, in both cases, he was
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 24
satisfied with the response provided by the Director of Finance and Resources.
(d) Councillor Colin Barrow, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Support Services, thanked the Auditor for his report and for attending the meeting. He also paid tribute to the Finance and Resources Department and to staff across the Council whose efforts had resulted in such a positive Annual Letter from the Auditor.
2. Strategic Review 2007/08
(a) We have considered the annual Strategic Review report reviewing achievements over the past year and setting out the City Council’s priorities over the next 12 months taking account of the Leader’s Speech to the Council on 7 March 2007.
(b) 2006/07 was another year of remarkable achievement for the City Council. The Audit Commission confirmed Westminster’s status as a 4 star council and one that is improving strongly and the Council increased its “Use of Resources” and “Value for Money” scores.
(c) Major improvements have come about through the One City programme and, via Worksmart, the Council has begun to unlock the resources necessary to deliver the One City ambition.
(d) 2007/08 is the second year of “One City”, and the projects announced in the Leader’s Speech will ensure that Westminster continues in its ambition to lead the field in world-class city management. We have received details of the 18 new projects announced in the Leader’s Speech that will take forward the One City vision. These are grouped under the four underpinning themes of One City - Order, Opportunity, Enterprise and Renewal.
(e) We have endorsed the Strategic Review and agreed the government relations, consultation and communications programmes which will support the delivery of the Council’s priorities.
(f) As part of the next steps, individual Cabinet Members, in consultation with Overview and Scrutiny Committees, will consider how to address the priorities and financial prospects as part of the ongoing corporate performance management cycle.
(g) Finally, we have noted that proposals for a City-wide neighbourhoods model covering governance, management and engagement will be coming forward later in the year. Options for devolving management to a neighbourhood level will also be developed, starting with Church Street Market, and we have agreed that a governance group should be established comprising a number of different stakeholders to take this work forward.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 25
3. Every Older Person Matters
(a) The Leader in his annual speech to the Council in March 2006 announced an Every Older Person Matters programme of action to be based on helping older people achieve better outcomes, including improved health and quality of life, more personal choice and control, personal dignity and the chance to make a positive contribution taking a whole Council approach as well as a partnership with health, police and the voluntary sector.
(b) A great deal of progress has been made over the past year to establish the Every Older Person Matters agenda across the full range of Council functions. An Older People’s Board, led by Councillor Ian Adams, the Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care, has been meeting with service department leads and a series of new services and commitments to be delivered over the course of One City have been developed and consulted upon for implementation over the life of the corporate One City strategy.
(c) Every Older Person Matters represents an opportunity to mainstream services for older people, and to raise the profile of specific service needs across the Council. The approach also presents the Council with a real opportunity to make a significant impact on the preventative agenda, in line with future NHS spending priorities and the White Paper on the Future of Community Care. By helping older residents to maintain healthy and active lifestyles for longer, their overall quality of life can be sustained and improved and the need for costly social care services in future can be mitigated.
(d) We have adopted Every Older Person Matters as Council policy and have agreed the targets and deliverables presented to us for inclusion in service business plans for 2007/08 and as the basis for further work over the life of One City.
4. Gender Equality Scheme
(a) As a result of the Equality Act 2006 the City Council, like all public authorities, has a specific duty to produce and publish a Gender Equality Scheme by 30 April 2007, setting out how it intends to deliver its duties under the Act.
(b) We have considered a Policy Statement setting out how the Council intends to meet its duties under the Equality Act 2006. Two action plans have been drafted setting out how the City Council will fulfil its specific duties. The first action plan outlines the steps the Council will take to promote equality for men and women who work for the Council. The second action plan outlines the steps the Council will take to promote equality for men and women accessing the Council services. These action plans are embedded in the Council’s business planning process for 2007/08.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 26
(c) The Chief Officers’ Diversity Group will monitor progress on a six-monthly basis and progress will be reviewed each year with active participation by both internal and external shareholders, in line with statutory requirements.
(d) We have approved, subject to certain revised wording suggested during our discussion of this issue, the Gender Equality Scheme 2007/10.
SIR SIMON MILTON, Chairman
______
Local Government (Access to Information) Act, 1972 – Background Papers
Reports and Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 16 April 2007
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 27
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE CABINET ON 11 APRIL 2007
The following Members of the Committee were present:
Councillors: Sir Simon Milton and Sarah Richardson
1. Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Procurement Process – Evaluation of Bidders’ Responses and Invitation to Submit Final Tenders
(a) We noted the results of the Invitation to Continue the Dialogue evaluation process and agreed that both Bidders should be invited to submit final tenders.
(b) We noted that, in order to keep to the agreed timescales, it was important for the Invitation to Submit Final Tenders to be issued on the target date. However, we agreed that the invitation could initially be issued in draft.
(c) We authorised the Chief Executive to agree the proposed arrangements for the Local Education Partnership.
(d) We agreed the transfer of part of the St Marylebone site and the granting of a long lease of the Lanark Road site to the Trustees of St George’s RC School; and noted the position in relation to the potential for disposal of residential provision at Blandford Street.
(e) We agreed that Bidders should be instructed to submit a Mandatory Variant Tender to include connection to the Pimlico District Heating Undertaking, in addition to their standard Tender, in order that we may consider the relative costs and benefits, including the environmental benefits, for a future decision on the way forward.
SARAH RICHARDSON, Chairman
______
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1972 – Background Papers The agenda and reports for the Committee of the Cabinet Meeting on 11 April 2007
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 28
Reports of Decisions and Recommendations (if any) to the Council of Individual Cabinet Members for the Period 8 March 2007 – 19 April 2007
The following issues are referred to the Council for information:
THE LEADER (Councillor Sir Simon Milton)
1. Draft Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street Action Plan: Approval to commit revenue and capital expenditure in 2006/07 – 19 March 2007
Councillor Sir Simon Milton approved the release of £120,000 from One City funds set aside for 2006/07 towards the launch of the Draft Action Plan.
2. Extension of Date For Service of Notice On CityWest Homes – 28 March 2007*
Councillor Sir Simon Milton authorised the Director of Legal and Administrative Services to agree formally with CityWest Homes that both parties have the right to give notice in writing at any time on or before 31 st May 2007 pursuant to paragraph 62.2 of the Agreement and that such notice will have the effect of determining the Agreement 6 months from the date of the notice.
3. Application for Leave of Absence (Councillor Batty) – 28 March 2007
Councillor Sir Simon Milton approved the request for leave of absence until 30 June 2007
4. Westminster’s Local Area Agreement (LAA) -2007/08 Budget and 2006/07 Six Month Review – 28 March 2007
Councillor Sir Simon Milton agreed the LAA budget for 2007/08, including the allocation of funding to Westminster City Partnerships Networks and noted the proposed amendments to the LAA required by Central Government, those put forward by the WCP and the six-monthly performance of the LAA and the provisional rating of ‘green’ proposed by Government Office for London.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 29
CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND SUPPORT SERVICES (Councillor Colin Barrow)
5. Westbourne House – Short Term Lease Arrangements – 13 March 2007*
Councillor Colin Barrow concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services:
1. That the Council takes a lease of Westbourne House to expire on 31 July 2007 on the terms set out in the report and all necessary action be taken to provide alternative accommodation for the Youth Service/Connexions Team at Cosway Street to be funded from existing budgets.
2. That the Director of Property and Strategic Projects and the Director of Legal and Administrative Services be authorised to agree any minor variations to the terms set out in this report in order to conclude all necessary legal documentation accordingly and to do everything necessary to give effect to the above recommendations.
6. Council Tax, NNDR, Housing Benefit Overpayments, Rent Arrears – Irrecoverable Debt – 13 March 2007*
Councillor Colin Barrow approved the write off of the irrecoverable debt set out in the report and noted the amounts shown in the report as written-off under officer delegated authority .
7. Management Transfer of the Non-HRA Residential Portfolio to CityWest Homes – 13 March 2007
Councillor Colin Barrow concurred with the Cabinet Member for Housing that the management of the 140 non-HRA residential units be transferred to City West Homes with effect from 1 st April 2007 upon payment of their fee agreed at £40,000 per annum to be paid by the Council in 12 monthly instalments and recouped from the Lessees through their service charge.
8. Draft Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street Action Plan: Approval to commit revenue and capital expenditure in 2006/7 – 19 March 2007
Councillor Colin Barrow concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport and approved the release of £235,000 from the 2006/ 07 Capital Programme for the proposals referred to in the report.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 30
9. George Eliot Infant School NW8 – Roof Works – 13 March 2007
Councillor Colin Barrow approved expenditure of up to £160,000 for urgent roofworks at George Eliot School with the costs being met by virement from slippage in schemes within the Corporate Property Capital Programme 2006/07.
10. Proposed Payment of Redundancy and Severance – 16 March 2007*
Councillor Colin Barrow endorsed the decision of the Cabinet Member for Customer and Community Services set out at paragraph 27.
11. Review of Infrastructure and Support - Legal and Administrative Services– 19 March 2007
Councillor Colin Barrow agreed:
1. The revised structure for the Practice Management Unit set out in the appendix to the report.
2. The three posts referred to in recommendation 2.2 of the report be re- designated at grades to be determined by the Head of Human Resources.
3. The post of Practice Management Services Officer (D0083) be deleted with effect from a date to be agreed between the Director of Legal and Administrative Services and the Head of Human Resources.
4. That the post of Senior Administrative Assistant (post A0084) be transferred to the Practice Management Unit with the job role redefined and at a grade to be determined by the Head of Human Resources.
12. Variation to the Local Authority Agreement With BT – 26 March 2007*
Councillor Colin Barrow approved the variations to the Local Authority Agreement set out in the report and authorised the Director of Customer Services to negotiate the final detail of such variations in liaison with the Director of Legal and Administrative Services and/or external lawyers.
13. Whistle Blowing Policy/Procedure – Public Disclosure Act – 29 March 2007
Councillor Colin Barrow agreed the Whistleblowing Policy/Procedure attached to the report.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 31
14. Case for Market Factor Supplement - Head of Finance Housing post – 29 March 2007
Councillor Colin Barrow agreed that a market factor supplement of £10,000 be offered for the Head of Finance Housing post within the Finance Department in order to attract high calibre candidates with the technical knowledge and experience required to undertake the role.
15. Capital ICT Project – Welcome To Westminster –Stage Two – 30 March 2007
Councillor Colin Barrow approved the call down from the Capital Programme of £91k and appropriate virement within the Programme.
16. Early Payment of Pension and Benefits Under the 85 Year Rule – 30 March 2007*
Councillor Colin Barrow agreed the Legal Services Practice Manager be allowed to receive immediate payment of his funded pension benefits upon his leaving the Council’s employment on 7 th October 2007.
CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING (Councillor Robert Davis)
17. Whitehall Streetscape Project – Implementation and Conditions of Grant Agreement – 9 March 2007*
Councillor Robert Davis concurred with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport in deciding:
1. the highway improvements and security upgrades in the Whitehall Streetscape Project.
2. capital expenditure of £22,000,000 to enable the implementation of the proposals, which will be fully funded by the Cabinet Office prior to any works being carried out.
3. capital expenditure up to a further £5,418,000 to enable the completion of implementation of the proposals, if additional funding proves necessary and it is provided by a third party, in whole or part.
4. authority being delegated to the Director of Transportation to sign the Conditions of Grant Agreement between the Cabinet Office and the City Council.
5. authority being delegated to the Director of Transportation to instruct changes in design as and when necessary should difficulties be encountered during implementation, in consultation with the Cabinet
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 32
Member for Planning and Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport.
18. Judicial Review Claim by Save Britain’s Heritage, Middlesex Guildhall, Broad Sanctuary, SW1 – 20 March 2007*
Councillor Robert Davis agreed that the City Council continues to defend the current application and does not submit to judgement.
19. Satellite Dishes: A guide to siting and design: adoption as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) – 26 March 2007
Councillor Robert Davis agreed that the SPG on satellite dishes be adopted.
20. St John’s Wood Conservation Area Audit and Boundary Review – Agreement for Public Consultation – 26 March 2007
Councillor Robert Davis agreed the draft St John’s Wood Conservation Area Audit and Boundary Review for consultation purposes.
21. Bessborough Towers Security Improvement – 3 April 2007*
Councillor Robert Davis concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport and the Cabinet Member for Street Environment that:
1. The highway improvements and security measures surrounding Bessborough Towers as shown on Drawing GA-001 Revision C of the report be approved; 2. Capital expenditure of £570,000 be approved (which does not include the cost of Westminster ‘City’ type security bollards which are being provided by BSG ) to enable the implementation of the proposals, which will be fully funded by the Building Services Group prior to any works being carried out, and 3. The power to make such traffic orders as may be needed for the implementation of the proposals and to formulate statements of reasons in support of any such orders be delegated to the Director of Transportation.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 33
Economic Development and Transport (Councillor Danny Chalkley)
22. Whitehall Streetscape Project – Implementation and Conditions of Grant Agreement – 9 March 2007*
Councillor Danny Chalkley concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Planning set out in paragraph 17.
23. Draft Oxford Street, Regent Street and Bond Street Action Plan: Approval to commit revenue and capital expenditure in 2006/7 – 19 March 2007
Councillor Danny Chalkley concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Support Services set out at paragraph 8.
24. Bessborough Towers Security Improvement – 3 April 2007*
Councillor Danny Chalkley concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Cabinet Member for Street Environment set out at paragraph 21.
25. Westbourne Green Redevelopment: Carriageways, Footways and Public Lighting – 3 April 2007 Councillor Danny Chalkley concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Street Environment and agreed that:
1. Approval be given to the Carriageway and Footway proposals detailed in Appendix 2 of the report.
2. Approval be given to the Public Lighting proposals detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.
3. Approval be given to capital expenditure of £1,285,000 to design and implement the proposed carriageway, footway and street lighting improvements to the Westbourne Green area.
4. Authority to make changes to the approved Carriageway, Footway and Public Lighting proposals be delegated to the Director of Transportation, with the proviso that the overall budget is not exceeded and that the Cabinet Members are consulted on any changes other than those which in the opinion of the Director are insignificant.
26. Street Signs – 5 April 2007*
Councillor Danny Chalkley concurred with the Cabinet Member for Community Protection and Licensing that:
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 34
1. The Director of Legal and Administrative Services be authorised to enter into an agreement with the estate of Sir Oliver Misha Black to assign the copyright in the designs of six street name plates to the City Council for the sum of £7,500.
2. The Director of Transportation be granted delegated authority to grant licences to anyone wishing to copy the street name plate designs.
3. The Director of Transportation be granted delegated authority to impose conditions on the grant of such licences, including a requirement to pay a licence fee, the level of which in each case is to be determined in consultation with the Director of Finance and Resources.
4. The Director of Community Protection be granted delegated authority to monitor breaches of copyright and report infringements to the Director of Legal and Administrative Services and to instruct him to take civil and/or criminal proceedings, in appropriate cases.
CABINET MEMBER FOR CUSTOMER AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (Councillor Daniel Astaire)
27. Proposed Payment of Redundancy and Severance – 16 March 2007*
Councillor Daniel Astaire agreed an individual in the Customer Services Department be paid redundancy benefits in accordance with the agreed procedures.
28. Fees and Charges for Westminster Libraries and Archives from April 2007 – 27 March 2007
Councillor Daniel Astaire agreed that the proposed charges as set out in the report be operational from 1 April 2007 until further notice and approved the delegation of decision making for non-sensitive charges, as listed in the report, to the Director of Libraries.
29. Approval for works to Peaslake Block at Sayers Croft Environmental and Outdoor Education Centre – 27 March 2007
Councillor Daniel Astaire approved the release of £223,000 from the approved capital programme for the construction of a new extension to Peaslake Block at Sayers Croft Field Centre, with the works contract being let to Pavehall Plc and noted that the remaining funding of £156,000 in the 2007 /08 Capital Programme for re-roofing and external timber treatment works will be directed to the blocks most in need of essential repair.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 35
30. Capital ICT Project – Welcome to Westminster –Stage Two – 30 March 2007
Councillor Daniel Astaire approved the completion of Stage Two of the Welcome to Westminster project.
CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (Councillor Sarah Richardson)
31. Westbourne House – Short Term Lease Arrangements etc – 8 March 2007*
Councillor Sarah Richardson concurred with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Support Services set out in paragraph 5.
32. Taxi Contract – 13 March 2007*
Councillor Sarah Richardson approved the provision of a Licensed Radio Taxicab Home to School Transport Service for Children with special educational needs (Packages One and Two) be awarded to Radio Taxis Group Ltd in the estimated total sum of £1,630,500 per annum commencing 1st April 2007 for a period of three years and that the Director of Customer Services and the Director of Legal and Administrative Services be authorised to agree any minor amendments to the contract detail deemed necessary and to conclude the contract accordingly.
33. Recruitment and Retention of Social Workers – 28 March 2007
Councillor Sarah Richardson agreed:
1. That the current structure of the Finance and Administrative Support teams be replaced by the new structure outlined in the report, with effect from a date to be agreed by the Director of Children’s Services, with the new posts to be at grades determined by the Head of Human Resources.
2. That the proposed adjustments to the Assessment Team be implemented with effect from a date to be agreed by the Director of Children’s Services.
3. That the annual recruitment and retention bonus paid to front-line Social Workers in the Children’s Services Department after 2 years service, be increased to £1,500 pa with effect from 1 November 2006, and to £2000 with effect from 1 November 2007.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 36
CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH AND ADULT SOCIAL SERVICES (Councillor Ian Adams)
34. Award of Contract for the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate Service – 9 March 2007
Councillor Ian Adams:
1. Approved the award of contract for the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate Service for three years from 1 st April 2007 (with the option to extend for a further one year at the end of the initial three year term) to Cambridge House in the total contract sum at 2007/08 price of £1,009,824. The total contract amount payable by the City Council at 2007/08 prices will be £168,441.The remaining amounts will be funded, via the City Council, by each of the other participating local authorities;
2. Agreed that, in the event that Cambridge House are unable to accept the contract award, the contract be awarded to Advocacy Partners for three years from 1 st April 2007 with the option to extend for a further one year at the end of the initial three year term in the total contract sum at 2007/08 price of £1,025,712. The total contract amount payable by the City Council at 2007/08 prices will be £171,091.The remaining amounts will be funded, via the City Council, by each of the participating local authorities.
3. Gave approval for the Council to enter into separate contracts for three years from 1 st April 2007 with the option to extend for a further one year at the end of the initial three year term with each of the following local authorities to enable them to access the contract: Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Kensington & Chelsea;
4. Authorised the City Council to make a 3% administration charge to each of the participating local authorities
5. Authorised the Director of Adult Social Services to negotiate any variations to the contract price that become necessary as a result of changes to the service levels that are required but not exceeding a total of more than 10% of the contract sum subject to the necessary budget approvals.
35. Approval of Service Levels, Service Specification and Tendering Timetable for the Relet Of The Day Care Services For Older People In Westminster – 12 April 2007
Councillor Ian Adams approved the service levels, service specification and tendering timetable for the day care of services for older people as set out in the report.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 37
36. Extensions for 2007/08 of Joint Commissioned Services for People with Learning Disabilities under Section 31 Health Act 1999 – 12 April 2007*
Councillor Ian Adams approved the extensions of the service level agreements as set out in the report.
CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING (Councillor Angela Harvey)
37. Management Transfer of the Non-HRA Residential Portfolio to CityWest Homes – 13 March 2007
Councillor Angela Harvey concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Support Services set out at Paragraph 7.
38. Energy Approval for The Pimlico District Heating Undertaking (PDHU) – 22 March 2007
Councillor Angela Harvey approved:
1. A waiver to the Council’s procurement code to allow for the contract to commence prior to formal engrossment as gas prices will not be known until the day the contract commences and a decision will be made based on this; and
2. Expenditure of up to £2M for a 12-month period with no price variations for the supply of energy to the Pimlico District Heating Undertaking from 1 April 2007.
39. Petition in response to the provision of powder coated aluminium windows and door replacement at Aldsworth Close, Barnwood Close, Clearwell Drive and Downfield Close on the Amberley Estate – 23 March 2007
Councillor Angela Harvey noted:
(i) the results of the consultation with residents;
(ii) the business and planning cases for providing powder coated aluminium windows over timber windows;
(iii) that the installation of powder coated aluminium windows, screen and entrance doors were carried out as part of the Amberley Phase 1 works undertaken in 2004;
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 38
(iv) the conclusion of the environment impact study and endorsed the requests from residents, as expressed through consultation, to continue this important work by installing powder coated aluminium windows, subject to planning consent, so that the works may proceed in the current financial year.
40. Supply and allocation of Social Housing and Low Cost Home Ownership 2007/08 – 7 April 2007
Councillor Angela Harvey:
1. Noted the projected supply and proposed allocation a rented housing.
2. Agreed that in the event that the City Council rehouses an Registered Social Landlord (RSL) tenant, the RSL provide equivalent units in return.
3. Agreed that statutorily overcrowded CityWest Homes tenants remain on the normal tenant transfer list and no longer be put on a separate list, and be given 500 additional points in order to bid successfully for properties.
4. Agreed that 100 additional points be allocated to households with a medical need for a one bedroom property (rather than a studio property) in order to improve their chances of successfully bidding for a one bedroom property.
5. Agreed the criteria that are to be used by Tenant Management Organisations in deciding upon the most suitable bidders for vacancies in their blocks.
CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY PROTECTION AND LICENSING (Councillor Audrey Lewis)
41. Street Signs – 5 April 2007*
Councillor Audrey Lewis concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport set out in Paragraph 26.
CABINET MEMBER FOR STREET ENVIRONMENT (Councillor Alan Bradley)
42. Bessborough Towers Security Improvement – 3 April 2007*
Councillor Alan Bradley concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport and the Cabinet Member for Planning set out at Paragraph 21.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 39
43. Westbourne Green Redevelopment: Carriageways, Footways and Public Lighting – 3 April 2007
Councillor Alan Bradley concurred with the decision of the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport set out in Paragraph 25.
44. Capital Release - Embankment Public Conveniences Phase 2 (2007/08) – 12 April 2007
Councillor Alan Bradley agreed that £82,000 be released to complete the refurbishment of the public conveniences at Embankment.
Colin Wilson Director of Legal and Administrative Services
______
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1972 – Background Papers The reports as submitted to the individual Cabinet Members as referred to above. The reports marked * are exempt from disclosure for the reasons set out in the reports.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 40
REPORT OF THE RESOURCES AND CORPORATE SERVICES OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON 26 MARCH 2007
The following members of the Committee were present:-
Councillors Mark Page (Chairman), David Boothroyd, Michael Brahams, Paul Dimoldenberg, Margaret Doyle, Lee Rowley and Duncan Sandys
1. Management of Equalities and Diversity
(a) We have considered and discussed progress to date in relation to equalities and diversity at Westminster City Council, and received a presentation from the Audit Commission.
(b) The Audit Commission expressed their approval of the City Council’s robust approach to the management of equalities and diversity, and considered that the infrastructure that had been put in place would enable Westminster to build upon existing improvements.
2. Independent Review of the Customer Services Initiative (CSi)
(a) We have considered and discussed in detail the key findings and recommendations of the independent review of the Customer Services Initiative, which were presented to the Committee by PA Consultants.
(b) We agreed that the consultants had provided a fair, balanced report which confirmed that the CSi had been the correct route for the City Council to take. We also agreed that further scrutiny was required to ensure that the promised level of service was achieved.
3. Council Tax Bailiff Service
(a) We have considered the role and performance of the bailiffs utilised for the collection of outstanding Council Tax and Parking debt, and received a presentation from Westminster Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).
(b) In view of the concerns raised at the meeting and the report received from the CAB, we agreed that the issues be given further consideration.
4. Central Services Business Plan
(a) We have considered the Central Services Business Plan, which summarised key service performance and priorities for 2007/08.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 41
(b) We agreed that the proposed Departmental Objectives would be amended and circulated to Members of the Committee for comment. We also agreed that a quarterly report of progress in delivering the priorities for 2007/08 be included in the Committee’s Performance Monitoring Report.
5. Performance Monitoring Report (Period 10) 2006-2007
(a) We have considered a report summarising the key aspects of financial and service performance during period 10 (January 2007).
(b) The report also updated us on emerging issues critical to overall organisational performance, progress on One City and WorkSmart projects, and risks.
6. Improving Transparency of Financial Reporting
(a) We have considered a report that proposed a means of increasing transparency in financial reporting, and agreed to recommend that core budgets be shown alongside all Growth and Savings Schedules throughout the Council.
7. Final Report of Compliance Task Group
(a) We have considered the final report of the Compliance Task Group, and noted that an update on the remaining actions would be provided to a future meeting of the Committee.
8. Work Programme
(a) We have considered and noted the Committee’s Work Programme and progress made by the Task Groups.
MARK PAGE, Chairman
______
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1972 – Background Papers The minutes and agenda for the Resources and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 26 March 2007.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 42
REPORT OF THE HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD ON 2 APRIL 2007
The following Members of the Committee were present:
Councillors Carolyn Keen (Chairman), Frances Blois, Jean-Paul Floru, Christabel Flight, Jan Prendergast, Lee Rowley, Sharan Tabari and Barrie Taylor
1. Housing Supply and Allocation
(a) We noted a summary of the results of the consultation on the proposals for supply and allocation of social housing and low cost home ownership in 2007/08. We were advised that the whilst the Director of Housing is forecasting an increase in the supply of new homes in 2007/08 the total numbers remain low and rehousing quotas generally reflect the levels set in 2006/07. We were advised that increased emphasis on homeless preventions at the Housing Options service has significantly reduced the numbers of homeless applications and acceptances and has meant that there has been a reduction in the levels of temporary accommodation.
2. City West Homes Delivery Plan – Annual Review
(a) As part of our annual review of CityWest Homes Activities and Outcomes 2006/07 we received a presentation from its Chief Executive which focussed on a number of key issues.
We noted that highlights for 2006/07 were as follows:
• The decent homes programme was completed on time (with the exception of the Brindley towers which were not originally in the programme) and absorbed £18m extra work into the scope. This has enabled the refurbishment to take place of the Brindley towers which is underway.
• CityWest Homes delivered £2.4m savings (5.1%) in controllable costs from the Housing Revenue Account and will deliver a further £4.1m (7.1%) in 2007/8 through the implementation of new repairs contracts negotiated this year.
• CityWest Homes was awarded the highest service rating of 3 stars with excellent prospects for improvement in its inspection carried out by the Audit Commission in the middle of the year. CityWest Homes is one of only 7 ALMOs and 1 Registered Social Landlord with this rating.
• At the end of month 11, all Comprehensive Performance Assessment indicators and Best Value Performance Indicators are within the targets agreed with Westminster Council at the start of the year.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 43
• Tenant satisfaction rose from 64% to 69% since the last STATUS survey in 2003. Dissatisfaction dropped from 19% to 12%. This is a high level for inner London.
• Tenant satisfaction with opportunities to participate rose from 61 to 66% - one of the highest in London.
We were advised that 2007/08 priorities are as follows:
• Customer satisfaction.
• Cost of delivering the service and ability to collect the income from residents.
• Delivery of the standard which takes the Westminster Council owned housing beyond the decent homes standard (what we are calling the CityWest standard).
• Increasing residents’ satisfaction with their neighbourhood.
• Delivering an overall CPA rating of 4 for the areas managed.
3. Advice and Advocacy
(a) In the context of the work of the Westminster Benefits Advice Team we received, as expert witnesses, a brief presentation of the work of the Westminster Advocacy Service for Senior Residents in providing independent advocacy for older people in Westminster with particular reference to the support provided regarding housing matters.
4. Cabinet and Lead Member Updates, Task Groups and Member Briefings and Other Matters
(a) We noted the latest update of our work programme and updates from the Cabinet Members for Health and Adult Social Services, Housing, and Customer and Community Services including extracts from the current Forward Plan related to key decisions they intend to take over the next three months.
(b) We were also advised of the latest work of our Health, Libraries and Mental Health Task Groups.
(c) We reported that Members had received an oral briefing regarding the lessons to be learned by the Council from the results of the inquiry into the death of Mr Donald Naylor. We agreed to receive at a future meeting an update of the action plan agreed with St Mungo’s setting out what had been achieved in the light of the issues of concern expressed.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 44
(d) We also received an update on the work of the Lead Member for Disabilities in leading on the implementation of the City Council’s Disability Equality Scheme. We noted the progress with the implementation of the Scheme, which was agreed and published in December 2006, and the key dates and milestones to be achieved during the year until its formal review in February 2008.
CAROLYN KEEN, Chairman
______
Local Government [Access to Information] Act – Background Papers The agenda and reports to the Health and Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 2 April 2007
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 45
REPORT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON 3 APRIL 2007
The following Members of the Committee were present: -
Councillors Louise Hyams (Vice-Chairman) Susie Burbridge, Ruth Bush, Rupert D’Cruz, Tony Devenish, Andrew Havery, Angela Hooper and Nick Yarker
1. Thames Water – Water Supply to Queen’s Park Court, W10
(a) At the request of two of our Members we received a report which outlined problems that had been experienced by some residents living in Queen’s Park Court, W10, an estate managed by CityWest Homes. Residents had periodically lost water supplies or suffered from very low water pressure, which had also affected heating supplies .
(b) We welcomed to the meeting (i) local Ward Councillors Paul Dimoldenberg and Barrie Taylor, who had been actively trying to resolve the situation, (ii) two residents of Queen’s Park Court, who were present to provide the Committee with a first hand account of the problems, and (iii) representatives of CityWest Homes and Thames Water, who were present to answer questions put to them by the Committee.
(c) We received evidence from the residents who explained that the problems at Queen’s Park Court were not recent. Low water pressure had been a problem for the last 8 years and periodic loss of water since 2003. The latter had been experienced as recently as the end of March. We heard that the effects had resulted in residents having to boil kettles of water to obtain hot water, bathe as early as 4am as this was when the water pressure was strongest, and make frequent trips to launderettes as there was often insufficient water pressure to use washing machines. Residents advised that they had received little support from either Thames Water or CityWest Homes who often blamed each other for the problems.
(d) We expressed extreme concern at the long standing problems that the residents had outlined and the impact that these had had on their families’ quality of life. We were dismayed by what we considered to be a poor response from Thames Water to resolving the matter and in particular the lack of direct communication with residents.
(e) We heard from representatives of Thames Water who offered their sincere apologies to the residents before providing a background to the problems in the preceding six months, the action that had been undertaken to try and resolve them and an update on the current situation. The problems included the interruption of water supplies due to bursts to a water main and low pressure problems as a result of several valves having been found to be damaged or partly shut. We heard that the City Council had completed major works to replace the booster pumps and old and leaky iron and lead pipe work on the estate in an attempt to increase the flow of water.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 46
(f) We were advised by representatives of Thames Water that current water pressure to Queen’s Park Court was between 15 -20 metres per head. Based on the current pressure and flow on the network, Thames Water was unable to increase the water pressure above this. However, this was considered to be sufficient for residents’ everyday needs. Whilst CityWest Homes endorsed this view it disputed that such pressure was being received. We were advised that the reason for the difference in readings was because Thames Water and CityWest Homes were measuring the water pressure at different points on the network. We have requested, and both parties have agreed, that an independent party should be commissioned to install and monitor a logger at the boundary of the estate where responsibilities meet to ascertain the water pressure being received by residents.
(g) We have also requested that Thames Water and City West Homes work together to resolve the problems as a matter of urgency, and that all parties report back to the Committee in June when it was expected that the issues will have been remedied. We have requested in the interim (i) that CityWest Homes advise residents of Queen's Park Court that they should contact the Queen’s Park Estate Area Housing Manager to report related problems; (ii) that Thames Water and City West Homes issue a joint weekly newsletter to residents of Queen’s Park Court providing an update on measures being taken to resolve the water supply/pressure problems. We have also requested that Thames Water and City West Homes monitor Queen's Park Court for a regular period of time once problems have been resolved and commit to set service standards and that Thames Water consider offering compensation to residents who have been affected by both the water loss and low water pressure in line with its Customer Guarantee Scheme.
2. Update on implementing the smoke-free legislation in Westminster
(a) We received an update on the City Council’s preparations for the introduction of the smoking ban which was due to come into effect in July 2007.
(b) We noted that in order to ensure compliance, the City Council was raising its activities on promoting awareness and understanding of the legislation within the business community. In addition to developing and distributing business information packs the Council was holding smoke-free breakfast meetings to offer advice, assistance and support. The Council had held specific meetings for those businesses on the Edgware Road where the smoking of shisha pipes was licensed.
(c) We requested assurances that the costs for preparing for and enforcing the legislation would be limited to funding received from Central Government. We noted the advice of the Cabinet Member for Community Protection and Licensing that as there was no intention to employ additional staff to enforce the legislation there was an expectation that the Council would not spend more than was being provided.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 47
(d) We have also raised queries and received responses on a number of issues including whether the regulations applied to leisure boats working on the Thames and the desire to see the provision of extra butt bins to reduce the pressures on the Council’s street cleansing services.
3. Criteria for a draft Gating Policy
(a) We received a report which set out criteria recommended to be applied in drafting and applying a policy approach to gating public highway, such as mews and other small streets.
(b) We noted that gating public highway was generally undesirable and did not fit with the City Council’s One City approach, which sought to enhance community relations, encourage active citizens and unite neighbourhoods. Creating streets that were not accessible to all would not contribute positively to creating strong and tolerant communities. Therefore the presumption of any policy approach would be against permitting gating of the public highway. However there could be cases where an exception to the general policy could be allowed in order to address a temporary problem, such as anti-social behaviour. This would only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and after an assessment of a set of criteria.
(c) We considered the report and expressed the following views: (i) that we strongly endorsed the draft policy and the criteria for exceptional circumstances; (ii) that as part of the consultation process local Ward Members, amenity societies and residents’ groups should also be sent copies of the notice of the intended gating order; (iii) that where gating orders are requested by residents, businesses or developers and granted the City Council should try and ensure wherever possible that the costs for maintaining the gates should be met by such parties and not the Council; and (iv) that CityWest Homes should be approached to establish whether it had an equivalent policy and if not whether it would be willing to support a presumption against gating public highway on estates except in exceptional circumstances.
4. Interim report on the work of the Public Transport Task Group
(a) We received and noted a report which provided an overview of the work of the Public Transport Task Group to date.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 48
(b) We extended our appreciation of the work undertaken by the Task Group and approved further meetings of the Task Group to ensure that the current programme of work is completed. Thereafter a final report should be submitted to the Committee on the Task Group’s achievements and at this time key transport providers will be invited to address the Committee on the findings.
LOUISE HYAMS, Vice-Chairman
______
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1972 – Background Papers The agenda and reports to the Built Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 April 2007
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 49
REPORT OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON 4 APRIL 2007
The following Members of the Committee were present:- Councillors Nicola Aiken (Chairman), Edward Argar, Frances Blois, Nick Evans, Barbara Grahame, Gwyneth Hampson, Papya Qureshi and Steve Summers; and Co-opted Members Mohammed Amieur, Barbara Mayne and Elizabeth Philips.
Apologies: Councillor Tim Mitchell and Brenda Morrison and John Moruzzi
1. Revised Children and Young People Plan (CYPP) including Educational Development Plan
(a) We gave our views on performance against the current CYPP targets and identified areas of emerging need. In particular, we asked that improving Sports Participation and GCSE value added scores and reducing child obesity levels be a strong continuing focus for the upcoming year.
2. Review of Ofsted School Judgements
(a) We were pleased to note that there had been a number of excellent inspection results recently and we agreed that the relevant Headteachers should be congratulated.
(b) We discussed progress in relation to two schools giving cause for concern and noted consultation plans in relation to the future of Pimlico School.
3. Task Groups Update
(a) We considered the progress of the Secondary School Achievement in Westminster Task Group and the Preventing Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Task Group.
4. Serious Case Review
(a) We received an update on a recent Serious Case Review and asked for proposals relating to the role of social workers in schools to be developed.
5. Update on Corporate Parenting Pilot
(a) We discussed the Corporate Parenting Initiative and gave views on how the scheme should be developed.
NICOLA AIKEN, Chairman ______
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1972 – Background Papers: The agenda and reports to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 April 2007.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 50
REPORT OF THE WESTMINSTER SCRUTINY COMMISSION ON 17 APRIL 2007
The following Members of the Committee were present:-
Councillors Carolyn Keen (Chairman), Mark Page and Barrie Taylor.
1. Review of the Overview and Scrutiny Structure
(a) We considered the proposed process for the review of the Overview & Scrutiny Structure introduced following the Council Elections in May 2006.
(b) We endorsed the suggested methodology and timetable for the review, which will include surveys of members, officers and stakeholders, and agreed that, subject to the outcome of the surveys and focus group: (i) the work of the existing time-limited Task Groups should be concluded by the summer; (ii) a cross-cutting task group should be established to scrutinise the Council’s Go Green agenda, reporting directly to the WSC; (iii) the Resources and Corporate Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee should be recommended to retain the Efficiency/Transformation Standing Task Group, establish a Budget/Performance Standing Task Group and create a time-limited Task Group to scrutinise the Draft Action Plan prepared by officers in response to the independent review of the Customer Service Initiative (CSi); (iv) the Health and Community Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee should be recommended to retain the Health Standing Task Group; (v) the Health and Community Services, Children and Young People, and Built Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committees should be recommended to establish three further task groups; (vi) the methods suggested for ensuring greater effectiveness of Task Groups and Committees should be implemented; and (vii) Overview & Scrutiny Committee meetings should be reduced from 5 per year to 4 per year.
2. Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report
(a) We considered the Annual Review of Overview & Scrutiny as required by the Council’s Constitution. The report sets out the work undertaken by the WSC, the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the Task Groups since the last annual report. This report is now prepared under our auspices following the review of the O&S process last year.
(b) We agreed that the report be formally published as our annual report and that the Council be advised accordingly. We agreed that, before the report is finally published, Officers, in consultation with the relevant Committee and Task Group Chairmen, should update the report once all the task groups have concluded their work.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 51
(c) The final version will be made available to Members as soon as possible.
CAROLYN KEEN, Chairman
______
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1972 – Background Papers: The agenda and reports to the Westminster Scrutiny Commission on 17 April 2007.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007 52
REPORT OF THE GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE – 20 APRIL 2007 (WRITTEN URGENCY PROCEDURE)
1. Membership of the Standards Committee
(a) Following the decision of Councillor Antony Mothersdale to stand down from the Standards Committee when it considers a report on a local Investigation at its meeting expected to take place on Thursday 10 May 2007, and at any subsequent meeting of the Standards Committee held to consider that issue, a report has been considered under the Written Urgency Procedure to enable the Council to consider a recommendation to appoint a replacement Member.
(b) The report considered under the Written Urgency Procedure is attached at Appendix A.
(c) The Minority Party Chief Whip has nominated Councillor Rupert D’Cruz as the replacement Member so that the appointment can be made by the Council at the meeting on 2 May 2007.
Recommendation: (i) That the Council appoint Councillor Rupert D’Cruz as the Minority Party Member on the Standards Committee for the meeting on 10 May 2007 and at any subsequent meeting at which the local investigation in question is considered.
(ii) That for the avoidance of doubt Councillor Mothersdale be otherwise confirmed as a Member of the Standards Committee.
Background Paper:
Report considered under Written Urgency Procedures – General Purposes – 20 April 2007.
Council Agenda 2 May 2007