AGENDA Meeting GLA Oversight Committee Date Thursday 7 November 2013 Time 2.00 pm Place Committee Room 5, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/oversight Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view past meetings. Members of the Committee Len Duvall AM (Chair) Tony Arbour AM (Deputy Chairman) Jennette Arnold OBE AM Andrew Boff AM Darren Johnson AM Joanne McCartney AM Steve O'Connell AM Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Valerie Shawcross CBE AM A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chair of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. This meeting will be open to the public. There is access for disabled people, and induction loops are available. Mark Roberts, Executive Director of Secretariat Wednesday 30 October 2013 Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: John Barry, Senior Committee Officer; Telephone: 020 7983 4425; Email: [email protected]; Minicom: 020 7983 4458. For media enquiries please contact Mark Demery, 020 7983 5769. If you have any questions about individual reports please contact the report author whose details are at the end of each report. There is limited underground parking for orange and blue badge holders, which will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis. Please contact Facilities Management (020 7983 4750) in advance if you require a parking space or further information.
If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected] .
Certificate Number: FS 80233
Agenda GLA Oversight Committee Thursday 7 November 2013 1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair. 2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4) The Committee is recommended to: (a) Note the offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the tables at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests; (b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and (c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s). 3 Minutes (Pages 5 - 34) The Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee held on 3 October 2013 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record. The appendix to the minutes set out on pages 11 to 33 is attached for Members and officers only but is available from the following area of the GLA’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/oversight 4 Summary List of Actions (Pages 35 - 38) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: John Barry; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4425 The Committee is recommended to note the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee. 3
5 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Pages 39 - 48) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: John Barry; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4425 The Committee is recommended to note the action taken by the Chair of the Committee under delegated authority. 6 Head of Paid Service Oral Update The Head of Paid Service to provide any service updates not covered in the rest of the agenda. 7 Shared Services Update (Pages 49 - 72) Report of the Head of Paid Service and Executive Director of Resources Contact: David Gallie; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4968 The Committee is recommended to: (a) Comment on and note the progress being made across the GLA Group on shared services and collaborative procurement; (b) Prior to any decision by the Mayor, comment on the proposed HR shared service arrangement between the GLA and MOPAC; and (c) Prior to any decision by the Head of Paid Service, comment on the proposed staffing arrangements for the HR shared service between the GLA and MOPAC. The appendices to the report set out on pages 53 to 72 are attached for Members and officers only but are available from the following area of the GLA’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/oversight 8 People's Qu estion Time (Pages 73 - 76) Report of the Director of Communications and External Affairs Contact: Dáire Basra; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4033 The Committee is recommended to: (a) Note and comment on the proposals for People’s Question Time, on Wednesday 26 March 2013 contained in the report (particular views are sought on (i) the geographical area, and (ii) the Chair of the event); and (b) Provide any views, ideas or suggestions on further ways to improve People’s Question Time as a consultative event. 4
9 Draft Committee Timetable 2014 -15 (Pages 77 - 82) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Dale Langford; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4415 The Committee is recommended to approve in principle the draft timetable of London Assembly and committee meetings for the 2014/15 year, noting that the final programme of meetings is subject to related decisions by the London Assembly to be taken at the Annual Meeting in May 2014. 10 Secretariat Quarterly Review, Quarter 2, 2013 -14 (Pages 83 - 94) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Katie Smith; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4423 The Committee is recommended to note the core Secretariat quarterly monitoring report for the second quarter of 2013-14 (July-September 2013). 11 Assembly Budget Requirement 20 14 -15 (Pages 95 - 104) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat and Executive Director of Resources Contact: Mark Roberts; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4428 The Committee is recommended to agree the London Assembly’s draft budget requirement for 2014-15 for recommendation to the Mayor, subject to any changes that might be necessary prior to the final agreement on the budget in February 2014 to reflect: (a) Any further advice from the Executive Director of Resources on contingencies and financial reserves; and (b) Any changes that emerge during the remainder of the budget process. 12 Transparency of the GLA Group: Responses (Pages 105 - 120) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: John Barry; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4425 The Committee is recommended to note the responses to its report, Transparency of the GLA Group .
5
13 Work Programme for the GLA Oversight Committee 2013 -14 (Pages 121 - 126) Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: John Barry; [email protected] ; 020 7983 4425 The Committee is recommended to note its work programme for 2013-14 and identify any additional issues it wishes to consider at future meetings. 14 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to be held on Wednesday 11 December 201 3 at 2.00pm in the Chamber. 15 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent
6 Agenda Item 2
Subject: Declarations of Interests Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date : 7 November 2013 This report will be considered in public
1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made. 2. Recommendations 2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests 1;
2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and
2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted. 3. Issues for Consideration 3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:
1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X . City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v11/2013 Page 1
Member Interest Tony Arbour AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB Richmond Jennette Arnold OBE AM Committee of the Regions Gareth Bacon AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB Bexley John Bigg s AM Andrew Boff AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Victoria Borwick AM Member, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea; Deputy Mayor James Cleverly AM Chairman of LFEPA; Chairman of the London Local Resilience Forum; substitute member, Local Government Association Fire Services Management Committee Tom Copley AM Andrew Dismore AM Len Duvall AM Roger Evans AM Member, LB Havering; Committee of the Regions; Trust for London (Trustee) Nicky Gavron AM Darren Johnson AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB Lewisham Jenny Jones AM Member, House of Lords Stephen Knight AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB Richmond Kit Malthouse AM Deputy Mayor for Business and Enterprise; Deputy Chair, London Enterprise Panel; Chair, Hydrogen London; Chairman, London & Partners; Board Member, TheCityUK Joanne McCartney AM Steve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon; MOPAC Non -Executive Adviser for Neighbourhoods Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Murad Qureshi AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB Harrow Valerie Shawcross CBE AM Member, LFEPA Richard Tracey AM Chairman of the London Waste and Recycling Board; Mayor's Ambassador for River Transport Fiona Twycross AM Me mber, LFEPA
[Note: LB - London Borough; LFEPA - London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; MOPAC – Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime] 3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that: - where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at (i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or (ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions - they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and Page 2
- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting UNLESS - they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code). 3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.
3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.
3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.
3.6 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered.
3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on- line database may be viewed here: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality .
3.8 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.
3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.
4. Legal Implications 4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.
Page 3
5. Financial Implications 5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: John Barry, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4425 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 4 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES Meeting: GLA Oversight Committee Date: Thursday 3 October 2013 Time: 3.30 pm Place: Committee Room 3, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the minutes may be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london- assembly/oversight Present: Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair) Jennette Arnold OBE John Biggs Andrew Boff Darren Johnson Jenny Jones (present for Items 1 to 6) Steve O'Connell Valerie Shawcross CBE 1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1) 1.1 Apologies were received from the Chair, Len Duvall AM, for whom John Biggs AM attended as a substitute, Joanne McCartney AM and from Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM. 1.2 In addition, Jenny Jones AM attended as a substitute for Darren Johnson AM until his arrival during Item 6. 2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2) 2.1 Resolved: That the list of Assembly Members’ appointments, as set out in the tables at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests. City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 5 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Thursday 3 October 2013 3 Minutes (Item 3) 3.1 Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee held on 10 September 2013 be signed by the Chair as a correct record. 4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4) 4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat. 4.2 Resolved: That the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee be noted. 5 Action Taken Und er Delegated Authority (Item 5) 5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat setting out recent correspondence issued by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority. 5.2 Resolved: That the recent actions taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority be noted. 5.3 In accordance with Standing Orders, the Chair took the next three items in a different order from that set out on the agenda.
Page 6 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Thursday 3 October 2013 6 Scrutiny of the Long Term Infrastructure Investment Plan for London (Item 8) 6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat. 6.2 It was broadly agreed that if the GLA Oversight Committee retained a general overview of the scrutiny of the Infrastructure Investment Plan, as suggested in the report, then the Planning Committee should have a central role in the process, together with other committees as appropriate. 6.3 John Biggs AM proposed that, given the importance of the Infrastructure Investment Plan and its potential to be embedded in the future work of the Authority, the Assembly should scrutinise the Plan in the same way that it would a formal strategy. The Head of Paid Service advocated the use of the GLA Oversight Committee to maintain an overview but advised that the Committee should finalise its approach to scrutinising the Plan once further work to identify outputs and establish the right governance structures had been undertaken. 6.4 Resolved: That the Head of Paid Service provide an Infrastructure Investment Plan update report at a future meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee in order to assist the Committee’s approach to scrutinising the Plan. 7 The Mayor's Senior Adviser for Team London, Volunteerin g, Charities and Sponsorship (Item 6) 7.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat. The following officers additionally were in attendance for this item: • Veronica Wadley, Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship; • Natalie Cramp, Programme Director, Team London; and • Patrick Feehily, Programme Director, Team London and Sustainable Development Manager. 7.2 In discussion, the Committee requested it be supplied with the following additional information: • Details of the Team London website analytics data when available; • Details of which volunteering opportunities on the website are least popular; • Where known, a breakdown by postcode of Team London volunteers;
Page 7 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Thursday 3 October 2013 • Statistics showing what percentage of people registering are first-time volunteers; • A copy of the chart referred to in the meeting that set out the range of sponsorship activity falling within the remit of the Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship. 7.3 A record of the discussion is attached as Appendix 1 . 7.4 During this item, Darren Johnson AM joined the meeting and substitute Member Jenny Jones AM left. 7.5 Resolved: That, subject to the comments made at the meeting and recorded above, the report and discussion be noted. 8 Head of Paid Service Oral Update (Item 7) 8.1 The Head of Paid Service informed the Committee that a report on the Authority’s statutory officers’ pay would be discussed at the London Assembly Plenary meeting on 9 October 2013. The Committee was also advised that the ‘Cities Centred’ campaign, arising from the work of the London Finance Commission, had been launched at the end of September by the Mayor in conjunction with the Core Cities. The Committee was informed that further announcements on the campaign would be made in due course. 8.2 In response to Members’ questions, the Head of Paid Service updated the Committee on the on-going Facilities Management consultation. The Committee was advised that Assembly Members’ comments on outsourcing would be considered at the end of the consultation process and viewed in the context of an overall business case and in light of the views of the staff affected by the proposals. The Head of Paid Service advised that in order to establish the business case there would need to be a market testing exercise. Consequently, the timescales for activating any proposals in relation to an outsourced night service would be relatively lengthy. In addition, given comments made by the Committee previously, a comparison would be made with the security staffing arrangements of similar organisations to better inform any decision. The Head of Paid Service was reminded that the Committee had previously suggested that the cost to the Authority of not implementing the proposals might be off-set by efficiency savings achieved as part of the wider review and those savings used to address perceived current deficiencies in the management arrangements for night-time security staff.
Page 8 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Thursday 3 October 2013 9 Work Prog ramme for the GLA Oversight Committee (Item 9) 9.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat. 9.2 Resolved: That the Committee’s work programme for 2013-14 be noted. 10 Date of Next Meeting (Item 10 ) 10.1 The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled to be held on Thursday 7 November at 2.00pm in Committee Room 5. 11 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 11 ) 11.1 There were no items of urgent business. 12 Close of Meeting 12.1 The meeting finished at 5.00pm. Chair Date Contact Officer: John Barry, Senior Committee Officer; Telephone: 020 7983 4425; Email: [email protected]; Minicom: 020 7983 4458.
Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 10 Appendix 1 GLA Oversight Committee – 3 October 2013 Transcript of Agenda Item 6: The Mayor’s Senior Adviser for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): The main item on the agenda is to welcome Veronica Wadley and two members of her team, Natalie Cramp and Patrick Feehily. We are anxious to find out how things are going on. We have seen your report, Veronica, telling us what it is that you have been doing, but perhaps you would like to introduce it, please? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Thank you very much. It is very nice to see you all again. I think we have a good story to tell. As you know, I have been in position now for just over one year and set out with an ambitious programme to do four main things for Team London and volunteering. The first was to raise the profile of volunteering in London and to make it easier for Londoners to volunteer. The second was to maintain the momentum from the 2012 Olympic Games. Next was to instil the culture of volunteering in the next generation and, lastly, to continue to support impact volunteering in the communities. That we have been working very hard towards and we have developed programmes to help us deliver those four objectives. I can give you a little bit more detail about how we have actually achieved those objectives, if you would like me to go on to that. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): I wonder if you could attach numbers to what you have been doing. We are very impressed by the largest event, 30,000 and so on, but how does that 30,000 compare to the actual number of people who volunteered for the Olympic Games, whether there has been any attrition? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Let me first of all start on the point about raising the profile of volunteers through our new website. We had a target to have 15,000 unique users and actually we have, as a result of our campaign, hit over 70,000 unique users, so we think that is an acceptable result. We have not set ourselves a specific target for members of Team London for two reasons. We would like to recruit more than, say, 50,000 and possibly head towards 100,000. However, one very important thing about Team London is it is not just for Team London. We do recruit volunteers for other organisations. We are an umbrella organisation and some people choose to volunteer through Team London and some people choose to volunteer directly through their volunteer centres, so I think that is an important point to make. We have made good progress in our recruitment for the Team London members. We are up to about 15,000 so far and we have plans to reach certainly 50,000 within three years and probably more. In terms of maintaining the volunteering momentum from the Olympic Games, we have continued to use the services of the 2012 volunteers through our Team London programmes specifically, initially for the Visitor Welcome. We had 800 Team London volunteers working across London in 11 key sites to welcome volunteers, to support them, to give them information and hugely popular, fantastic results from all the surveys Page 11 that we did with the tourists and people who were interviewed subsequently. Then we also provided over 1,000 volunteers for over 30 major sporting and cultural events across the city through the summer, so we think that that is again maintaining that Olympic story, so we are very pleased with that. One important point I think to mention, as part of our volunteers for the events programme, we worked with many of the organisations to encourage them - and most of them did actually do this - to take 10% of young unemployed people as part of their volunteer numbers. This was a way to bring young people into volunteering, to give them the experience of volunteering, to build their confidence, to show that they can arrive on time, that they can be friendly, they can work with other people and so on. This is all part of the story that we have to tell about the importance of encouraging this new generation of volunteers. That was the volunteering momentum from the Olympic Games. In terms of using the profile of the Olympic Games to inspire a new generation of young volunteers, we have just announced the funding for our major Schools Programme. That is, we think, a very important part of the Team London programme because what it is doing is inspiring the next generation. We are working with a partner organisation called Free the Children UK to offer volunteering programmes in all London schools. We have a target of reaching 400 schools by the end of year one, 1,000 schools by the end of year two and as many other schools as would like to join the programme by the end of year three. That was actually launched at City Hall last week and I think was a great success. Over 100 schools already have signed up to be part of that and Free the Children UK is setting up as we speak the plans to go into schools, so that is underway. On the fourth area, supporting impact volunteering in the community, that is well underway. We had a small grants programme of £100,000 which was given to ten organisations whom we believe were delivering impact volunteering and particularly using new ways and new technology to encourage young and new volunteers. So those are some numbers for you to give a sense of what we have been doing. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Thank you. In the report that you sent to us, you told us that you were proposing to have a conference. Would it have been Saturday, 30 September? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Do you mean the Schools Conference? Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): That is the one. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. That was on Monday, yes. That has happened, yes. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): And how did that go? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): That was, I think, a great success. You can see it on our website. We had 100 schools there and a presentation by one of our 12 pilot schools. We felt that before embarking on this considerable funding commitment, we needed to pilot the ideas to actually see whether primary and secondary schools were willing and keen to join this programme. There was a 100% success rate with those pilot schools. They all said they wanted to sign up to it. We worked with 12 schools across London. I can tell you who they were if you would like to know. They were in Lambeth, Redbridge, Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Hammersmith, Ealing and Hounslow. There was a presentation from one of the primary schools, St Saviour’s Primary School in Lambeth. That was absolutely enchanting and actually featured in the Daily Telegraph last weekend, half a page in The Daily Telegraph newspaper with a picture of the young children from St Saviour’s School in Lambeth who had done Page 12 a project to engage with the elderly community in that area. What they decided to do was to grow flowers, plant them in painted pots and then take them to the elderly people in the community. It was a fantastic success and made a very nice picture, so we were very pleased with that. That is part of what we are doing and we will be rolling that out across the London schools. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): You have gone through your principal objectives in the presentation you have just made. Have you made any changes to that? Do you think that there is something that was not there originally, an objective that you should have put in, or do you think that something that was there should be amended? In other words, are you confident that the principles that you went forward with after you were appointed were sufficient? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think that they were sufficient and they were very focused. I think you can achieve a great deal more if you are very clear about some specific targets, so we wanted, as I say, to maintain those four targets, the four objectives, and we do think that encouraging the next generation of volunteers is a very important part of our story. I can tell you a little bit more about what we are doing with young people and how to use volunteering as a route to work. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Yes, I guess that will come up later. But so far as you are concerned, your objectives and priorities remain as they were? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Broadly, yes, and probably more focused and finer-tuned since we embarked on the programme. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): There has been a lot of activity, Veronica, so well done to you and your team. But I would just like to put on record some answers to the questions I have and I would like to start off by clarifying. A year on from starting this post, are you now going to be in receipt of the salary attached to the job? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. That has been discussed and I am now taking a four day-a-week salary, although actually I seem to be working more than four days a week, but I am taking a four day-a-week salary, yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): It is just for the record so that we are quite clear that that is where we have moved on to. Can I just ask for clarity here about the numbers? I totally understand Team London. Great. An umbrella organisation. Then you have quoted that Team London of itself - do I have this right - has already recruited 70,000 volunteers and you intend to -- Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): No, 15,000 Team London members, but the figure I quoted that related to the 70,000 was the number of people who visited the website, so they would then go on to volunteering opportunities through other organisations. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): OK. I will come on to the website. But Team London has 15,000 volunteers? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): These are separate to the volunteers that we could find in the Girl Guide movement, the Boy Scouts movement, the rest of the volunteers across London?
Page 13 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Absolutely. They are in addition to that, you could say, and some of them work with those organisations. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): No, it is just that I think we have to be clear that we do not get into double counting by mistake. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): No, there is not double counting. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): All right. So, whenever you are quoting a number about Team London, it is specifically your direct recruitment for volunteers? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Then the other thing I just wanted to check as well in terms of that number: would this be a different number to the number that is being recruited as volunteers through the mentoring scheme? Many of those people involved in the mentoring scheme, certainly in my constituency, are volunteers. Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): The 15,000 refers to the number of people who have registered on Team London, so we actually know their details, we can communicate with them and they receive the Team London newsletter. They will carry out a number of volunteering activities. They may be in relation to Team London which we can record or they might be broader activity. That does overlap with the Mentoring Programme, so some of the mentors will have been recruited through Team London because we are trying to drive people into the website, into all of our initiatives, but there will be some people who have signed up to the Mentoring Programme who will have volunteered through other means. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): But there is a possibility of double counting because this Committee also scrutinises the Mentoring Programme, so how would we know whether the Mentoring Programme scheme’s volunteers are distinct to them? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): There are two figures. One is the number of registered users on Team London, which is 15,000. Then there is another figure which we started counting from 30 May, which is everyone who has volunteered for a Greater London Authority (GLA) programme through Team London, that is 7,000. We estimate that is 7,000 because we need to get the reporting back from the different projects. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): OK. I just think - and I hope you will agree - it is important for us because you have funds associated with all of these programmes, so the way that we would see value for money and effectiveness is to be clear what the output is from each programme. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I agree, yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Then the other question I have is from Len Duvall [AM]. He has had to ask it several times and we cannot get an answer. In terms of your volunteers, the GLA with its staff, huge numbers, are they part of the volunteering pool and, if so, can you say how many are volunteers from Transport for London (TfL), the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and others? For instance, we have volunteers from City Hall because I know from our office a number of our members of staff volunteer for the Page 14 School Reading Programme as volunteers. So, if you are not counting them, then they are not being counted, are they? Or would they be counted by the reading in schools organisation? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think the point is that there are two different ways for them to be counted but they would not be double counted. For example, there are a number, several dozen, GLA staff members who are registered on Team London and volunteer through Team London. There are a huge number of GLA staff and people associated with the GLA who volunteer who are not registered on Team London. There are different ways for people to do it. I think in the last survey 66% of GLA staff had volunteered that year, so people do volunteer. Some people are perhaps school governors. Some people do reading programmes. Some people are trustees of charities. That does not necessarily mean they have to do it through the Team London website. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): OK. Thank you for that. Can I just ask a question about the hits on the website? That is a good number and you said you think that it is good, which is great. But what will you compare it against? If I get ten hits a day, I think that is marvellous. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Perhaps we should compare it against your ten hits a day. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): If I am really busy, I could get 200, so what are you comparing that against? Is it money spent that could drive that number of hits and was it one-off? In terms of your analysis, which I see you do via Google, have you been able to maintain that level of active engagement? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Obviously, when there is a big event like Go Local that we had in July, you get a spike in the activity on the website. When we have an event like the Schools’ Conference, which is promoted and written about in The Daily Telegraph , you get a spike. So it goes up and down and it is obviously very much dependent on the level of activity. For example, when we had our advertising campaign on the London Underground, there was a huge spike because awareness of the campaign was very high and therefore more people went to the website. I think we need to keep the momentum going and you do it by pacing different initiatives over a long period of time. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): OK. At a later date when we look at that figure, if you quote a figure, then it is reasonable for it to be challenged, but I would then just like to see the analysis and the paperwork associated with that. So we would be able to see the Google analysis of the use of that site at a later date? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Fine. We would be very happy to give that to you. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): That would be great. Then the other question that I had was: are you able to tell from your monitoring what type of volunteering has the most uptake in London? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We cannot say what has the most uptake in London because we do not measure all volunteering in London. What we do measure is volunteering through the Team London website. One of the decisions that we took when we set up the website was whether we should make it compulsory for people to register with Team London and be a member of Team London before going on to volunteer. We felt that that might be a barrier, so we encourage people to register but it is not essential. We are an umbrella organisation that pushes volunteers out into the community, so that, we think, is the main priority. Page 15 We obviously measure those who are volunteering through Team London and we do have a breakdown of statistics of exactly what those figures are. Applications through the Team London website break down as follows - this is for this summer. Events: 39%. Mentoring: 15%. Local community: 12%. Greening and cleaning: 8%. Sports and healthy living: 11%. Training and skills: 15%. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Great. That is lovely, for the record. Then, just going back, Patrick, did you say that only about 30 GLA employees had come through the Team London and were there as registered users? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think it is 43. Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): I think it is over 40 registered users. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Over 40. Then, lastly, can I just ask? It is related to Team London. When you do your work - and I welcome the fact that the schools that you worked with are spread across London, across both inner and outer London - are you monitoring the impact on gender and ethnicity? There may well be things that you are doing that will attract a certain population in London and not attract another one. If you are going to have a pan-London impact, how do we pick up that you are meeting the diversity that is shown in London’s population? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. I welcome the question. For Team London we do have those figures and for those who register with Team London we do have that data. For Team London in 2012 we had a breakdown of age - 47% were aged 15 to 24, 48% 25 to 64, 5% 60 plus - gender - 40% male, 60% female - and ethnic backgrounds - 46% white, 12% black, 11% Asian, 3% mixed and 17% other. Yes, we do have that data and disability and employment status as well. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): In fact, you could just maybe go a layer further. If you had a postcode, you could actually see which part of London they are coming from. It is something that you can do if you have a postcode because that would be interesting to see. We could then see what the penetration is because there are some boroughs where the capacity is great. At my school, we have just started a Girl Guides group and we are looking for loads of volunteers because nobody thought they would be interested, but they are. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. Natalie has done some work on postcodes. Natalie Cramp (Programme Director for Team London): We can absolutely do that for, say, our Schools Programme. We will be able to say, “Right, there is volunteering going on in all these different areas because of the schools that we are working with”, and we will have those postcodes. For our specific programmes that we recruit, say the Visitor Welcome, we will have postcodes for all the volunteers who are in those areas. Coming back to the issue of what becomes a barrier to registration, the fields on the registration are optional, so we do not force people to give their postcode in order to volunteer. It comes back to all the research that we did, which is we need to make volunteering easier for people. For all our big specific programmes that we do, we can absolutely talk about the penetration across boroughs. For the individual volunteers who use our website as a broker, it becomes more difficult because it is dependent on the individual to declare where they live. Page 16 Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): But, as I said before, we do difficult. What you can do is you can actually demonstrate who has answered that. For instance, if it is 60% who has answered, then analyse that 60% so that we can get something out of that field because not everybody will ignore that field. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes, I think so. That is very useful and we can certainly do that. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): So can we ask you to do that rather than say it is not compulsory? People will have used it because they will carry on flowing and it is also interesting to see what that breakdown is. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Do you not have a feel for where they come from, even if you do not know specifically? Intuitively, I tend to think that volunteers would come from the suburbs. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Intuitively, I have a feel that volunteers come from all the London boroughs. The level of activity for different programmes that we have done would indicate that people on the whole volunteer for events which are near to them and we have had a lot of events and a lot of activity across all London boroughs. Instinctively, I would feel that we are well-represented across London, but it would be interesting to do a more detailed breakdown. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Before I ask my colleagues, the thing about double counting which Jennette has asked about is quite important because there may well be serial volunteers. I think that the real way of testing Team London is: are these new people or what proportion of them are people who have never volunteered before? Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): New to volunteering. That is the test. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Has anybody done that? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): Yes. I do not have that information fully at the moment, but through all the projects that we fund we ask if those individuals are new volunteers or existing volunteers. As we get that monitoring information through for those programmes, we can provide that information. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): For example, for the ten programmes that we are funding under the small grants, Action Tutoring, Conservation Volunteers and Vision, Hackney Pirates and so on, we will be able to have that data for those organisations. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Again, can I ask, because intuitively you would expect the people who volunteered before to see this as an additional opportunity for volunteering rather than new people, so you must have a -- Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Should there not be a field at the register, sort of, “New to volunteering”, tick? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): Yes, we do. We have a field on the registration, so again it is the same as any other field, we can provide that information. It will be a relatively small subset of people that will have completed that information. We can give you a feel for that. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): I am just interested to see. Page 17 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We feel the most important thing with the registration process is that it is not a barrier to people volunteering. I absolutely agree with you that the data is really important and we hope that people will feel that they will fill in the non-compulsory sections of the data request. Andrew Boff (AM): Do you need £4 million in funding for your basic delivery or is that what you are aiming for in an ideal world? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We have secured £2.5 million, which is sufficient to deliver a large part of our programme. Obviously, we are very ambitious. We would like to raise more money from different partners. There are many conversations which we are currently having, as you probably know, through sponsorship. We have put into place a number of sponsorship conversations over the course of the summer but particularly subsequent to summer. Securing sponsorship from a big corporate usually takes 6 to 9 months or even 12 months, so by, I would say, spring next year or summer next year we will see where we are with sponsorship, which will obviously give us sustainability and expansion, possibly. Andrew Boff (AM): How much sponsorship do you currently have? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We do not have a corporate sponsor at the moment because we only went to market in September, it is now 3 October and it normally takes between 6 and 12 months to secure a corporate sponsor. On top of our Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) funding of £1.5 million, we have secured an additional £1 million from the Technology Strategy Board. Andrew Boff (AM): And the GLA budget and the European Social Fund. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): And the European Social Fund, exactly. Andrew Boff (AM): So you have an expectation, have you, than an extra £1.5 million will be generated from corporate sponsorship. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We would be delighted if we did generate that, yes. Andrew Boff (AM): And you have plans to spend it? Is that right? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes, we would like to be able to spend that extra £1.5 million to deliver more volunteering to more people through more programmes through the next three years, yes. Andrew Boff (AM): Yes, but what on? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): What do you mean? Andrew Boff (AM): If you have a target amount, you will have an idea of what it is you are going to spend that amount on. Is that just more of the same or is it specific projects which can be then realised? Page 18 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): No, we are very clear about the specific projects which are delivering, which we have already put into the papers. For example, it is a question of scale. How quickly you can reach more schools depends on the funding. We have guaranteed funding committed, £550,000 for two years, to deliver our Schools Programme. We are in conversations with a number of organisations to continue that funding for three or possibly more years. That applies to the other programmes as well. Andrew Boff (AM): What makes you optimistic that you will be able to find those corporate bodies to support those projects? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think the answer is I am an optimist but, no, I am a realist. Andrew Boff (AM): What will those corporates get out of being part of sponsoring? What will they be able to get from Team London’s experience? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): As I am sure you all know, with securing sponsorship from a large corporate, it is very much a partnership. It is not just saying, “write out a cheque”. It is the organisation that you are talking to about your programme believing that what you are delivering matches what their corporate social responsibility (CSR) and what their marketing programmes involve and complementing their ambitions. The skill in raising that money is to find the corporates who actually have ambitions that are complementary to the ambitions of the particular programme. Andrew Boff (AM): They are not going to get any tangible benefits? You are not going to sell them your membership list, are you? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): No, we will not. Andrew Boff (AM): It is the kind of question that has to be asked. You can say no. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): No. We will not be selling them our membership list. Andrew Boff (AM): So they are not going to get any tangible benefits from that? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): There will be tangible benefits. There will be benefits for their profile in being associated with our programmes. Andrew Boff (AM): In terms of their corporate responsibility objectives, obviously there is a payback? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes, and possibly their marketing and advertising objectives. Andrew Boff (AM): I would certainly recommend to most corporates that they come and beat on your door. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Thank you very much. Please give them my name and I would be delighted to welcome them. Page 19 Andrew Boff (AM): I certainly will. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Relating to your optimism and your expectation that you are going to have a £4 million budget, the bigger the budget the bigger the staff. How many staff do you have on board now who are paid? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Not necessarily the bigger the budget the bigger the staff. We actually took some guidance from your learned Committee -- Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): How very kind. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): -- and I think Jeff actually would like to say a few words about the staffing levels that we finally arrived at. Jeff Jacobs (Head of Paid Service): We did consult the Committee on this. We are going to set up - and we have consulted with the Committee - a new assistant director-led unit of 11 which combines sponsorship activity and volunteering activity. We changed the proposals of the discussion here and the external recruitment process we went on and conversations that Veronica and I had with each other. The upshot of that was that, first of all, we left the sponsorship team who pre-existed with no expansion in the London Engagement Unit where they were then and are now with some slight grade reductions. Secondly, we appointed Natalie [Cramp] as a Programme Director-level post. Natalie came from the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). We thought she had a huge amount to give to this organisation and in doing so we did not give her quite the amount back because we appointed at a slightly lower grade. We matched Natalie with Patrick, who is responsible inside the organisation for work on sustainable development but had been doing a great deal with Team London on preparatory work in the period before Veronica arrived. With the volume of work that was growing on this, we put Natalie and Patrick together for different arms of this activity but, as I said, we did not appoint a more senior-level post. Then, whereas we were proposing a net increase of I think about eight, we reduced the number that we added to the complement and we reduced the level of several of the posts inside the unit. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Thank you. We have got there. Jeff Jacobs (Head of Paid Service): You need to understand this. The volunteering and the Team London element of this is now seven-strong in all, and that includes the two people sitting in the room and it excludes the pre-existing sponsorship people. As I say, there was no change on their complement numbers, so seven at lower grades. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): But they must have a quantity of their time devoted to this work? Jeff Jacobs (Head of Paid Service): The sponsorship team, yes, to a greater or lesser extent. They are supporting the work and some of what is being done. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Sorry. What was the question? Jeff Jacobs (Head of Paid Service): How much is Kevin [Austin, Assistant Director, London Engagement] effectively supporting and how much is Amelia [Richards, Commercial Director] supporting? Page 20 Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): There are seven people, we are told by Jeff, specifically allocated to this. But if other people who are already here are giving time to it, what is their staffing equivalent, their fulltime equivalent (FTE)? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): The sponsorship team are responsible for 8 areas of work and 23 different projects, so Team London is only one of many projects for which they are raising sponsorship. If you look at the agreed sponsorship priorities chart, you can see that Team London is one of the eight streams. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): So it is about half a person? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Less than half a person. Jeff Jacobs (Head of Paid Service): It is less than that. There are only three in the unit. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): There are three of them and there are eight. In fact, in many of these streams, there are multiple programmes, 23 programmes. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): Just a couple of little follow-ups, if I may. You talked about advanced conversations. Have you had many expressions of interest from the corporate sector, then? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): Yes, you have, so there is door-knocking going on to encourage that? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): Again probably an obvious question, but let us just do it for the record. The ethical framework that is operated by the GLA now, are we assuming that the rule has been run over potential corporate sponsors and we are not going to see any payday lenders, etc? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Three important things that I did when I took over the responsibility for the sponsorship area were firstly a new process for the corporate engagement, secondly a robust governance and thirdly and very importantly - which was raised by the Committee at an earlier meeting - was the sponsorship guidelines. These are now in place and agreed with TfL and ratified by the GLA governance group. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): All right, so we did discuss it and that is developed and in place, which is great. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes, and they are on the record. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): I do not know if I have all the reports I should have, but just looking at the significant public funding that you have attracted, the £2.55 million, I am just wondering about the forward sustainability of the budget. The £1.5 million from the DCMS looked like leftovers that you had been handed.
Page 21 Is that the case or do we have any continuation in some of the public funding? It is good. We like it. But how much of this is going to be recurrent and how much is a one-off? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): The funding was the Olympic Games underspend of £1.5 million, which was agreed by the DCMS shortly after I arrived. I did a proposal. They accepted my proposal. They agreed what the areas should be -- Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): So this is just a one-off? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): -- and it is to be spent over three years, so 2013 to 2016, yes. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): You are only secure up to 2016, which is not what the report says. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Yes, that is not in this plan. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): In terms of other charities and philanthropic organisations, is there any prospect there for something that is more recurrent? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Clearly, funding from any sources is welcome and we are in constant conversations with philanthropists, with corporates, with charities, with all sorts of people who might be interested in supporting the programmes and, absolutely, the door is open to all potential funders. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): I am just trying to get a sense of how much of a desperate scrabble it is going to be for money every year, particularly after 2016, and how much of a recurrent funding base you are managing to build up that is sustainable into the future. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We obviously hope to build sustainability into the programme. I cannot tell you at this point because we are just at the beginning of the 2013-2016 spending. But what I can say is that, for example, with our volunteering programme in schools, if we build social action into all the schools that we work with, we hope that there will be a legacy and that social action will continue because the schools will appreciate the work that we have done to help them develop their programmes. Every school is different and every school wants slightly different things and needs guidance and support in different ways. We hope that one way or another through that programme over three years we will, as I say, embed the concept of volunteering and social action in communities so that it will be sustainable because it does not necessarily cost money for a school to choose to volunteer. What we are doing is providing the funds to help them be more effective and to achieve their ambitions for volunteering. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): Do you think in terms of the funding that flows out from the organisation you are actually putting exit strategies in place and that your funding will -- Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): What we are doing is we are planting seeds in all the schools and we hope that great things will grow from it in terms of, as I say, embedding social action in the schools. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): But just talk about money now, the sustainability of the organisation and its programmes after 2016, and any funding that you are handing to organisations, schools and whatever and whether or not there is an exit strategy or an expectation of continuation. Page 22 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think what we will do is we will look in a year’s time at where we are with funding and assess if we need an exit strategy. Free the Children is a very big organisation that has had enormous success in Canada and the United States and is working in over 300 schools in England already. It has been in England only for three years. It has enormous corporate support and financial backing so that we hope we have chosen a partner that is in a very strong position to potentially continue their programmes. We will see. Valerie Shawcross CBE (AM): OK. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Going back to the area that Val was exploring, we know that the £1.5 million from DCMS was a one-off over three years, so is the £750,000 from the Technology Strategy Board the same three years, over three years funding. Is that the same for the £200,000 from the GLA core and the £100,000 from the European Social Fund (ESF)? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): They were initially one-off payments to deliver particular programmes. There is no reason why we should not apply again for further funding. If a particular programme is very successful, and we obviously hope it will be, then there is no reason why we should not apply for further funding and that could well be on the horizon. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): OK. That then fits your business case of the now to 2016 programme plan? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): At this stage, yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Then, later on in the paper, you said in phase one you have received £2 million from the Reuben Foundation, so has that already been spent. When was phase one? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Phase one was when Team London was set up in 2010-2011 and that funding was until 2012. There was a little bit of underspend which we have used to help develop the website more, just to sort of transition. There was just a small amount, but the £2 million was spent for phase one which was for that two-year period. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Have you reapplied to the Reuben Foundation on the basis of your success? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We have had conversations but they at the moment are interested in buildings rather than in people, but they have invested a huge amount of money in supporting big capital projects and organisations are free to spend their money. Andrew Boff (AM): Perhaps you will agree with me here. I do not know. You are probably not doing communities a lot of good if you are putting in place projects which require long-term funding and that require your funding in order to keep them going. Is there not something about making those projects sustainable in themselves? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I absolutely agree with you that sustainability is important but -- Andrew Boff (AM): It is kind of what Valerie Shawcross was talking about. Page 23 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think that the point about Team London is it is not just the money that it is spending on specific projects to deliver according to the requirements of DCMS because their money is allocated to specific projects, Visitor Welcome, volunteering in schools and so on. Team London is also promoting, encouraging and fostering volunteering in all communities. That does not necessarily require money as such, although when we get money and we have the facility to do so we would obviously like to support organisations and to encourage them to recruit new volunteers, for example, or to improve their technology. Team London as an umbrella has an advocacy role, for example, and that is highlighting the benefits of volunteering for communities. That is not necessarily us giving them money. It is us giving a platform for volunteering. Andrew Boff (AM): I think that is a very satisfactory answer. The reason I ask is many of us who have had experiences of local government know about the three-year funding packets that projects will get or two-year fixed funding. Then those projects become very important, very much loved and very wanted and then the three years finish, the money goes away and it is worse than if you had not funded them in the first place, in many cases. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I absolutely agree with you. I would like to see that the profile, which is one of our first objectives, of volunteering is raised a result of Team London’s investment. Andrew Boff (AM): Good. Thank you. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Perhaps we can look at the next section now about the level of interest relating to volunteering. In my borough, we set a target for volunteers and the number of people who responded was almost ten times our target. What we have found is we have nothing for them to do. Are you not in danger of that happening to you or maybe it has already happened? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I have not heard your statistics before. It is very interesting and you should send them our way. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): They were published this week in a draft report to Cabinet. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): All right. I apologise. I have not seen those figures, but it is very interesting. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): There is no reason why you should, but for all I know that is happening all over. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): There is no shortage of volunteering opportunities for willing volunteers to take up and they should do so through the Team London website. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): So you would say to the people who are running the scheme for my borough that, “Awfully sorry. We have nothing for you to do on the patch but go to Team London and they will find you something”? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): They will find you something possibly that some people in your area do not know about. I cannot personally match
Page 24 every individual volunteer to an opportunity, but what I can say is the Team London website has a huge number of volunteering opportunities. There are over 70,000 1 volunteering opportunities on our website. Andrew Boff (AM): May I ask on that? Your reputation is going to be dependent on the experience of those volunteers. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. Andrew Boff (AM): To what extent do you chase up that those people are using your volunteers and are taking up those opportunities? An organisation may say to you, “We want 20 volunteers to do something”. If they then do not follow up with that, it is you who gets the bad reputation. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): There is some truth in that, but we try to monitor any dissatisfaction. If people come back to us and say, “Look, we contacted X organisation and they were not really interested in us”, we would be delighted to hear from them and we will investigate. Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): We have not had any negative feedback from people signing up to the website and it has all been really positive. It has been really positive from the organisations as well that are registered on the site. I think the other thing that we can do on the site is we can monitor whether or not someone applies for an opportunity. That sends an email to the volunteering organisation and, if they do not reply to that inquiry, then we can get on to them and say, “By the way, you have these people who are actually applying for these opportunities. Can you contact them?” Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): One of the reasons we invested in a website was to be able to have this communication, to be able to get the feedback, for the organisations to be able to keep track of the volunteers, which they were not able to do before. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Good. That is just putting in a code that is looking as to whether the email is opened and then you can monitor that from your end, so you are doing that? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): Yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): So you should sometime in the future be able to just get some idea of how that is going as a good way of monitoring that? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): Yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Can I just ask a question? It might be to you, Patrick. On page 26 of this paper, you mention micro-volunteering under the Technology Strategy Board. What is micro-volunteering? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): Micro-volunteering is a bit of specific terminology for something which is not that specific, but basically it is just people giving up small bits of time. The general perception is that whereas if you have
1 Later in the meeting, this figure was corrected to 40,000 Page 25 traditional volunteering where someone applies and they have to go through a process, they get an interview and they are involved for about three months, that will attract a certain percentage of the population. But the feeling in London is that generally the business professionals of 20 to 30-something are actually underrepresented in volunteering compared to the rest of the country, so there is quite a lot of work within the sector to actually free up volunteering opportunities and make them a lot more flexible. Say you get a text message saying, “Could you organise a park run, a load of people to do a run around the park this afternoon?” You get that on your way home and it is very informal. You have to give up about half an hour or an hour depending on how quick you are running. We are seeking the success of that kind of stuff with things like Capital Clean-up, the more sort of environmental events-type volunteering, so we are trying to emulate within the volunteering setting. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): I see, yes. Why is it under the Technology Strategy Board because that could apply to any of the areas, could it not? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): Yes. The Technology Strategy Board refers to the funding that we got to do it because it is within the Smart Cities funding that the environment team collects. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): That is where it sits for funding purposes? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): Yes. We will have to create the technology in order to be able to advertise those opportunities. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): All right. Yes, that sounds a good idea. Thanks for that explanation. Andrew Boff (AM): Micro-volunteering may also give towards somebody who, quite frankly, is a little intimidated about volunteering. They may have a little space but they are a little bit intimidated about what commitment they are going to be expected to do from that little piece of volunteering. Do you gear that micro-volunteering towards them? You might ask them, as I did the other day, to clean up the entrance to the local park, but please do not make me organise it and that kind of thing. Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): That is the kind of thing we are looking at, yes, getting that generally across. As I say, that kind of exists in the environmental sphere but it does not really exist in the more traditional types of volunteering that have an impact on, for example, the elderly and that kind of thing. That is where we are trying to move it into. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): This flexibility of volunteering, more last-minute volunteering, we feel, is suitable for younger volunteers who have not volunteered before, so absolutely. Andrew Boff (AM): Is that the terminology, “last-minute volunteering”? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Flash mob volunteering. Andrew Boff (AM): Flash volunteering? I like that.
Page 26 Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): I am very interested in the 70,000 volunteering opportunities because you originally gave us a breakdown of the sort of demand there is for people to do things. In the 70,000, are they heavily weighted to one particular area of volunteering? I do not mean geographical area but type of volunteering opportunity, i.e. events you said was the most popular. So what proportion of the 70,000 are likely to be related to events, for example? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): The breakdown is the breakdown that I related earlier, so 39% for events and then broken down into communities and healthy living and so on. Those are the figures that we have currently. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): I see. I thought that the breakdown related to the things that the volunteers wanted to volunteer for rather than the opportunities you had available. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): No, it related to the volunteering activities they did. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): So what they actually did? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): But the 70,000 opportunities are things which nobody has done yet? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Some might have been done; some might not have been done. There are 70,000 volunteering opportunities across London, which is everything from planting a tree to being a flag-waver at a sports event to helping in a care home to being in a hospice to mentoring a child. It is absolutely across the range. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Yes, I understand the wide variety, but it is matching the things that the volunteers want to do to the things which are on offer. It may well be - and that is what I am exploring - that of the 70,000 volunteering opportunities a large number of them may actually be unpopular things. I cannot imagine what they might be, picking oakum or something, but is there a mismatch? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We can investigate whether there are some volunteering opportunities that are not popular. We can look into that for you. I think the feedback we would have would be from organisations who say, “We have posted our volunteering opportunities on your website and nobody has contacted us”. To my knowledge, we have not had those communications. I cannot guarantee that but, Patrick, can you tell us if an organisation has gone on to complain? Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): We have not. Conversely, mainly on the events side of things, we get organisations inundated with hundreds of volunteers and that mainly just reflects where volunteering is at post the Olympic Games and the interest in that kind of activity. Just for clarification, it is not actually 70,000. It is actually 40,000, just so we can walk away from this with the right figures. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): All right. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I apologise. I used the wrong figure. Page 27 Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): That is OK, but either way it is a lot, it seems to me. Again, speaking from experience on a simple borough level, what we find is that the demand for volunteers is for people to do semi- professional type jobs where organisations cannot afford to pay someone, so we are talking about someone doing the books or something of that kind. The volunteering vacancies are there for ages and ages because nobody will come along and do that. You see the point I am getting at? There is an opportunity which is not matched by the volunteers and I was seeking to explore whether your 40,000 opportunities relate to opportunities where there is not anybody to do them because they do not want to do them. Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): That has not been our experience, but I think it is something we could look at, definitely. I think on the specific point about doing the books and that kind of thing, trying to encourage people who volunteer to actually support charities by doing that type of activity is something we are looking at. Darren Johnson (AM): I was going to ask firstly, Veronica, about what you expect to achieve under the new volunteering in schools project? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We have a programme which, as you know, went out to tender and the contract was awarded to Free the Children UK with a very specific objective to engage London’s schools in social action programmes. That includes obviously exciting and encouraging young people to volunteer, but they will be doing that through different ways: through youth summits, bringing young people together, building inter-school networks. They have a programme which is tried and tested and extremely effective and that is what we have asked them to deliver. Darren Johnson (AM): It is early stages, then? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We launched it on Monday but they have already had many dozen if not over 100 phone calls from schools that want to sign up to this. If any of you know schools that would like to sign up, we would be very pleased for them to contact us. It is obviously on the website and work is underway. I think even next week already their teams are going into the schools. Darren Johnson (AM): Excellent. There is two years funding in place for this and then, after that, you are looking for commercial sponsorship. What type of commercial sponsorship are you looking for? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): There is a lot of interest in schools because obviously there is a big focus on the future of young Londoners. We are talking to retail, we are talking to banking, we are talking to a whole range of different sponsors, IT, and it just a question of which one gets there first. We have lots of conversations simultaneously and the first one to sign up -- Darren Johnson (AM): Obviously, going back to Val’s earlier point as well, there are specific sensitivities around schools and the sort of sponsorship that may be appropriate for other forms of volunteering but would not be appropriate for schools. Have you given much thought to that? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): We are clearly mindful of what is appropriate for sponsorship of anything involving children. Darren Johnson (AM): OK, good. Just a wider question about your role in terms of sponsorship generally. Can you clarify whether you now have a role in terms of wider sponsorship within the GLA group or is it simply focused around sponsorship for the volunteering programme? Page 28 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): No, I have a responsibility over the range of programmes. I held up this chart earlier, so 23 different programmes across 8 different departments. I can tell you we have quite a good story there. We have an annual target of £1.78 million in value and in the first five months we have hit 90% of our target. Darren Johnson (AM): Can you just go into a little bit more detail about some of the programmes outside the volunteering programme that you are obtaining sponsorship for? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes, I can go through those. Under culture, for example, Gigs, Big Dance, Fourth Plinth; energy and environment, Capital Clean-up, Low Carbon Prize, Smart Cities, Engineer Pioneer Award; sport, events; education; health and so on and so forth. If you would like to have a copy of this chart, you are very welcome to. Darren Johnson (AM): That would be useful, yes. Thank you very much. Andrew Boff (AM): Sorry to step back. It just occurred to me that we had asked a question about the breakdown of how your volunteers look and you revealed to us some statistics. From your look at those groups from that data, are there any underrepresented Londoners on that list and do you need to specifically target any particular minorities in London in order to give them the opportunity to volunteer as well? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think that is an interesting idea. I think we will have to see where we are in analysing the latest data. Patrick Feehily (Programme Director for Team London, Volunteering and Sustainable Development): We looked last time around when we evaluated and we will do that again in the summer. I think that representation was actually pretty good. Obviously, disability and giving disabled people the access to volunteering is important and that is obviously something we need to look at. I think we are reviewing at the moment our disability policy around that area. That is something we can say before we look at the figures, I think. Andrew Boff (AM): Thank you very much. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Philanthropy. The Mayor is very hot on that. He is always comparing London very badly with New York and the United States. You said yourself that you are sort of pitching to corporates. Have you thought of individuals? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I was thinking of individuals. Yes. I think that there might be some philanthropists who are interested, if you are talking specifically about Team London. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Yes. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Possibly. Conversations go on all the time. It is possible. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): We are told that bits of London, the very rich, probably not the British rich, but lots of people are coming in and perhaps instead of buying football clubs.
Page 29 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): You talk about philanthropy. The Mayor’s charities, for example, have been recipients of a considerable amount of philanthropy. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): From individuals? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): From individuals as well as from corporates and that has been very successful. The three Mayoral charities - the Mayor’s Fund for London, the Mayor’s Fund for Young Musicians and the Legacy List - each of those charities has received considerable donations from philanthropists, yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Just a follow-on from there because it seems like there are two main areas that money can be given to, the Mayor’s Fund and this, so it’s about matching, as you said earlier, what it is that that individual would get out of it. In terms of the Schools Programme, I know because it was delivered in my constituency that the Mayor’s Fund funded a fabulous piece of work with support to school councils. However, because they moved away from that theme, that post ended. In your work around schools, are you able to identify issues like that? Is it for you to be suggesting programmes or is it for the schools to be coming to you? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Are you talking specifically about the Team London Schools Programme being delivered by Free the Children? Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Yes. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): What we have seen through our pilots as most effective is it is really important for the schools to decide what they want to support, what they want to do, so it is not top-down. It is very much the children creating school councils to vote and to discuss among themselves and that is exactly how the St Saviour’s project emerged. It was the children who decided that is what they wanted to do. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Yes, but there needs to be some guidelines. For instance, I do not have a clue. If you are saying you have £500,000 to spend and you have a contractor to help deliver that and that is by results, a good bit of this money then is going to go to school-based initiatives? Am I on the right line? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Yes, school-based initiatives to encourage volunteering, yes. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): What are the guidelines that I could take out - we are all school governors - and we could say to our schools or how are you advertising that to say that this initiative is available? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Our partner organisation is not giving cash to the schools. It is helping them deliver the project and that is slightly different. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Which project? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): The project that the school council will vote for. In every school it will be slightly different. Some schools have a head of volunteering. Some have a deputy head who is in charge of volunteering. Some do not have anybody
Page 30 at all. The role of our partner organisation is to go into the schools, see what they are doing, understand what they would like to do and help them achieve that. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): With no money? Is that what you said? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): They are not giving the school money. What they are doing for the school is they are giving them the ability to deliver volunteering and social action in their communities. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): So what is this £500,000 going to be spent on, then? Natalie Cramp (Programme Director for Team London): For example, they are developing handbooks for both primary and secondary school students and teachers and they run sessions and workshops to train teachers and students as to how you take social action and how you actually then transform an idea into an action plan and deliver that. They are going to be holding three summits to bring all the young people in London who are part of this programme together to be inspired to share ideas and to discuss their different volunteering initiatives and what it has taught them. Some of it is spent on doing the measurement and evaluation of the programme, which is really critical to us in terms of actually making sure that this is doing the right things and developing the right skills in young people and having the right outcomes. Some of it will be spent on the administration of their staff having to engage with all these schools, to go to these schools to delivering the inspiring assemblies that they deliver in order to get the whole school excited, inspired and engaged in volunteering and the fact that these young people can make a difference in their local community. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): OK. So, because the charity has its base, it will do the activity but they know that there is a £550,000 pot. That is the envelope they are working within over three years? Natalie Cramp (Programme Director for Team London): Over two years. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Over two years, so in a sense it will be Free the Children UK who will be spending that against the business plan or proposal that you have received from them? Natalie Cramp (Programme Director for Team London): Yes, exactly. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): All right. You will then be monitoring that at the end of the first year to see where they are? Natalie Cramp (Programme Director for Team London): Exactly. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Again, what I would like to know is, in terms of the impact, where that impact is in London because there is a tendency for people to be, sort of like a magnet, drawn to the same area where there is already a lot of activity going on. You just find these sorts of pulsing areas. It is easy to do and just across the motorway or whatever nobody has been there, it is hard stuff and nothing happens. That is just something we have seen and you will know of. That happens time and time again. Natalie Cramp (Programme Director for Team London): Something Veronica put in place to try and prevent that happening with this programme is that we have introduced a schools database in the GLA which looks at all the different education programmes that we have in schools and the whole list of schools in London and who are recipients of which programmes. Therefore we can see whether those schools are already engaged in various other initiatives and getting various other support. Page 31 One of the criteria we have put on Free the Children UK is the number of schools who are not receiving any of those programmes each year of the programme to engage, so that we know that we are definitely hitting at least a number that are not necessarily hard to reach for any other reason but they are not engaged in the plethora of programmes we do here. If we can tap into those schools, we can hopefully support them in other ways through the other education initiatives as well. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): I only say that and feed back to you. I was with a group of principals and head teachers and they were looking at me and telling me that they were fed up with receiving calls from this building because there was some money here to be spent on Schools Excellence, nothing to do with you, and they were just being bombarded with calls because they had already received money and they were in the database. However, the thing about this is these were absolutely not the schools that people should be calling because there were other schools that were not in the database that somebody should have been out there knocking on the door rather than telephoning. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think it is a very good point and that is why we have built the database to understand better how the GLA is working across all the different departments. The charities, for example, work in many of the London schools. The music fund works in 33 London boroughs and in several dozen schools, over 100 schools. The Mayor’s Fund for London works in hundreds of schools with breakfast programmes, literacy programmes and so on and so forth. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Now they do. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): What we are trying to do is to map to see what is happening where and to try also to make it less onerous for the schools to actually be recipients of the different benefits that we can offer them. Andrew Boff (AM): Have you done any comparisons on a more sort of general level about volunteering? Have you done any comparisons as to whether or not we as Brits volunteer more or less than other nations? Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): I think it is well-known that in Britain fewer people volunteer than in the United States and in Canada. That is one of the reasons we have chosen Free the Children as our partner for the schools programme. It is because their programme is fantastically successful and their ability to engage young people in their programmes is proven and we hope that they will be equally successful here. Obviously, they have only just started, but they are very good at it and I would like to invite you to go and see them in action because they are fantastic. They are very charismatic young people who go and they are brilliant speakers. They can get absolutely on the level of the age group to which they are talking and they can inspire them to do things. When we next have a group here, I would love you all to come and see them. If only you had seen St Saviour’s. These little children were aged five and six years old and had been involved in the social action programme in St Saviour’s. They were, each of them, reading from a script exactly what they had done and how they had done it. They were five and six year olds. It was astonishing. The smiles on their faces at what they had achieved. The audience were practically crying they were so touched by it. It was the beginning of something. It was the small seeds of planting this idea that you can build your confidence and all sorts of different skills by being involved. Andrew Boff (AM): You have made a comparison with the US and Canada. The US does not have a welfare state, so that may be a contributor. I do not know. We can probably have an argument about that afterwards. What about European comparisons as well on the amount of volunteering? Page 32 Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): Natalie is very kindly just telling me because she is so expert on this. We are the fourth most volunteering nation in the world, so there you go. Andrew Boff (AM): All right, so we are not that bad. Natalie Cramp (Programme Director for Team London): That is the statistic I saw. That is behind the United States and Canada. Veronica Wadley (Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship): That is behind the United States and Canada. Andrew Boff (AM): I was just curious because I always used to hear about people volunteering, like shopkeepers volunteering to clean outside their properties and things like that in mainland Europe and then you find out they are fined if they do not. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): There is a by-law in France that says you are licenced to operate a business and part of that is you keep the street clean. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): We had nearly ended on a very upbeat note. Thank you, Veronica, Natalie and Patrick. You were much more forthcoming. We have learned a lot more than before. Thank you very much and I am sure we will ask you again. Jennette Arnold OBE (AM): Yes, in six months. Tony Arbour (Deputy Chair): Yes, thank you.
Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 34 Agenda Item 4
Subject: Summary List of Actions Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 November 2013 This report will be considered in public
1. Summary 1.1 This report updates the Committee on the progress made on actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Committee notes the completed and outstanding actions arising from the previous meetings of the Committee, as listed below. Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 10 September 2013 Item Topic Action Action By 6. The Mayor's Senior Adviser for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship The Committee requested it be supplied The letter from the Committee Officer with the following additional information: Chair and the response are appended to the • Details of the Team London website Action Taken Under analytics data when available; Delegated Authority report on this agenda. • Details of which volunteering opportunities on the website are least popular; • Where known, a breakdown by postcode of Team London volunteers; • Statistics showing what percentage of City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 35
Item Topic Action Action By people registering are first-time volunteers; and • A copy of the chart referred to in the meeting that set out the range of sponsorship activity falling within the remit of the Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship. 8. Scrutiny of the Long Term Infrastructure Investment Plan for London That the Head of Paid Service provide an In progress. Head of Paid Service Infrastructure Investment Plan update report at a future meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee in order to assist the Committee’s approach to scrutinising the Plan. Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 18 July 2013 Item Topic Action Action By 8. Head of Paid Service Oral Update That the Head of Paid Service and Executive In progress. Executive Director of Director of Secretariat investigate and Secretariat / Head of resolves concerns with the sound quality in Paid Service the Chamber. Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 24 April 2013 Item Topic Action Action By 9. Update on the Implementation of a Code of Practice in the Use of Statistics at the GLA
That the GLA Oversight Committee receives A report will be Committee Officer a further report at the time of the proposed scheduled for 12 month review of the GLA’s Statistics submission to the GLA Code. Oversight Committee meeting in July 2014.
Page 36
Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 29 January 2013 Item Topic Action Action By 7. Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment
That consideration be given as to how Chair to be consulted Executive Director of changes to the establishment on which the on which changes to the Secretariat Committee had been consulted would be establishment should be scrutinised. considered further. 3. Legal Implications 3.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report. 4. Financial Implications 4.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report. List of appendices to this report: None Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: John Barry, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4425 Email: [email protected]
Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 Agenda Item 5
Subject: Action Taken Under Delegated Authority Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 November 2013 This report will be considered in public
1. Summary 1.1 This report summarises the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority since the date of the last meeting. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Committee notes the action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority. 3. Background 3.1 Under the Chair’s standing delegation as set out in Standing Order 10.2, subsequent to the GLA Oversight Committee meeting of 10 September 2013 the Chair wrote to the Mayor's Senior Adviser for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship requesting additional information arising from the discussion at the meeting. 4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 The letter sent and the response received are attached as Appendix 1 . 5. Legal Implications 5.1 Under section 34 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the Authority, acting under the Mayor or Assembly, may do anything that is considered to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the exercise of any of the functions of the Assembly.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 39
5.2 The Assembly may, under section 54 of the GLA Act 1999 (as amended) delegate relevant functions to individual Members. The decision making function on this matter has, accordingly, been properly delegated by the Assembly, through one of its committees, to the Chair of the Assembly. 6. Financial Implications 6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 Letter to the Mayor's Senior Adviser for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship Local Government (Access to Info rmation) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: John Barry, Senior Committee Officers Telephone: 020 7983 4425 Email: [email protected]
Page 40 Appendix 1
Len Duvall AM, Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee
City Hall Veronica Wadley The Queen’s Walk Senior Adviser London SE1 2AA Team London, Volunteering, Charities & Sponsorship City Hall London Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 SE1 2AA Minicom: 020 7983 4458 Web: www.london.gov.uk Ref: 34/2013/OC
14 October 2013
Dear Veronica
GLA Oversight Committee – The Mayor's Senior Adviser for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship
On behalf of the GLA Oversight Committee, I would like to thank you for attending the Committee’s meeting on 3 October 2013.
As you may recall, during discussion, the Committee requested it be supplied with the following additional information: Details of the Team London website analytics data when available; Details of which volunteering opportunities on the website are least popular; Where known, a breakdown by postcode of Team London volunteers; Statistics showing what percentage of people registering are first-time volunteers; and A copy of the chart referred to in the meeting that set out the range of sponsorship activity falling within the remit of the Senior Advisor for Team London, Volunteering, Charities and Sponsorship.
I would be grateful if you could provide that information to the Committee in good time for its 7 November 2013 meeting if possible and would you please copy John Barry, Clerk to the GLA Oversight Committee, into the response.
Yours sincerely
Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee
Contact: John Barry, Senior Committee Officer, City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA 020 7983 4425: [email protected] Page 41 !"#$%&'()%#$%*+,)+,#-+'../%0.'+1
Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 !"#$%&'()%#$%*+,)+,#-+'../%0.'+1
Page 46 Page 47 !"#$%&'()%#$%*+,)+,#-+'../%0.'+1
Page 48 Agenda Item 7
Subject: Shared Services Update Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Head of Paid Service and Executive Date: 7 November 2013 Director of Resources This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 This paper provides updates to the Committee in respect of: • Supplementary Budget Guidance issued by the Mayor on shared services; • GLA Group shared services and collaborative procurement, as set out in Section 4 below and specifically in terms of the following categories of joint activity across the GLA Group: o Functional delegations; o Statutory arrangements o Management and co-location o Contractual, voluntary and other arrangements o Collaborative procurement; and • GLA-MOPAC HR shared service, as set out in Section 5 below, and specifically: o Represents consultation by the Mayor with the London Assembly, as required in law, in relation to a proposed shared services arrangement between the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) in respect of Human Resources. 2. Recommendations 2.1 That the Committee comments on and notes the progress being made across the GLA Group on shared services and collaborative procurement. 2.2 That, prior to any decision by the Mayor, the Committee comments on the proposed HR shared service arrangement between the GLA and MOPAC. 2.3 That, prior to any decision by the Head of Paid Service, the Committee comments on the proposed staffing arrangements for the HR shared service between the GLA and MOPAC.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 49
3. Background 3.1 The Committee receives regular updates on progress on GLA Group shared services and collaborative procurement. This paper represents the latest such update. 4. GLA Group 4.1 Since the Committee’s last consideration of shared services at its meeting on 21 May 2013 the Mayor has issued Supplementary Budget Guidance. Relevant extracts of this guidance are attached as Appendix A . This guidance sets out new Group-wide procedures for collaborative procurement and details of revised property savings to be delivered. 4.2 At the Committee’s last meeting detailed schedules were presented which set out the shared services and collaborative procurement arrangements that are in place or are due to be in place across the Group. Set out at Appendix B is an updated version of this schedule highlighting in bold the changes from the previous report. 4.3 The list is focused on those technical and support service activities and does not for example include frontline services such as those provided by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to local authorities for additional policing services and security services at the Palace of Westminster. The activities have been grouped under five headings in order to reflect the different approaches that are being used to share and collaborate, as follows: • Functional delegations (eg GLA to TfL procurement); • Statutory arrangements (eg LPFA administering pension scheme for GLA); • Management and co-location (eg TfL committee services to GLA); • Contractual, voluntary and other arrangements (eg accommodation for MOPAC); and • Collaborative procurement (eg use of framework agreements, shared contracts). 5. GLA-MOPAC Shared HR service 5.1 At this Committee’s meeting of 21 May 2013 it was noted the proposed HR Shared Service had been postponed until autumn 2013 pending the Stage 2 transfer submission to the Home Secretary. This submission took place in mid-September 2013; the shared HR Service, based on the proposal agreed last spring, remains viable under the transfer proposals which do not result in a large number of MPS employees transferring into MOPAC. 5.2 Work continued over the summer to prepare for the HR Shared Service on the basis of this potential outcome. As envisaged in the report to the Committee on 21 May 2013 GLA HR has successfully supported peak workload in MOPAC in relation to a major recruitment campaign and the provision of employee relations advice which were beyond the capacity of MOPAC HR to resource in that period. This support has helped demonstrate how the shared service will operate in practice and proved to be very effective. 5.3 The model for the HR shared service is as reported in May 2013. Transactional services will be provided by GLA (with the exception of payroll which will continue to be shared with the MPS). The arrangements for the shared service have taken full account of how the strategic role will link to the
Page 50
service provided by GLA HR, ensuring where strategy moves into service delivery this will be undertaken by the GLA team. 5.4 MOPAC will employ a Senior OD post which will lead on a range of interfaces with the MPS, including new workforce initiatives and the ethics committee. It is anticipated that MOPAC will only need limited strategic HR advice as a result of the size of the organisation and the recent restructure. Any advice can be purchased through the shared service relationship as required. 5.5 It is therefore proposed that the GLA HR team provide HR services to MOPAC with effect from 1 December 2013. The HR service will include recruitment, HR administration, employee relations/policy advice, workforce reporting/analysis. The supply of agency workers, however, will continue to be under the MPS contract (mainly for reasons connected to vetting) though administered by GLA HR; however access to GLA suppliers for some of these requirements is still being explored. 5.6 There are currently three posts undertaking HR work at MOPAC. It is proposed that two posts undertaking the current work will transfer (equivalent to GLA Grade 8 and Grade 5). MOPAC will retain a post undertaking wider work on organisational development including work with the MPS. The GLA will, with MOPAC, assess the work requirements over the next six months and determine the longer term resourcing requirements. MOPAC is currently in a period of significant change which makes the long term HR resourcing requirements difficult to assess. 5.7 The following posts are proposed to be created: HR Advisor – Grade 8 HR Assistant - Grade 5. 6. Legal Implications 6.1 Under section 401A of the GLA Act 1999, MOPAC can enter into arrangements with the GLA for the provision of administrative, professional or technical services by the GLA to MOPAC, whether for consideration or otherwise. The professional services of the type described fall within that power. The mayor must consult with the London Assembly before entering into any such arrangement involving the GLA; this role has been delegated to the Assembly's GLA Oversight Committee.
6.2 The standard shared services documentation will cover issues such as payments for the services to be provided, and review and termination arrangements and liabilities.
6.3 The proposed arrangement is consistent with the GLA’s public procurement obligations under EU procurement directives. The European Court of Justice has ruled that public bodies such as the GLA and MOPAC can enter into co-operative arrangements in the public interest, where one provides services to the other on a not for profit basis. In such circumstances, the EU public procurement rules are not triggered. Accordingly, the proposed arrangements may be viewed as consistent with European procurement law. 7. Financial Implications GLA Group 7.1 The property savings to be delivered across the Group by 31 March 2016 are set out at Appendix A. GLA – MOPAC HR Shared Service 7.2 The HR shared service arrangement between the GLA and MOPAC would be cost neutral.
Page 51
List of appendices to this report: Appendix A: Relevant Extracts of the Mayor’s Supplementary Budget Guidance. Appendix B: Schedules of GLA Group Shared Services and Collaborative Procurement Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: David Gallie Telephone: 020 7983 4 968 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 52 Appendix A
Appendix A – Relevant Extracts of the Mayor’s Supplementary Budget Guidance Collaborative Procurement 1.1 The Mayor asked that the Chief Finance Officers (CFOs) of the GLA Group bring forward proposals on collaborative procurement. The CFOs have considered options and made a proposal to the Mayor which he has accepted. 1.2 The Mayor wishes to ensure that functional bodies make further progress on Collaborative Procurement across the GLA Group to ensure value for money is secured and can demonstrate that a more transparent process is being followed. At the same time, the Mayor is conscious of the need to not unnecessarily delay procurement decisions across the Group and that setting explicit targets is not the most appropriate means of securing his objectives for collaborative procurement. Accordingly, set out below are new requirements on collaborative procurement for the GLA Group. • Functional bodies will need to seek the prior agreement of the Single Property Steering Group for them not to use the London Development Panel for all major land, property and development procurements where the scale is likely to involve a planning application that may be referable to the Mayor (NB. In the case of urgent decisions this agreement may be sought electronically); • Functional bodies are required to set out the reason why they have not followed a GLA Group framework for all procurements over the OJEU threshold, except where these relate to operational/frontline requirements specific to the organisation concerned, and those services provided directly to third parties. Any such exceptions must be reported to the regular meeting of the CFOs; and • If an OJEU exercise is undertaken where an existing framework would appear to exist, each Functional Body is required to set out the reason why they have adopted this route with such exceptions being reported to the CFO Group. 1.3 The meeting of the CFOs would then review the exceptions reported and consider what further action, if any, should be taken. In order to facilitate greater Collaborative Procurement across the GLA Group, the CFOs will sponsor a series of informal workshops on common service areas. Property 1.4 The Single Property Unit Steering Group, consisting of all members of the GLA Group, has considered the issue of setting a realistic and challenging property savings target. The table below sets out the new additional incremental property savings each member of the Group is requested to deliver over the three year period 1 April 2013 by 31 March 2016. Details of the basis of each figure are set out below. Member of the GLA Group Property savings to be delivered (£m) GLA 0.4 LFEPA 3.3 LLDC 0.1 MOPAC 51.0 TfL 19.2 Total 74.0 1.5 Detailed work is continuing on identifying a property savings target for the GLA, including GLAP. An indicative target of £0.4m has been set to reflect the planned rationalisation of the GLAP estate and the optimal use of City Hall. LFEPA’s target of £3.3m represents budgeted savings in 2013-14 and assumed property savings in 2014-15 arising from the London Safety Plan. An indicative savings target of £0.1m has been set for LLDC to rationalise their central accommodation. MOPAC’s target of £51m is based on their agreed Estate Strategy 2013-16, with an overall target of £60m over the
Page 53
four year period 2012-16. TfL’s target of £19.2m is based on their agreed Accommodation Strategy, together with ongoing targets savings for Facilities Management and Estate Management.
Page 54 Appendix B
Appendix B – Schedules of GLA Group Shared Services and Collaborative Procurement (NB. Changes in the schedule from that last reported to the GLA Oversight Committee are highlighted in bold) A. Functional delegations Delegation to: Service provided to: Service provided:
GLA HCA Financial Transactions (includes inherited mortgages and the new Help to Buy Scheme)
GLA LFEPA Treasury Management
GLA LFEPA Clerk and Democratic Services
GLA LFEPA Member services
GLA LLDC Treasury Management
GLA LLDC Wide range of clerking services
GLA LPFA Treasury Management
GLA MOPAC IT Services including: customer support services; support for all live systems; infrastructure management; developing the IT service; overseeing the quality of the IT service
GLA MOPAC Media services – press officer
GLA MOPAC Treasury management
LFEPA GLA Payroll
LPFA LFEPA Firefighters’ Pension Services
MOPAC GLA Internal Audit
MOPAC LFEPA Internal Audit
Page 55
Delegation to: (cont.) Service provided to: Service provided:
TfL GLA Procurement
TfL GLA Legal (for Mayoral functions)
TfL GLA IT services including: • Data Hosting • Business Continuity • Internet Services
TfL GLA Professional support and management of Compulsory Purchase Order functions
TfL GLA Services to settle Compulsory Purchase Order claims
TfL MOPAC Legal Services (as required)
Pending:
GLA MOPAC HR services
MOPAC LLDC Internal Audit
TfL GLA, LFEPA and LLDC Insurance B. Statutory arrangements Provided by: Service provided to: Service provided:
GLA DCLG 2007-13 European Regional Development Fund programme management
LPFA GLA LGPS Pension Services
LPFA LFEPA LGPS Pension Services
LPFA LLDC LGPS Pension Services
Page 56
C. Management and co-location Hosted by: Responsibility: Service provided:
GLA TfL TfL Board/Committee services
GLA / LPFA GLA / LPFA Treasury management operations
LFEPA LAS Co-location at Barnet and Acton
LFEPA MPS PCSO base at Holloway
TfL GLA Co-location of GLA’s secondary data centre and associated network connectivity to TFL’s Woking data centre
TfL LFEPA Co-location of LFEPA’s secondary data centre and associated network connectivity to TFL’s Woking data centre Under review / pending: LFEPA MOPAC Sharing facilities at Purley Fire Station D. Contractual, voluntary and other arrangements Provided by: Service provided to: Service provided:
GLA DWP 2007-13 European Social Fund programme management
GLA Functional bodies Intelligence Unit services (e.g. opinion research, and demography/policy analysis) provided on a largely ad hoc basis in response to specific requests
GLA GLA and TfL GLA Economics
GLA LFEPA LFEPA Head of Finance (part-time)
GLA LPFA LPFA Director of Finance (part-time)
GLA Mayor’s Fund for City Hall accommodation London
GLA Mayor’s Fund for City Hall accommodation Young Musicians
GLA MOPAC City Hall accommodation
Page 57
Provided by: Service provided to: Service provided:
HCA GLA Provision of specific housing IT systems
HCA GLA Legacy activities
HCA GLA Build to Rent
HCA GLA Help to Buy equity mortgages
LFEPA GLA Operational secondee working for LRT
LFEPA GLA Emergency Planning secondee for LRT
LFEPA LWRB Office accommodation at 169 Union St. This includes mail, IT and media services.
LFEPA MPS Seconded officer working within SO15 providing the single point of contact for urgent or sensitive operational issues of relevance to LFB
LPFA Bexley, Ealing, Newham Pensions administration and Westminster, and Hertfordshire CC
LPFA London Boroughs and Other pensions support other local authorities
LPFA London TravelWatch Office accommodation
MPS LFEPA Dedicated network connectivity to the police national network for secure interagency email communication and storage of information classified as ‘restricted’.
Under review / pending:
LFEPA LPFA Office Accommodation
Page 58
E. Collaborative procurement (not an exhaustive list) Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework GLA TfL Cleaning (GBM) Yes Framework followed GLA TfL Health and safety No Framework (White, Young, followed Green) GLA TfL Archiving (Crown) Yes Framework followed GLA TfL Stationery (Office Yes Framework Depot) followed GLA TfL Reprographics No Framework Printing (TfL in- followed house) GLA TfL Courier No Framework followed GLA TfL Newspapers and No Framework Journals (SETS) followed GLA/LFEPA GLA/LFEPA Catering (OCS) Yes Framework followed GLA, MOPAC, GLA Treasury advisors No None exists LFEPA and LLDC (Sector) GLA/Westminster GLA/Westminster Trafalgar/Parliam Yes Framework ent Squares followed cleaning/horticult ure (Veolia) GLA/Westminster GLA/Westminster Hawk pigeon Yes Framework control (Van followed Vynck) GLA TfL EUC2 YES (Computacenter ) LFEPA Eastern Shires Mailroom No No known GLA Purchasing Equipment (Pitney framework Organisation Bowes) available at the (ESPO) time of award LFEPA ESPO Gym Equipment Yes No known GLA (Pulse Fitness Ltd) framework available at the time of award LFEPA ESPO HR E -Recruitment No No known GLA Systems (Tribal framework Resourcing Ltd) available at the time of award LFEPA ESPO Gym Equipment Yes No known GLA Maintenance framework (Sportsafe UK available at the Ltd) time of award
Page 59
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework LFEPA Firebuy Foam (Auxquimia Yes No known GLA Consortium SA) framework available at the time of award LFEPA Government Travel Yes No known GLA Procurement Management framework Service (GPS) Services (Redfern) available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Sprint II Yes No known GLA Framework (SCC) framework available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Management No No known GLA Consultancy (Mott framework McDonald) available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Stationery Yes No known GLA (Banner Business framework Services Ltd) available at the time of award Computer Yes No known GLA consumables framework (XMA) available at the time of award LFEPA GPS IT: Business No No known GLA Intelligence framework (Bramble cc. Ltd) available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Multifunctional Yes No known GLA devices (Cannon framework UK Ltd) available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Building Materials No No known GLA (Grafton framework Merchanting UK available at the Ltd) time of award LFEPA GPS Security (MITIE) Yes GLA framework not available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Accounting Advice No No known GLA Services (BDO framework LLP) available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Internet Service Yes No known GLA Provider Services framework (Global Crossing available at the Communications time of award Ltd)
Page 60
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework LFEPA GPS Fuel Cards (Arval) Yes No known GLA framework available at the time of award LFEPA GPS Energy (Gas and Yes No known GLA Electricity –British framework Gas, EDF Energy, available at the Corona Gas) time of award LFEPA MOPAC Childcare No GLA Framework Vouchers used (Edenred (UK Group) Ltd LFEPA MOPAC Cleaning Yes GLA Framework Consumables used (Greenham) LFEPA Thames Valley Temporary Labour Yes The TfL Police Framework (Adecco) framework comprised only of a list of approved suppliers whilst LFEPA required a Managed Vendor Service to minimise costs LFEPA TfL Financial & Yes GLA Framework Commercial used Advice (Grant Thornton LLP) LLDC GPS Digital Marketing No No known GLA Services framework available at the time of award LLDC GPS Look, wayfinding No No suitable GLA and signage framework available at the time of award LLDC HCA Management of 3 No No known GLA Mills Studio framework available at the time of award LLDC TfL Corporate tax Yes GLA framework compliance and used advisory services LLDC HCA Property No No known GLA Services Panel framework (Hackney Wick) available at the time of award
Page 61
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework LLDC HCA Property Yes No known GLA Services Panel framework (Accelerated available at the Delivery LCS p- time of award 2) LLDC HCA Environmental. No No known GLA Transport. No framework available at the time of award LLDC LLDC Planning Law No n/a Design Services No LLDC GLA Events Yes GLA framework Framework used LLDC GPS Communications No No suitable GLA framework available at the time of award MOPAC, on behalf GPS and other Stationery Yes Current supplier of MPS Government offered better frameworks value for money and fit the requirement MOPAC, on behalf GPS and other Consultancy Yes Multiple of MPS Government consultancy frameworks contracts exist, further definition required. MOPAC, on behalf GPS and other Energy Yes No GLA of MPS Government framework frameworks existed. TfL / GLA / TfL / GLA / Facilities Yes N/A MPS MPS management MOPAC, on GPS and other Fuel Cards Yes N/A behalf of MPS Government (Allstar) frameworks MOPAC, on GPS and other Supply of Yes Mandated Home behalf of MPS Government vehicles Office frameworks framework TfL GPS Faxes and Photocopier (Canon & Ricoh) TfL Improvement Carpeting and Efficiency South east TfL London Councils Stationery & IT Supply Group Consumables (LCSG) (Office Depot)
Page 62
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework TfL LCSG Janitorial Items
TfL Yorkshire Franking Purchasing Machines Organisation (Neopost) TfL/GLA TfL/GLA Transcription No services TfL/GLA TfL Temporary Yes Labour Services (39 Suppliers on a PSL) TfL/GLA TfL/GLA On -Line No Reporting Services (Triple 5 Triple 1) TfL/GLA TfL Permanent Yes Recruitment Services (44 Suppliers on a PSL) TfL TfL/London Engineering & Yes Boroughs Project Management Framework (33 Suppliers on a Framework) TfL/London TfL/London Highways YES The London Boroughs Boroughs maintenance Highways Alliance Contract (LoHAC) was set up by TfL and went live in April 2013 for use by TfL and the London Boroughs (Please see LoHAC details below). TfL/MPS/Boroug TfL/MPS/Boroug CCTV YES CCTV Product hs and City Police hs and City Police tender was awarded March 13 for use by all GLA bodies (as well as FCO, Network Rail and MOJ). (Please see
Page 63
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework LoHAC details below). In train:
TfL/GLA/MPS TfL/GLA/MPS Media monitoring and press cutting TfL/GLA TfL/GLA E&I Training
TfL/GLA/Londo TfL/GLA/Londo Events n Transport n Transport Framework Museum Museum TfL GPS Electricity Yes Other member Supply – two of the GLA GPS frameworks Group also use being used - GPS for this - EDF Energy Met Police and (higher volume LFEPA requirements) and British Gas (low volume requirements) TfL GPS Gas Supply - Yes Other Corona Energy membersof the GLA Group also use GPS for this - Met Police and LFEPA TfL GPS Specialist Cloud YES services (P3M Systems Ltd) TFL GPS Commoditised IT Yes Hardware and Software RM721 (SBL, Insight) TFL GPS Multi Yes Disciplinary Framework (Deloitte) TfL/GLA TfL/GLA Architectural, Yes Design and Urbanism Panel TFL/GLA TFL Framework Yes Agreement for the Provision of Services (Asperity Employee
Page 64
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework Benefits Limited) TfL/London TfL/London Traffic Control YES Currently being Boroughs Boroughs Maintenance re-tendered by Service TfL. No other Frameworks identified with the requisite scope or flexibility to meet the requirement. TfL/London TfL/London Safety Camera YES No Frameworks Boroughs Boroughs replacement identified that can supply Home Office Type Approved (HOTA) Safety Cameras Tfl/GLA TfL/GLA Financial Yes Services Framework Tfl/GLA TfL/GLA Legal Services Yes Framework GLA GLA GLA VAT No Helpdesk TfL Group & TfL (Surface) Barclays Cycle YES GLA Superhighways Cycle Safety Checks Framework (Cycle Confident Ltd Cycle Training UK Ltd Bike Works Have Bike Partnership LLP) TfL Group & TfL (Surface) Provision of YES GLA Electric Vehicles and Ultra Low Carbon Vehicles and Vehicle Maintenance Services (ZAP, Citroen UL Ltd, Colt Car Co ltd,
Page 65
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework Smith Electric Vehicles Europe Ltd, Allied Vehicles Ltd, Electric Motorcycles ltd, Mercedes Benz UK ltd, Tata Motors PLC, Ashwoods Automotive Plc, BMW UK Ltd, Toyota (GB) Plc, Micro Vett Spa, AVID Vehicles ltd, EVF Spa, Lease Plan UK Ltd, Allied Vehicles Ltd <) TfL Group TfL (Surface) Framework YES Agreement for Early Contractor Involvement & Construction (Hochtief, BAM Nuttall, Costain, Skanska) TfL Group TfL (Surface) Bulk purchase of YES street furniture and miscellaneous items of equipment (AGD Systems; Aldridge; Bristol Industrial; Clearview; Henry Williams; Mallatite; Motus; NAL; Peek (Imtech Traffic and Infrastructure); Ritherdon; Siemens; Signpost; Telent; Thermotor; Time 24; Traffic Systems (TSL))
Page 66
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework TfL Group TfL (Surface) Supply and YES Installation of traffic control CCTV (Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd ) TfL Group & TfL (Surface) TfL Signage YES GLA Framework (AJ Wells, Stocksigns, Trueform, Pearce, Merson, Link Signs.) TfL Group & TfL (Surface) Pan London YES GLA Cycle Training Services (Cycle Confident Ltd) TfL Group & TfL (Surface) Smarter Travel YES GLA Programme - Workplace Cycle Training Services (Bikeworks, Cycle Confident, Cycle Systems) TfL Group & TfL (Surface) DCPC - Driver NO GLA Certificate of Professional Competence. (Skills Training Ltd, M2 Training Ltd, AA DriveTech Ltd ) TfL Group & TfL (Surface) Magnetometers YES GLA for SCOOT Deployment (Golden River Traffic Ltd) TfL Group, GLA TfL (Surface) London Highway YES & Boroughs Alliance Contract South (EM Highway Services Ltd) TfL Group, GLA TfL (Surface) London Highway YES & Boroughs Alliance Contract Central (Colas, VolkerHighways Page 67
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework and URS (CVU))
TfL Group, GLA TfL (Surface) London Highway YES & Boroughs Alliance Contract North West (Conway AECOM) TfL Group, GLA TfL (Surface) London Highway YES & Boroughs Alliance Contract North East (Ringway Jacobs Ltd) GLA, Borough & TfL (Surface) Legible London YES functional Programme: bodies Totem manufacture, supply, installation and maintenance (Trueform Engineering Ltd) GLA, Borough & TfL (Surface) Cycle Parking YES functional Framework bodies (Bellsure, Bike Dock, Broxap, Cyclehoop, Cyclepods and Lockitsafe. ) TfL Group, GLA TfL (Surface) Supply, YES & Boroughs installation and maintenance of Charge Point Infrastructure (Pod Point Ltd, Chargemaster PLC, Ringway Infrastructure Ltd.) TfL Group TfL (Surface) Smarter Travel YES Programme - Workplace Cycle Parking Equipment (Allpark Ltd, Bike Dock Solutions Ltd, Broxap Ltd and Cyclehoop Ltd.)
Page 68
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework TfL Group, TfL (Surface) Pan -TfL CCTV YES Boroughs, Product Foreign & Framework Commonwealth (Anixter Ltd, Office, Ministry ADI-Gardiner of Justice, Met Ltd.) Police, Highway Agency, Network Rail, City of London Police, Train Operating Companies and the above supply chains TfL Group, GLA TfL (Surface) CCTV - Supply YES and TfL of Equipment Suppliers (Digital Barriers Services Ltd) TfL Group TfL Contactless YES Payment Oyster Cards Suppliers on the framework: ASK S.A, Austrai Cards, Exceet, Gemalto TfL Group TfL / GLA Integration and YES Middleware Services (Detica) TfL Group TfL SAP Managed YES Service (including hosting & third line support). (Axon) TfL Group & TfL Mobile YES GLA Applications : hosting/develop ment/support & maintenance (BT, Trapeze, MDV, 2ergo) TfLGroup TfL Technical YES Smartcard Consultancy Services (Consult Page 69
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework Hyperion / Crisp Telecom Ltd / PA Consulting) TfL Group & TfL GIS Applications YES GLA & London & Services Boroughs Framework. Applications - Desktop/web/m obile/other & Support/Service s & training (ESRI, Pitney Bowes, Intergraph, TfL Group & TfL / GLA SASSPAC YES GLA (framework for analysis, support and development for census data) TfL Group & TfL Telephone YES GLA Accessories & Consumables TfL & GLA TfL / GLA Provision of YES wireless communications including; voice/data/asso ciated airtime & services. (Telefonica & O2) TfL & GLA TfL On Demand' YES Colocation Datacentre catering for continious growth. (Telecity Group) TfL & GLA TfL PCI Audit: YES Validates compliance with PCI Payment and Card Industry Standard (NCC Group) TfL & GLA TfL & GLA Digital Services YES Framework: Lot 1: design/ front Page 70
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework end build/ technical build/content management. L2: requirements definition/ information architecture/usa bility testing. L3: load testing/system testing/accessib ility testing/ compatibility testign.L4 security testing. All government GPS Assistive YES entities Technologies - Telecare, Telehealth and Telecoaching All government GPS Commoditised IT YES entities Hardware and Software (55) All government GPS Desktop21 (3) YES entities All government GPS Digital YES entities Continuity (24) All government GPS G-Cloud II&III YES entities (750) All government GPS GSi Convergence YES entities (1) All government GPS ICT Consultancy YES entities and Delivery Services (24) All government GPS Information YES entities Management and Learning Services (18) All government GPS IT Hardware and YES entities Solutions (17) All government GPS IT Managed YES entities Services (11) All government GPS Local YES entities Government Software
Page 71
Service provided Framework/Con Service provided Above OJEU Reason for not to: tract: (company): threshold? following a GLA Group framework Application Solutions (39) All government GPS Managed YES entities Telecommunicat ions Convergence Framework (3) All government GPS Payroll Services YES entities (1) All government GPS Payroll, Human YES entities Resources (HR) and Finance Services (1) All government GPS PSN YES entities Connectivity (12) All government GPS PSN Services YES entities (29) All government GPS Software YES entities Application Solutions (20) All government GPS Sprint ii (1) YES entities All government GPS Traffic YES entities Management Technology (33) Available to all MPS, through Mobile phones YES TfL Wireless forces MOPAC (Vodafone) Communications Framework Contract (ITC10686) was awarded in April 09 for use of all GLA bodies and the London Boroughs Available to all MPS, through Legal services forces MOPAC Available to all MPS, through Body armour forces MOPAC (Home Office mandated)
Page 72 Agenda Item 8
Subject: People’s Question Time Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Director of Communications and External Date: 7 November 2013 Affairs This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 This report updates and consults the Committee on the proposals for the 28 th People’s Question Time (PQT). 2. Recommendations 2.1 That the Committee notes and comments on the proposals for People’s Question Time on Wednesday 26 March 2014 contained in this report (particular views are sought on: (i) the geographical area; and (ii) the Chair of the event); and 2.2 That the Committee provides any views, ideas or suggestions on further ways to improve People’s Question Time as a consultative event. 3. Background 3.1 The purpose of this report is to update and consult the Assembly on plans for People’s Question Time in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames on Wednesday 26 March 2014. This will be the 28th PQT the GLA has held. 3.2 People’s Question Time is one of the statutory requirements under the GLA Act 1999. It is a joint event between the Mayor and the London Assembly. PQTs are organised and funded by the External Relations Directorate through a Project delivery team, which also involves the London Engagement Team, the Mayor’s Office and the Assembly Secretariat. 4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 Chair, time and date The proposed chair of this PQT event will be Tony Arbour, Assembly Member. The meeting will be held from 7pm – 9pm on Wednesday 26 March 2014.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk
Page 73
4.2 PQT venue The London Engagement Team has identified Richard Challoner School, Manor Drive North, New Malden, Surrey KT3 5PE as the preferred venue. The venue has a capacity of 500 people and has good transport links. 4.3 Agenda The proposed agenda for this event is as follows: 1. Growing London's economy 2. Housing 3. Transport & Environment 4. Policing & Community Safety 5. Other issues 4.4 Public Engagement The PQT Project team will work with the host local authority (Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames) to target specific groups within the area to enable the GLA to further leverage their established consultation networks. 4.5 Use of such local networks and a number of other marketing and promotional initiatives, using both traditional marketing techniques (such as posters, leaflets and local press) and digital marketing techniques (listed below) will ensure that PQTs continue to reach out to potential new audiences, whilst continuing to ensure audiences reflect the host boroughs and London’s diversity. 4.6 A number of digital marketing initiatives are currently being used and developed, including: • Widening the use of social media tools, including Twitter to engage with Londoners to have their say prior to, during and post event; • Specific channels targeted at younger Londoners, such as internal newsletters/databases including Capital Child and CYPU (Children and Young People’s Unit), populating online listing sites via Bullseyehub, and schools and library email lists; • More robust and responsive email databases gathered from policy areas, local authorities and previous events; • Opportunities for Londoners who are unable to attend in person to view/access the event online (via podcasts, video and transcripts); and • Offering the chance for people to request and receive e-tickets via on-line registration. 4.7 Assembly Consultation Addressing the Committee’s previous concerns regarding the lack of consultation with constituency Assembly Members on venue choices, Tony Arbour AM as chair of the event has been consulted on the choice of date and venue. The date has been set around his availability and he has approved the venue choice.
Page 74
4.8 Accessibility In selecting the Richard Challoner School as the proposed venue, the London Engagement Team will undertake an accessibility audit to ensure that the event is accessible to all. As with all PQT events, there will be access facilities such as British Sign Language and palantypist translation. The PQT programme will be available, on request, in alternative formats, eg braille and large print. 4.9 Feedback The London Engagement Team encourages people to complete feedback forms at the end the event, data which is compiled as an evaluation report. E-flyers including an online feedback survey are also sent out post event. 4.10 Strategy Implications PQT is an important part of the consultation calendar providing an excellent forum for Londoners to communicate with the organisation on the issues that are important to them. The consistency of delivering this event twice a year means that it contributes to establishing the GLA as an organisation that is listening to Londoners. As already indicated, PQT is a corporate and joint statutory responsibility for the Mayor and the London Assembly. 4.11 Future Dates The borough and dates for future planned PQTs is as follows. Potential venues are being investigated in the following boroughs and once a list has been compiled, consultation will take place with the appropriate Assembly Member. November 20 14 Waltham Forest March 20 15 Haringey November 20 15 Hilling don March 20 16 Croydon 5. Legal Implications 5.1 Twice in every financial year, the Mayor and the Assembly must hold and attend a meeting that will be open to all members of the public, called “the People’s Question Time” (“PQT”). The purpose of PQT is to afford an opportunity to members of the public to put questions to the Mayor and Assembly members, and to enable them to respond. Section 48 of the GLA Act 1999 sets out various requirements for the meeting: • The Mayor approves the form of the PQT meeting, and can make formal procedures about how it is to be held, following consultation with the Assembly about them. These procedures can regulate how the public can put questions, and could include provisions for suppressing or preventing disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at the meeting, including a power of exclusion. • Members of the public who attend or speak at PQT do so subject to, and in accordance with, those procedures.
Page 75
• The Mayor decides the date of PQT meetings, following consultation with the Assembly, the date of which must not be less than one month before or one month after the State of London Debate. • The Mayor must decide the venue for the meeting not later than one month prior to the date on which the PQT is to take place. • The Mayor must give adequate notice of the date and place of the meetings to members of the public at least one month prior to it taking place. • Following consultation with the Assembly the Mayor may appoint any person to preside at the PQT meeting, whether or not that person has a connection with the GLA. 6. Financial Implications 6.1 For 26 March 2014 it is envisaged that that the costs for the event will be up to £25,000, which can be met from the existing PQT budget, which is managed by the London Engagement Team. List of appendices to this report: None Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Dáire Basra, Events for London Telephone: 020 7983 4033 Email: [email protected]
Page 76 Agenda Item 9
Subject: Draft Committee Timetable 201 4/1 5
Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 Nov ember 201 3 This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 The programme of meetings for the London Assembly and its Committees is agreed in principle each year by the GLA Oversight Committee before being submitted to the Assembly’s Annual Meeting. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Committee approves in principle the draft timetable of London Assembly and committee meetings for the 2014/15 year, noting that the final programme of meetings is subject to related decisions by the London Assembly to be taken at the Annual Meeting in May 2014. 3. Background 3.1 The draft calendar of Assembly and Committee meetings for 2014/15 has been subject to consultation within the Greater London Authority and with the Functional Bodies. The timetable avoids where possible scheduling meetings to coincide with school holidays, party conferences and significant religious holidays. Mayor’s Question Time (MQT) meetings are set first as statutory meetings. The Budget and Performance Committee is also required to meet at set times due to the budget-setting timetable.
3.2 The Mayor’s Office has been consulted on the dates of MQT. The draft timetable has been circulated to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and Transport for London as part of the consultation.
3.3 At the meeting of the then Business Management and Appointments Committee (BMAC) held on 9 February 2005, it was agreed that, if during the year a committee modified its approved work programme and/or number of meetings in response to topical events, and an ad hoc extra meeting was called for, that would be permitted if the members of the committee concerned agreed; if two or more members of that committee did not agree to a proposal for an extra meeting, the matter would be referred to BMAC – now the GLA Oversight Committee - for determination (noting that
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 77
the Chair of GLA Oversight Committee has existing delegated authority from the Assembly to determine requests for additional committee meetings).
4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 Pre-election periods take up a few weeks at both the start (for the combined London Borough and European Parliament elections) and end of the year (2015 General Election). The proposed date for the Annual Meeting is Wednesday 14 May 2014, during the pre-election period. This would allow the Assembly to establish committees in time for committee meetings to begin in the first week of June after a two-month gap. 4.2 The other impact of the two pre-election periods is that there are only nine months in which to fit the ten statutory MQT meetings; there will therefore be two in July, held three weeks apart. 4.3 For the same reason, Committees which usually have ten slots during the year have nine slots on this draft timetable, and the Police and Crime Committee has currently been allocated 18 slots instead of 20 (noting that this situation is the subject of discussion with the Committee). The Committees with 4 or 6 slots in a normal year will have the same number in 2014/15 (and other bodies, such as the Education Panel, will be fitted in around the dates identified here in due course). 4.4 Other points of note in this draft timetable are: • The later Liberal Democrats conference (rescheduled because of the Scottish independence referendum) means that October has fewer available slots, so the first Plenary meeting after the school summer holidays will be in September not October; and • The Assembly’s Budget meetings in January and February 2015 are based on the expected timetable for the 2015/16 budget process. 4.5 As in previous years, all Members will be given the opportunity to have calendar invitations to all meetings and committee pre-meetings added to their electronic diaries. 4.6 The Committee is requested to approve in principle a draft timetable of meetings for 2014/15. A copy of the draft timetable is attached at Appendix 1.
5. Legal Implications 5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report. 6. Financial Implications 6.1 There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 - Draft Committee Timetable for 2014/15
Page 78
Loca l Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Dale Langford, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4415 Email: [email protected]
Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 80 !""#$%&'() DRAFT Committee Timetable 2014/15 updated: 15 October 2013
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
May 2014 1 2 3 4 November 1 2
5 Bank 6 7 8 910113 4 Environment 5 Plenary 6 Economy 7 8 9 holiday 12 13 14 Annual 15 16 17 18 10 11 Housing 12 Transport 13 Police / 14 15 16 Meeting Oversight 2.00pm 19 20 21 22 London Borough 23 24 25 17 18 Planning 19 MQT 20 Budget 21 22 23 (and European) Elections 26 Bank 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 Health 26 Regeneration 27 Police 28 29 30 holiday June 1 December 2 3 Environment 4 Transport / 5 Budget 6 78 1 2 Housing 3 Plenary 4 Police / 5 6 7 Health 2.00pm Environment 2.00pm 9 10 Planning 11 MQT 12 Police 13 14 15 8 9 Economy 10 Transport / 11 Budget 12 13 14 Audit 2.00pm 16 17 Housing 18 Plenary 19 Regeneration 20 21 22 15 16 Regeneration 17 MQT / 18 Police 19 20 21 / Oversight BMS 2.30pm 2.00pm 23 24 Economy 25 Oversight 26 Police 27 28 29 22 23 24 25 Christmas Day 26 Boxing 27 28 Day 30 29 30 31
July 1 Environment 2 MQT 3 Budget 4 5 6 January 2015 1 New Year's Day 2 3 4 7 8 Health 9 Transport / 10 Police / 11 12 13 5 6 Budget 7 Environment / 8 Police / 9 10 11 Planning 2.00pm Housing 2.00pm Regeneration Budget 2.00pm 2.00pm 14 15 Regeneration 16 Plenary / 17 Economy / 18 19 20 12 13 Budget 14 Transport / 15 Economy 16 17 18 / Audit 3.30pm Oversight 2.30pm BMS 2.00pm Health 2.00pm
21 22 Police 23 MQT 24 25 26 27 19 20 Housing 21 MQT 22 Planning 23 24 25
28 29 Eid al Fitr 30 31 26 27 Oversight 28 Plenary 29 Police 30 31 (Draft Budget)
August 1 2 3 February 1 45 6 7 89102 3 Environment 4 Regeneration 5 Economy 6 7 8
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 Housing 11 Plenary 12 Police 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22 2324 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
25 Bank 26 27 28 29 3031 23 MQT 24 Oversight 25 Transport 26 Police 27 28 Holiday (Final September March 1 1 2 Environment 3 Transport / 4 Police / 5 67 2 3 Environment 4 Health 5 Economy 6 7 8 Health 2.00pm Environment 2.00pm 8 9 Housing 10 Plenary 11 Budget / 12 13 14 9 10 Regeneration 11 Plenary 12 Police 13 14 15 /Economy 2.30pm Oversight 2.00pm 15 16 Regeneration 17 MQT 18 Police 19 20 21 16 17 Housing / 18 Transport / 19 Budget 20 21 22 Audit 2.00pm Planning 2.00pm 22 23 24 25 Rosh Hashanah 26 Rosh 27 28 23 24 Oversight / 25 MQT 26 Police 27 28 29 Hashanah BMS 3.30pm 29 30 30 General 31 Election pre- election period begins
October 1 2 Economy 3 4 Yom 5 April 1 2 3 Good Friday 4 5 Kippur / Passover Passover Eid al Adha 67 8 9 Environment 10 11 12 6 Bank holiday7 8 9 10 11 12 Police 2.00pm 13 14 Transport / 15 Regeneration / 16 Oversight / 17 18 19 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Planning 3.30pm Budget 2.00pm Housing 2.00pm 20 21 Police / 22 MQT / 23 Diwali 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BMS 3.30 pm Audit 2.30pm 2728 29 30 31 27 28 29 30
All meetings start at 10.00am unless stated otherwise. Key to Assembly meetings and committees: Key: Weekends and Certain major religious Audit : Audit Panel bank holidays holidays are shown in red. BMS : Budget Monitoring Sub-committee School holidays Dates for school holidays in the majority of Ch for Chamber or committee Budget : Budget and Performance Committee London boroughs; some schools may vary. room number shown for each CHC : Confirmation Hearings Committee (if required) meeting Economy : Economy Committee Labour Party Dates for 2014 Party Conferences based Pre-election periods for Environment : Environment Committee Conservative Party on previous year's pattern [Lib Dem 22 May 2014 London Health : Health Committee Green Party Conference later because of Scottish borough elections and Housing : Housing Committee Liberal Democrats referendum]; weekdays only shown. 7 May 2015 General Election MQT : Assembly Mayor's Question Time Oversight : GLA Oversight Committee LFEPA dates are those scheduled by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority for Planning : Planning Committee their Full Authority meetings (not usually held at City Hall). Plenary : Assembly Plenary Police : Police and Crime Committee Regeneration : Regeneration Committee Transport : Transport Committee
Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 82 Agenda Item 10
Subject: Secretariat Quarterly Review , Quarter 2, 2013-14 Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 November 2013 This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 This report presents an overview of the work and outputs of the Assembly core Secretariat during the second quarter of 2013/14 (July-September 2013). The report also highlights responses to previous reports that have been received during the period and indicates where the Assembly’s recommendations have been accepted and implemented. 1.2 The purpose of the report is to inform the Committee’s role of overseeing the work programme and provide Members with an opportunity to comment on committees’ future work programmes. The report is structured to reflect the committees agreed by the Assembly at its Annual Meeting in May 2013.
2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Committee notes the core Secretariat quarterly monitoring report for the second quarter of 2013-14 (July-September 2013). 3. The Mayor and GLA Group’s budgets and performance 3.1 The Budget and Performance Committee’s report Smart policing: How the Metropolitan Police Service can make better use of technology was launched in August and received extensive media coverage in the local, national and trade press. The report highlighted the expensive, outdated and ineffective state of the Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) technology and suggested ways that the Service could reduce costs in the future by implementing new technologies, such as mobile devices and predictive crime mapping. Since the report was published, police technology has become an important topic nationally, with both the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing speaking on the subject and commenting on many of the issues raised by the Committee. The MPS welcomed the report when it was published and the Committee looks forward to responses to its
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk
Page 83
detailed recommendations in November. The Committee will continue to monitor the Met’s progress in implementing its new technology strategy over the coming months and years. 3.2 In July, the Budget Monitoring Sub-Committee reviewed the Mayor’s progress towards meeting his target to build 55,000 affordable homes by March 2015. The Committee questioned GLA officers on how the GLA met the 2012-13 annual target for affordable housing completions, and why performance slowed in the first quarter of 2013-14. Following the meeting, the Committee wrote to request that the GLA provides more detail on the types of affordable housing being built in London, such as the number of bedrooms in each house. The GLA has acted on this request, and the information is now published on the GLA website. 1 3.3 In July, the Budget and Performance Committee examined the GLA’s first Social Impact Bond (SIB), set up to help reduce rough sleeping. SIBs are a very recent development, and this was the first time a SIB had been subject to public scrutiny in this way. SIBs are a new approach to financing front-line services, and involve up-front investment from individuals and organisations that may generate a financial return depending on performance against a range of measures. The SIB is ultimately funded with up to £5 million over three years from the Department for Communities and Local Government; it is likely that more funding of this scale for any activity will be contingent on taking a SIB approach over the coming years. 3.4 On 9 May 2013, the Government announced that it had appointed Neil Kinghan, a former senior civil servant, as the independent reviewer of the Riot (Damages) Act . The Chair of the Budget and Performance Committee wrote to Mr Kinghan on behalf of the Committee to welcome the review of the Act, which the Committee had called for in its report, Picking up the pieces , published in October 2012. On 3 July 2013, the Chair and Officers met with Mr Kinghan to discuss the Act, and whether it should be replaced or improved. Mr Kinghan stated that he had found the Committee’s report very useful, and that it contained a number of practical recommendations. Mr Kinghan concluded by saying that he would submit his review to the Home Secretary in September 2013. Officers are following this up with the Home Office.
3.5 In September, the Committee questioned David Goldstone, Transport for London’s (TfL) Chief Finance Officer, and David James, Chair of the Independent Investment Programme Advisory Group, on TfL’s Investment Programme . Following a Freedom of Information Act request, the Committee was given, for the first time, a detailed breakdown of TfL’s ten-year capital spending plans reconciled to its latest business plan. Using this information, the Committee was able to examine how TfL’s investment plans have changed over time; how investment decisions are taken; and how changes in funding levels and programme costs are managed. The findings from the meeting will contribute to the Committee’s Pre-Budget Report. At the meeting, the Committee also received a commitment from TfL to provide the Committee with a similar level of detail on the investment programme when the next business plan is published later this year. TfL will also consider whether it can include more information on changes to its investment plans when it publishes its next business plan, due in December 2013. 4. London’s Economy 4.1 The Economy Committee held its annual State of the London Economy discussion with Kit Malthouse, Deputy Mayor for Business and Enterprise, and Gerard Lyons, the Mayor’s Economic
1 http://data.london.gov.uk/datafiles/housing/affordable-housing-bedroom-size-london.xls Page 84
Adviser, in July. The discussion covered a number of areas including the outlook and risks to the London economy, the work of the Mayor in supporting the London Living Wage, and his work to support SMEs. 4.2 The meeting also received responses to a number of pieces of work that the Economy Committee has published over the past six months: • On the ticketing strategy for the Olympic Games , the Mayor broadly supported the Committee’s recommendations, committing to encouraging future event organisers for greater transparency and fairness on issues such as ticket pricing and availability, as well as how allocations are made to corporate sponsors. A Committee visit to Twickenham to discuss the ticketing strategy for the World Rugby Cup in 2015 will take place in January to see whether its recommendations have been adopted for this high profile event. • In its response to the Committee’s report on adult careers services , the Skills Funding Agency clarified what role the London Enterprise Panel (LEP) can play in shaping the design and delivery of the proposed new careers agency for London, while outlining its ongoing work in making more information publicly available. The London Enterprise Panel has accepted the Committee’s recommendations that the LEP champion effective adult careers services in London and engage proactively with the procurement round for the next iteration of the careers service. The LEP Skills and Employment Working Group has agreed to meet Members during the next phase of this work. • Many of the areas highlighted by the Committee have been included in the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on High Streets which is currently being finalised. The Mayor also supported further examination of the Committee’s proposals on Compulsory Purchase Orders, while the Outer London Commission will look at the potential of establishing high street collection points for online orders to help drive footfall. • The Mayor has accepted the recommendation for London to be a zero hunger city and the GLA is using this label when it announces new initiatives. The label has also given a higher internal profile to the GLA’s work in this area and external stakeholders have highlighted the momentum the report has given to this agenda. London boroughs’ responses list a number of existing and new initiatives aimed at addressing food poverty . These include taking up recommendations to develop food poverty action plans and designate or recruit food poverty link workers. 4.3 The rapporteurship investigation into small theatres , led by Tom Copley AM, launched its report, Centre Stage, at an event at the Finborough Theatre, Earls Court, attended by over 50 guests. There was widespread coverage for the report across the media and in local, trade and national press. A meeting with the Mayor’s Culture Team has been set for late November and a workshop with stakeholders to take forward key recommendations will take place at City Hall on 12 December. 4.4 Building on its May meeting with construction industry experts, the Economy Committee published a summary report on the challenges facing the sector and identified key areas where the Mayor could intervene to support the sector which has contracted by 7 per cent in the past year and by 19 per cent in the past five years. The report was published in a slide pack format and received coverage in regional and trade media. The summary report highlighted the demand for apprentices in the sector and a more detailed inquiry into this topic will take place in the New Year.
Page 85
4.5 The Economy Committee continued work on its investigation into low pay in London with two specific strands of work designed to develop its evidence base. Quantitative research has been commissioned from the GLA and ONS to identify the rate of low pay persistence in sectors of the London economy; and a roundtable debate with representatives of the four main sectors where low pay is prevalent took place in September under Chatham House rules.A draft report is expected in November. 5 Housing 5.1 As a part of its review of specialist housing options for older people (often known as sheltered or retirement housing), the Housing Committee’s July meeting examined options for Mayoral support to deliver new homes in this sector for different client groups. A short report drawing on best practice from across London will be published shortly. 5.2 The Housing Committee also considered its quarterly report that monitors the Mayor’s housing commitments . The report sets out progress to date with meeting the Mayor’s targets and recent out-turn data for housing completions. The Committee’s November meeting will use this information in putting questions to the Deputy Mayor for Housing, Land and Property. 5.3 Following up recommendations from previous Assembly work on overcrowding in the social rented sector, the Housing Committee held a meeting in September designed to update its evidence base on what progress the Mayor had made to meet his target to end severe overcrowding by 2016. The November committee meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss with the Deputy Mayor for Housing, Land and Property what further steps are planned or deemed necessary. There are clear links between this investigation and the specialist housing work as the delivery of more and better quality retirement housing can help alleviate overcrowding. 6 Regeneration 6.1 In July, the Regeneration Committee visited the regeneration programme at Nine Elms , Vauxhall and Battersea. Members met with representatives from the Nine Elms Vauxhall Partnership, Lambeth and Wandsworth councils, and developers, to learn about the vision for the area, the role of the partnership, and challenges faced in delivering the programme. The Committee visited several locations at the site including New Covent Garden Market, Albert Embankment, Market Towers and St James’s Riverlight development. Topics of discussion included the relationship between the GLA and the Partnership, transport infrastructure, local employment opportunities, and public and environmental amenities such as schools, parks and cultural enterprises. 6.2 The Regeneration Committee visited the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in September to observe work underway to transform the Park into its legacy uses and to learn about the progress of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) to deliver regeneration in east London. Members received a tour of the Park with the Chief Executive and the Executive Director of Regeneration and Community Partnerships of the LLDC. The visit also included a meeting with apprentices employed in the transformation phase, and a tour of the recently developed BT Sport studios at iCity in the former Broadcast Centre. The Committee discussed a wide range of issues from the use of the Olympic and Paralympic venues, employment opportunities, to new housing, the financial resources required by the LLDC. The visit informed the Committee’s discussion with the LLDC at its subsequent meeting in October.
Page 86
7 Planning 7.1 At its July meeting the Planning Committee discussed the Mayor’s 2020 Vision with a panel of experts including Lord Adonis and Sir Edward Lister. Discussion focused on infrastructure need and also the extent to which the Mayor’s 2020 Vision has identified and addressed the challenges of London’s future growth. Members also questioned experts on whether the Mayor has adequately addressed what is required for London’s growth to be managed sustainably without jeopardising quality of life or competitiveness. This is part of the Committee’s on-going work programme to inform its contribution to the forthcoming proposed major alterations to the London Plan which are expected early in 2014. 7.2 The Planning Committee also agreed the note of the site visit to “The Crystal” in the Royal Victoria Docks. The Crystal is a sustainable cities initiative by Siemens and home to the world's largest exhibition on urban sustainability. The visit note provides the basis of the Committee’s forthcoming response to the Mayor’s consultation on the Supplementary Planning Guidance on sustainable design and construction. 7.3 On 27 August, the Mayor responded to the Planning Committee’s report on the future of London’s Town Centres (published 4 July 2013). The Mayor has undertaken to take into account the Committee’s recommendations and case studies when finalising his Supplementary Planning Guidance that is expected to be published in the autumn. The Mayor has also asked his Outer London Commission to take into consideration the report as part of the Commission’s evidence base as part of its future work and deliberations. Specifically, in relation to Recommendation 4 of the report (monitoring the impact of permitted development rights to allow change of use from office to residential), the Mayor has invited the Committee to undertake a further investigation so that “representations can be made to Government at the appropriate time”. 8 Health 8.1 The Health Committee’s meeting on 26 September, focused on accident and emergency provision. It questioned a range of expert guests, including NHS England, and Ruth Carnall, consultant to the Mayor on strategic health matters, on how prepared London’s accident and emergency departments are to cope with anticipated winter pressures, particularly as current attendance levels are in line with what would normally be seen at the height of winter. The Committee will publish its conclusions and recommendations shortly. 8.2 In addition to the scheduled programme of meetings, the Health Committee hosted a stakeholder engagement event . Held on 9 September, the event brought together the health leaders of the capital to discuss what more can be done to reduce health inequalities in London. Delegates listened to keynote addresses from key experts including Professor Sir Michael Marmot and Professor John Ashton and shared their views during two planned plenary sessions. The Committee will continue to work with stakeholders to develop some of the ideas raised and will publish a summary of the key points.
Page 87
9 Environment 9.1 The Environment Committee made a response to the consultation on the environmental impact of the proposed High Speed 2 (HS2) rail link. The Committee said that there were a number of concerns with the proposals as they stood, that more mitigation and compensation was required for the environmental impacts, and that aspects of the scheme should be reconsidered. The latter included whether to bring the scheme all the way in to Euston, tunnelling the route through the Colne Valley green belt, and how London’s transport network would deal with the extra passengers. Reaching similar conclusions to a parallel Transport Committee response to another HS2 consultation at the same time, the Committee said that, when the costs of these issues were assessed, there should be a fundamental review of the cost-benefit case for HS2. In the course of the summer and autumn many of these concerns have been echoed in the London and national debate over HS2. 9.2 The Environment Committee continues to press the Mayor to take further steps to improve London’s air quality . At its July meeting it discussed with Matthew Pencharz, Mayoral Advisor, Environment and Political Affairs, and Michèle Dix, Managing Director, Planning, Transport for London, the initial scoping work of the Mayor’s proposed Ultra Low Emissions Zone in central London. This policy was proposed by the Assembly in 2009 and the Committee has held subsequent discussions with TfL about how such a scheme could be implemented. The Committee has exchanged correspondence with the Mayor and with TfL since the meeting, to ensure that TfL’s options put forward for consultation are effective, including applying the Zone to all vehicles, and using good models of the effects of the different options. 9.3 The Committee has also responded to the Defra consultation on local air quality management , saying that local Air Quality Management Areas, local air quality monitoring stations, and other local responsibilities around air quality should be retained as they underpin efforts to improve air quality in London, including the Mayor’s air quality strategy and provisions in the London Plan. Similar points were made in the Mayor’s response to the consultation, as well as by independent London- based experts, providing a strong message from London on the consultation. 9.4 Over the summer the Committee launched a survey to capture Londoners ’ views on the threats to London’s biodiversity and green spaces . Over 800 responses were received and Secretariat officers are now analysing the data to produce a summary report for future publication. Material from the survey was used to inform the briefing for the September committee meeting which discussed whether there is a need for a revision to the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy or further Mayoral guidance. Further views from the boroughs are being sought in preparing the case which will be made to the Mayor. 9.5 Jenny Jones AM as rapporteur is leading an investigation into mooring on London’s waterways and the environmental impacts of boat engines and generators. Many responses have been received to a call for evidence and an open, informal meeting has been held with a range of waterway organisations and interested individuals. A report is to be published in the autumn. 9.6 The Committee has also responded to a discussion paper from the Airports Commission on aviation noise , emphasising the severe impacts of aviation noise on many Londoners and the Assembly’s position against expansion of Heathrow and against night flights from Heathrow. The Commission is to make recommendations to the Government on airport capacity nationally.
Page 88
10 Policing and Crime 10.1 The Police and Crime Committee published its response to the consultation on the Mayor’s revised violence against women and girls strategy in August. The response set out a five point plan to ensure that the Mayor delivers on his manifesto promise to make London a safer place for women. In light of funding cuts to services that work with victims of violence, the Committee called for leadership from MOPAC to ensure a consistently high standard of care and support. 10.2 The Police and Crime Committee’s recommendations included the need for MOPAC to complete its review of how effectively demand for domestic violence services is being met and to develop a plan to fill gaps in service. It also argued that the Mayor should commit to deliver an increase in the supply of Independent Domestic Violence Advocates, rather than simply maintain their current level, as the service is already struggling to meet demand. A response to the Committee’s recommendations is expected shortly. 10.3 In August the Police and Crime Committee published a report about the Mayor’s proposals to replace existing Community and Police Engagement Groups (CPEGs) with Safer Neighbourhood Boards . The report was informed by a public meeting in June in which MOPAC was criticised for providing inadequate or contradictory information to stakeholders about the basic functions of Safer Neighbourhood Boards, how they will be governed and their role within the current borough policing structures. In response to concerns raised at the meeting, MOPAC’s Adviser for Neighbourhoods wrote the Committee to clarify the role that Safer Neighbourhood Boards are expected to play in respect of victim complaints. 10.4 The Police and Crime Committees’s report set out a series of question marks over the responsibilities that MOPAC wants Safer Neighbourhood Board to fulfill and calls for clearer guidance. In his initial response to the report, the Mayor thanked the Committee for its work and acknowledged how important it is to get the transition to the new model right. A further response is expected. 10.5 In July, the Police and Crime Committee established a working group to look at the use of stop and search in London . The working group is exploring the impact of a new approach to stop and search introduced by the Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe in January 2012. 10.6 The working group has met twice with a range of experts including lawyers, community groups and leading academics. The working group has also benefited from site visits and its work will be informed by focus groups held with young people across London. Following an initial discussion with MPS officers leading on stop and search, the Committee will discuss its findings with the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime and the Deputy Commissioner at a future Q&A meeting. The full Committee will contribute to the report, expected to be published in the winter. 10.7 The Police and Crime Committee reviewed the impact of its report on victim care in July, six months after its report was published. As a result of the Committee’s recommendations, a new training package on victim care is being rolled out to all neighbourhood officers. The Deputy Commissioner told the Committee that, following a meeting with Victim Care in August, it is expected the package would be rolled out in November and embedded in training for 19,000
Page 89
officers. Additionally, having acknowledged the Committee’s concerns about the accuracy about information shared with Victim Support, new processes mean that the MPS is now able to turn around virtually all requests from Victim Support in less than one working day. 10.8 The Police and Crime Committee holds regular question and answer meetings to hold MOPAC to account. As usual, a senior MPS representative also attended each of the meetings in this quarter. The Committee has previously scrutinised MOPAC’s oversight of professional standards and ethics in the MPS. This continued in July when the Committee sought more details on the Mayor’s proposal to establish an ethics panel in MOPAC. The Committee is preparing a response to MOPAC on how such a panel might be established. The Committee also continued its scrutiny of the Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan and associated changes to the Neighbourhood Policing Model as the first boroughs transferred to the new model in the summer. 10.9 The Police and Crime Committee has a role in examining issues important to crime reduction in London. In July, experts in criminal justice were invited to speak to the Committee about the implications of nation-wide changes to the probation service in London; progress in tackling court delays; and use of cautions. 11 Transport in London 11.1 The Transport Committee published its response to TfL’s consultation on Crossrail 2 in July 2013. The Committee has welcomed the development of Crossrail 2 to help address London’s rapid population growth and overcrowding on the transport network. It suggested that a regional route concentrating on greater London will bring more benefits including boosting the capital’s economy by up to £49 billion. The Committee’s response achieved good coverage across a range of media, including BBC breakfast bulletins, City AM , Evening Standard , trade and local press. 11.2 The Transport Committee published its response to the formal consultation on the design of HS2 in July. The Committee’s response stated that current plans fail to deliver passenger improvements at Euston, which is a missed opportunity, and called for improvements to onward travel for passengers and safer routes for pedestrians and cyclists. The Committee’s response achieved media coverage including an interview with the Transport Chair on BBC London evening news. 11.3 The Transport Committee published its response to Network Rail’s market study for London and the South East in July, expressing support for Network Rail’s proposals for future investment in rail service capacity in the capital. 11.4 The Transport Committee published its letter to Sir Howard Davies, the Chair of the Airports Commission, on improving surface transport access at airports in September. The letter set out a range of measures to improve surface transport access at Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and Heathrow airports. Sir Howard Davies has responded positively to the letter, reporting, in particular, that his team will explore the Committee’s suggestion that Oyster ticketing facilities be extended to Gatwick and Stansted airports. The Committee’s letter achieved coverage in the media including the Telegraph , CityAM and transport trade. 11.5 The Transport Committee held a second meeting for its bus services investigation in July 2013 where it questioned representatives of TfL, London Councils, the NHS, AgeUK London, Stagecoach London and Sheffield City Council about changing demand for bus services and TfL’s approach to
Page 90
planning and reviewing bus services. The Committee also conducted three site visits in July and August to meet local residents in Peckham and Roehampton who are campaigning for changes to local bus routes and to see Stagecoach London’s operations at its West Ham bus garage. The Committee held an informal meeting with Abellio London in September to gather further information on bus operators’ views. The Committee is now producing its findings and recommendations on bus services. 11.6 The Transport Committee used its meeting in September to discuss the Mayor’s future transport priorities as outlined in his 2020 Vision and other recent Mayoral publications including the Roads Task Force report, the Road Safety Action Plan and the Cycling Vision. The Committee heard from a range of guests including the Deputy Mayor for Transport, Professor Begg of Transport Times, Professor Glaister of the RAC and representatives of TfL, Living Streets and the rail industry. 12 The Education Panel 12.1 The Education Panel has been established to provide oversight of the Mayor’s education programme which was launched last year. Three meetings will look at different aspects of the Mayor’s programme, reviewing progress to date and assessing the value added of the Mayoral intervention. The Panel’s inaugural meeting was designed to review the crisis in school places and to assess what role the GLA can have in supporting more effective planning for school paces through better modelling of demand and supply. 13 Meetings of the full Assembly 13.1 The Assembly meets ten times every year to question the Mayor publicly on behalf of the electorate. There were two Mayor’s Question Time meetings in the second quarter of 2013-14, held on 17 July and 11 September 2013.
13.2 There were two Plenary meetings of the Assembly in the second quarter. On 24 July the Assembly put questions to put questions to Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, on his 2020 Vision for London. On 3 September there was an extraordinary meeting to put questions to Sir Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor for Planning, Richard Blakeway, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Stewart Murray, Assistant Director – Planning amongst others on the Mayor’s Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan. 14 GLA Oversight 14.1 Transparency of the GLA Group: The GLA Oversight Committee’s report on the transparency of the GLA Group, led by rapporteur John Biggs AM, was published on 26 June 2013 and formally agreed at the GLA Oversight Committee meeting of 18 July 2013, following a question and answer session with representatives from TfL; the Information Commissioner’s Office; and MayorWatch alongside the GLA’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Planning; and the Head of Governance and Resilience. On 20 September, the Committee received very positive responses from the Mayor and TfL which are summarised in Agenda Item 12. 14.2 Head of Paid Service Consultations: The GLA Oversight Committee received a consultation report at its 18 July 2013 meeting on the pay award for 2013-14 and was consulted on proposed
Page 91
changes to the Facilities Management Unit in the Resources Directorate at its meeting of 10 September 2013.
14.3 Other Reports: In this period, the Committee was also consulted on People’s Question Time, the Annual Governance Statement, received a report on the workforce composition in the Secretariat and put questions to the Mayor’s Director of Communications and External Affairs and the Assistant Director of London Engagement on a strategic review of marketing and communications research project. 15 Events 15.1 The Assembly has a programme of events in order to fulfil Members’ representative roles, raise the profile of the Assembly, and engage Londoners in the work of the Assembly. For this quarter, the following took place: • On 17 July, the Assembly hosted a briefing by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) on the work of the Metropolitan Police’s Wildlife Crime Unit. • On 17 July, the Assembly hosted a visit from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Government of Montserrat. • On 18 July, the Assembly hosted an Olympic Anniversary reception in London’s Living Room for 200 Games Makers and sports volunteers in recognition of their work and commitment during the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. • On 19 July, the Assembly hosted a delegation from Taiwan to discuss the Assembly’s role in the capital’s government. • On 11 September, the Assembly hosted a briefing by Move Your Money UK, focusing on ethical banking. • On 11 September, TfL graduate recruits and students from Dickinson College, Pennsylvania were given a briefing on the work of the London Assembly and attended MQT. • On 24 September, the Assembly hosted a delegation from Seoul, South Korea to discuss the Assembly’s role in the capital’s government. 16. Legal Implications 16.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report. 17. Financial Implications 17.1 There are no financial implications to the GLA arising from this report
Page 92
List of appendices to this report: None Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Katie Smith, Head of Scrutiny Telephone: 020 7983 4423 Email: [email protected]
Page 93 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 94 Agenda Item 11
Subject: Assembly Budget Requirement 201 4-15 Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat and Date: 7 November 2013 Executive Director of Resources This report will be considered in public 1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out the timetable and process for the Assembly to inform the Mayor of the Assembly’s estimated 2014-15 budget requirement in advance of the Mayor issuing a draft budget proposal and requests the Committee to agree and recommend to the Mayor the proposed Assembly budget submission for 2014-15. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Committee agrees the London Assembly’s draft budget requirement for 2014-15 for recommendation to the Mayor, subject to any changes that might be necessary prior to the final agreement on the budget in February 2014 to reflect: (a) Any further advice from the Executive Director of Resources on contingencies and financial reserves; and (b) Any changes that emerge during the remainder of the budget process. 3. Background 3.1 The GLA Act 2007 introduced separate component budgets for the London Assembly and the Mayor – with the aim of giving the Assembly more control over its own budget and thus protecting its ability to continue to carry out its statutory functions. 3.2 The component budget for the Assembly comprises the estimates for defined expenditure (essentially direct expenditure), income and appropriate contingencies and financial reserves. The component budget for the Mayor comprises those items for the rest of the GLA. 3.3 The expenditure that is to be regarded as incurred by the Assembly in the performance of its functions includes any expenditure by the Authority in the performance of its functions which is incurred in respect of any of the following: City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 95
a) the Assembly Members; b) the Assembly Secretariat (defined as employees of the Authority who normally work as support staff for the Assembly or Assembly Members); c) goods or services procured solely for the purposes of the Assembly; and d) the London Transport Users' Committee (London TravelWatch). 3.4 Expenditure incurred on accommodation in relation to the Assembly’s business and goods and services provided or procured for the Authority in general are deemed by the legislation to be part of the Mayor’s budget. 3.5 The legislation defines the Assembly’s functions as: a) such of the functions of the Authority as are exercisable only by the Assembly acting on behalf of the Authority; and b) the Assembly’s function of acting jointly with the Mayor in the case of those functions of the Authority which are exercisable only by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority. 4. Timetable and process 4.1 Prior to the Mayor issuing draft budget proposals for the GLA Group for wider consultation (normally in December each year), the Mayor must consult the Assembly before proposing draft budgets for the Mayor and the Assembly. The Assembly’s Budget and Performance Committee (in accordance with its agreed terms of reference) will consider those proposals (the draft budgets for the Mayor and Assembly) at its meeting to be held on 19 th November 2013. 4.2 This report provides the basis for the Committee, on behalf of the Assembly, to inform the Mayor of the Assembly’s estimated 2014-15 budget requirement in advance of him issuing a draft budget proposal. It also then provides Members with a reference point for any future discussion with the Mayor on the Assembly’s budget throughout the budget process. 4.3 The planned timetable and process that will then follow is set out below: Mid December The Mayor consults the Assembly and other appropriate bodies on the draft to mid January consolidated budget. Mid to late The Mayor determines the final contents of his draft consolidated budget January and presents it to the Assembly at its meeting on 29 January 2014 for the Assembly to approve with or without amendment. Early to mid- The Mayor prepares and presents his final draft consolidated budget with or February without Assembly amendments (in the latter case the Mayor must provide a written statement of reasons) to the Assembly on 14 February 2014. The Assembly then approves the Mayor’s final draft consolidated budget with or without amendment. The only amendments which can be made are those agreed by at least two-thirds of the Assembly Members voting in favour.
Page 96
4.4 At the final budget stages, the Committee will note that the GLA Act 2007 limits the Assembly’s powers to amend the Mayor’s draft component budget requirement for the Assembly by reference to the year-on-year change in the Mayor’s draft component budget requirement for the Mayor. 5. The Assembly 5.1 The primary purpose of the London Assembly is to hold the Mayor to account and investigate matters of interest to Londoners. This is done in a variety of ways including questioning at Mayor’s Question Time meetings and other Assembly meetings, investigations and monitoring by the Assembly’s committees and panels, individual rapporteurships by Assembly Members and bringing the work, recommendations and views of the Assembly to the attention of key stakeholders. Assembly Members also have a representative role in relation to their constituents. 5.2 The objectives and targets for the Assembly are set out in the GLA Business Plan 2013-14 to 2015/16 and the Assembly section is attached at Appendix 1 to this report. 5.3 The Secretariat supports the Assembly’s functions primarily through the work of four teams: - Member Services (the staff working for each Party Group/single Member); - Scrutiny and Investigations; - Committee Services; and - External Relations. 5.4 In addition, there is a budget for the Director/Business Support. 5.5 The Assembly’s budget for 2013-14 totals £7.486m, as follows: Budget 2013-14 £000 Assembly Members 1,745 Member Services 2,193 Scrutiny & Investigations 1,273 Committee Services 581 External Relations 331 Director/Business Support 242 Special Projects 18 London TravelWatch 1,103 Total 7,486
Page 97
5.6 The total of £7.486m is funded as follows: 2013-14 £000 Business Rates Retention 2,000 Revenue Support Grant 2,886 Council tax 2,600 Total 7,486 The amount raised from the council tax represents a cost to a Band D Council Tax household of £1 a year.
5.7 Whilst there was no specific savings figure given in the Mayor’s budget guidance issued in July 2013, the guidance explained that the Mayor and the Assembly would need to deliver on-going reductions to meet their share of the 2015-16 grant reduction, together with meeting existing savings plans (as set out in the published Mayor’s Budget for 2013-14). The guidance also said that the funding assumptions would be kept under review as the budget process proceeds and information becomes available. 5.8 The Mayor has not issued any updated funding assumptions, although it is expected that the GLA’s share of Revenue Support Grant will be cut by around 2% in 2014-15 and 8% in 2015-16. This would be partially offset by RPI growth in the share of business rates growth which has been confirmed at 3.2% for 2014-15 and is currently forecast at around 3% for 2015-16. The existing savings plans published in the Mayor’s Budget for 2013-14 includes a provision for savings to be found in the Assembly budget for 2014-15 of £300,000. 5.9 As with the rest of the GLA, managers in the Secretariat have continued to look to improve efficiency and effectiveness whilst maintaining the support required for the Assembly to carry out its statutory functions. 6. Potential Savings
6.1 2014/15 Unit Description £’s Directors Budget Efficiency savings from underspends 7,000 Special projects Post of Head of Elections and Special 18 ,000 Projects being deleted and this represents the element in the assembly budget relation to Special projects. Committee Services Efficiency savings resulting from shared 35 ,000 services Scrutiny Reduction in budget which has historically 37 ,000 underspent. If additional resources are
Page 98
required for support of scrutiny projects could be met from contingency or reserves, External Relations Saving as a result of minor restructuring 10 ,000 Members Services Labour Group Support Efficiency savings from underspends 38,000 Conservative Group Effic iency savings from underspends 30 ,000 Support London TravelWatch This is a proportional reduction based on the 47 ,000 overall target for savings on the Assembly budget Elections Recharge of p rovision of support for GLA 50 ,000 Elections to the Elections Budget. The move to embed support for elections in the GLA rather than as a separate team will some staff time from staff in the Secretariat which will vary depending upon the electoral cycle. As the transition has only just started this is an indicative estimate initially in the Director and External Relations Budget but will be kept under review Total 272,000 6.2 The Secretariat have also over the last year made an additional 11 desks available which has meant that as well as being able to accommodate TfL Secretariat staff who are located at City Hall, pending the formal agreement on shared services, (from which there will be an income stream) desks have also been made available for corporate use. 6.3 Account will need to be taken of the consolidated element (1%) of the pay increase for Assembly Members and staff for the current financial year and it is proposed that provision for a further 1% increase for next year be made in the 2014-15 budget for planning purposes. These add £75,000 to the estimates for 2014-15. 7. Reserves 7.1 The Assembly currently has reserves of £1,066,000 of which £852,000 is earmarked for commitments in relation to Assembly Members Resettlement Grant payments and the remainder is to cover any potential redundancy costs in the future and other unforeseen demands on the Assembly’s budgets. The maintenance of this reserve becomes even more import as the pressure on the budgets increase. 7.2 The Authority’s chief finance officer has a duty to report on the robustness of the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves and this will be covered in advice to the Mayor and the Assembly when final budgets are set in 2014.
Page 99
8. Proposed budget submission for 2014-15 8.1 In light of the information provided above and noting that the budget process does not conclude until February 2014, the proposed budget submission that Members are asked to agree and recommend to the Mayor is currently as follows:
Budget 2013-14 £000 2014-15 £000 Assembly Members 1,745 1,775 Member Services 2,193 2,140 Scrutiny & Investigations 1,273 1,252 Committee Services 581 556 External Relations 331 309 Director/Business Support 242 201 Special Projects 18 0 London TravelWatch 1,103 1,056 Total 7,486 7,289 9. Legal Implications 9.1 Under the GLA Act 1999 (as amended) Schedule 6 paragraph 1(1) the Mayor and the Assembly must prepare and approve for each financial year, in accordance with Schedule 6 of that Act, a component budget for each constituent body and a consolidated budget for the Authority. 9.2 By virtue of section 85(3) of the GLA Act 1999 (as amended), the Mayor and the Assembly are separate constituent bodies, for the purposes of budget setting, and the Assembly has its own component budget. 9.3 Sections 85 and 86 of the GLA Act 1999 (as amended by the 2007 Act) contain formulas for calculating each constituent body’s component budget requirement. 9.4 The Assembly’s functions are defined in the GLA Act 1999 (as amended) section 85(14) as such functions of the Authority as are exercisable only by the Assembly acting on behalf of the Authority; and the Assembly’s functions of acting jointly with the Mayor in the case of those functions of the Authority which are exercisable only by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority. 9.5 In addition, the GLA Act 1999 (as amended) section 85 (11) defines what expenditure is to be regarded as incurred by the Assembly in the performance of its functions (and therefore to be included within its component budget) as any expenditure by the Authority in the performance of its functions which is incurred in respect of any of the following: (a) the Assembly Members;
Page 100
(b) the Assembly Secretariat (defined as employees of the Authority who normally work as support staff for the Assembly or Assembly Members); (c) goods or services procured solely for the purposes of the Assembly; or (d) the London Transport Users’ Committee. 9.6 It does not, however, include expenditure by the Authority in respect of (i) accommodation provided or procured in whole or in part for the conduct of the business of the Authority, or (ii) goods or services provided or procured for the Authority in general (see GLA Act 1999 (as amended) section 85 (11-12)). 9.7 The GLA Act 1999 (as amended) Schedule 6 sets out the procedural requirements for determining the component budget requirements of the constituent bodies. This applies to the Assembly’s component budget and includes a requirement for the Mayor to consult with the Assembly. 9.8 Under paragraph D1 of the Terms of Reference of the Assembly’s Business Management and Administration Committee, that committee has the power to recommend to the Mayor a budget proposal for the London Assembly for the following financial year. 9.9 Recommendation 2.1 of this report falls within the powers of the Assembly’s Business Management and Administration Committee. 10. Financial Implications 10.1 These are analysed in the body of this report. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Assembly section for the GLA Business Plan 2013/14 to 2015/16 Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Mark Roberts Telephone: 020 7983 4428 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 101
Appendix 1 Assembly and Secretariat
The purpose of the London Assembly is to contribute to the effective government of London by holding the Mayor of London to account and investigating issues of importance to Londoners. The Assembly and its Members are supported by a Secretariat. The purpose of the Secretariat is to provide high quality support to the Assembly to enable it effectively to fulfil its statutory duties and strategic objectives.
The Secretariat also supports the Greater London Returning Officer in carrying out effective planning and management of the Mayoral and London Assembly elections.
The directorate is organised into five units:
• Committee Services ensures the smooth running and good governance of the Assembly and committee meetings.
• External Relations provides communications support and event organisation.
• Member Services supports Assembly Members in their representative role.
• Scrutiny leads on research, drafting reports and responses to consultations.
• Special Projects liaises with London TravelWatch, takes a lead on reviews of elected members’ terms of service and undertakes additional responsibilities as required.
Priorities
The objectives of the Secretariat are to support:
• The Assembly and its committees to enable them effectively to hold the Mayor to account.
• The Assembly and its committees to conduct effective investigations into issues of importance to Londoners.
• Assembly Members in relation to their representative and constituency roles.
• The profile of the Assembly and enhance its positive reputation among Londoners.
• The effective governance of the GLA, including supporting the Authority’s Standards Committee.
• The Assembly in carrying out its statutory duties towards London TravelWatch.
• The Greater London Returning Officer in the effective planning and management of the Mayoral and London Assembly elections.
Holding the Mayor to account
The Assembly holds the Mayor and GLA Group to account through full meetings of the Assembly, the investigations carried out by its committees and the work of individual Assembly Members.
Page 102
The Assembly will continue its programme of question time meetings with the Mayor, GLA Group and other London-wide bodies, enhancing their accountability and raising issues of concern on behalf of Londoners.
The Mayor must consult the Assembly in preparing his strategies; and is required to have regard to the Assembly’s responses to those consultations. The Assembly may reject a strategy if two-thirds of Assembly Members vote to do so. In addition, the Assembly conducts detailed investigations into issues relating to Mayoral strategies. Through this work, the Assembly aims to represent the views and concerns of Londoners, provide a platform for debating issues and potential solutions, and to contribute constructively to strategy development.
The Assembly will continue its work to scrutinise the budgets and performance of the GLA Group, looking into issues such as the impact of significant budget reductions on services, the outcomes from the GLA Group’s expenditure to secure the Mayor’s London 2012 legacy promises and transport fares policy.
The Assembly will produce a pre-budget report in the autumn, incorporating an analysis of the key issues for the budget-setting process later in the year. When the Mayor presents his budget proposals in January and his final draft budget in February, the Assembly will publicly debate and vote on the draft budget and any proposed amendments.
Investigating issues that matter to Londoners
The Assembly’s committees will carry out a range of investigations covering important issues within the Mayor’s remit and wider areas of significance to London. These investigations are aimed at providing a critical analysis of existing policies, budgets and performance, and generating effective findings and recommendations for action where necessary. The Assembly’s work programme and that of its committees is subject to constant review and often changes at short notice in order to examine urgent issues. A list of investigations already underway or planned is captured in the milestones below.
Representing the views of Londoners
As well as their roles in full Assembly and its committees, individual Assembly Members carry out a vast range of activities during the year to represent and champion Londoners’ views and concerns across the city. A list of Assembly Members is at Annex C and, with their contact details, on the Assembly’s website.
Contributing to the effective governance of the GLA
The Assembly will contribute to the effective governance of the GLA through Members’ roles on the Audit Panel, the joint appointment and oversight with the Mayor of the Authority’s statutory officers, and the Assembly’s scrutiny of the budgets and performance of the GLA.
Sponsoring London TravelWatch
The London Assembly funds and oversees London TravelWatch, the statutory passenger watchdog for London. The priorities in respect of London TravelWatch are to:
• revise the Memorandum of Understanding between the Assembly and London TravelWatch, including a new performance management protocol;
• develop greater synergy between the work programmes of the Assembly and London TravelWatch; and
• improve the efficiency in service to the travelling public at a time of budget reductions.
Page 103
The London Assembly appointed a new Board of London TravelWatch at the end of 2012; its vision is for London TravelWatch to be a first-class consumer organisation. To do so, London TravelWatch must adopt a new focus on consumer affairs and work closely and cooperatively with the Assembly and others to improve the passenger experience.
The longstanding Memorandum of Understanding between the two bodies will be revised to reflect the new realities, including the need to operate in a time of financial stringency.
In addition a new impetus will be given to constructive consultation on London TravelWatch’s work programme so that every possible opportunity is taken to achieve complementarity between the two organisations’ activities and to ensure that London TravelWatch contributes appropriately to the Assembly’s investigations.
Page 104 Agenda Item 12
Subject: Transparency of the GLA Group: Responses Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 November 2013 This report will be considered in public
1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out responses received from Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor to the Committee’s report into the transparency of the GLA Group following John Biggs’ rapporteurship.. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Committee notes the responses to its report, Transparency of the GLA Group . 3. Background 3.1 On 20 September 2012 the GLA Oversight Committee agreed the terms of reference for a rapporteurship by John Biggs AM into the transparency of the GLA Group. They were: • To identify areas where the GLA Group could be more transparent, focussing on decision- making and contracts; and • To recommend improvements to practices so accountability and value for money are enhanced.
3.2 A key element of the review was a detailed questionnaire sent to each organisation within the GLA Group aiming to assess and compare transparency arrangements.
3.3 The GLA Oversight Committee agreed formally its report, Transparency of the GLA Group, at its meeting of 18 July 2013.
4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 Appended to this report are the responses from the Mayor and TfL to the Committee’s report. The Mayor has accepted or accepted in principle all of the Committee recommendations which should City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 105
result in some substantial changes in how the GLA and the functional bodies treat their information. Some key points are as follows: • Before the report no GLA Group contracts were routinely published apart from TfL’s above £10 million. Now all the GLA Group bodies apart from LLDC have committed to publishing all of their contracts (subject to minimum value thresholds in some cases). • All GLA Group bodies will be introducing transparency clauses to their standard contractual terms at the first available opportunity. This will mean suppliers cannot prevent contract publication. • The Mayor has committed to minimising reserved and delayed agenda and decision making papers – e.g. a “substantially higher” proportion of Housing Investment Group (HIG) papers will now be published as a matter of routine than has previously been the case. • The Mayor has set out his expectation that all GLA Group officials respond to Assembly requests in a professional manner and agreed to standards for responses to reports and requests for information. He has also agreed to look at any instances in which GLA Group officials fail to meet these standards. 5. Legal Implications 5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report. 6. Financial Implications 6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report. List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 Response from the Mayor Appendix 2 Response from TfL Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: John Barry, Senior Committee Officers Telephone: 020 7983 4425 Email: [email protected]
Page 106 !""#$%&'()
Page 107 !"#$%&'()%#$%*+,)+,#-+'../%0.'+1
Page 108 Appendix: GLA Group transparency – Mayoral response (September 2013)
Recommendation Mayoral response
1 The GLA Group should implement the Government’s transparency Agreed. code of recommended practice. In particular, it should assert the The GLA Group has already made substantial progress in principle that all contracts should be published unless there are implementing the Government’s transparency code. pressing and genuine reasons not to. The Assembly is right to highlight the publication of contracts as the biggest remaining challenge. I expect all GLA Group bodies to publish as much contractual information as possible and each body is making the commitment set out below. Given the intensive staff input required, in most cases it is not envisaged that contracts will be routinely published until 2014. Page 109 The GLA will publish all of its contracts. The GLA is currently in discussion with the provider of its procurement service (TfL) to see when this would take effect. As with the other recommendations, TfL’s response is shown separately below. The London Legacy Development Corporate (LLDC) will publish a contracts register on a monthly basis from October 2013 with contract values shown in bands. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) will publish all their contracts from January 2014. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority’s (LFEPA) register of active contracts is available via its website: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Procurement.asp - LFEPA contracts are available in alphabetical order and a copy of the contract will be attached to each entry from April 2014. Recommendation Mayoral response
2 All GLA Group organisations should have a searchable webpage (akin Agreed in principle. to Crossrail’s) with an up-to-date register of their active contracts As noted above, each body is making active efforts to publish as including brief descriptions, contract values (as opposed to using much contractual information as possible. In all cases, this will be value bands), the names of suppliers, contract end dates and done via their web pages. The exact form will differ between bodies. hyperlinks to published contracts (including those released under FOI). If an organisation has a very large number of active contracts – perhaps over 500 – it could have a minimum price threshold for inclusion in the register as TfL does. However, in an age where this information is held electronically the administrative burden is much less than it would have been.
3 It would be in the public interest for all GLA Group contracts to be Agreed.
Page 110 publishable. As such, transparency clauses should be included Where these are not already included, all GLA Group bodies will be routinely in all new contracts to allow them to be published in full, introducing transparency clauses to their standard contractual terms including financial information. Where a functional body believes a at the first available opportunity. transparency clause could prejudice its commercial interest, and that this would outweigh the inherent public interest in openness and Commercial interests will be subject to the usual tests under Freedom transparency, it should note the reason in its contracts register. of Information legislation. I expect all GLA Group bodies to continue to be clear on what basis information has been withheld when that situation arises. I do not wish to be prescriptive by setting out how contracts registers should be compiled in each case but I would expect them to provide a full audit trail in the usual way.
4 GLA Group bodies should each adopt an open policy on the value of Agreed. contracts that will be published. TfL has committed to publishing GLA Group bodies are making the commitments set out below, contracts worth over £10 million, which will result in 20-25 contracts subject to the exemptions set out in the Freedom of Information Act a year being released. We believe this threshold is too high and that and the Environmental Information Regulations. TfL should reassess it in order to publish more contracts. We do accept that volume may be a barrier so each body should determine a The GLA will publish all of its contracts. suitable value threshold, ensuring as many contracts as possible are TfL’s response is shown separately below. published, and provide it to the Committee with reasons for the value Recommendation Mayoral response chosen. LLDC will apply a £10,000 threshold for its contracts register. These recommendations should be seen as a minimum in advance of MOPAC and the MPS will publish all of their contracts. potential new government regulations which could force public bodies to publish all contracts in full. LFEPA will apply a £10,000 threshold for publishing its contracts.
5 The Mayor should review practice around the GLA Group – informed Agreed. by the responses provided to this investigation – to identify how Providing full information on decision-making is integral to the more information around decisions can go into the public domain. His transparency agenda and I know that GLA Group bodies already place response should: a strong emphasis on publishing the rationale underlying the Indicate how he will implement the hierarchy of confidentiality decisions they take. mechanisms, avoiding reserved and delayed papers in favour of In terms of the specific points raised: Page 111 part 2s and redactions. We want there to be a Group-wide commitment to including an open Part 1 for every agenda paper I expect all GLA Group bodies to publish as much information and decision form to avoid papers that are reserved in their relating to decisions as possible. In some cases reserved or entirety or have their publication delayed. delayed papers are unavoidable but these instances should be Include a clear test for use across the GLA Group to determine relatively rare. As one example of my commitment, I know that whether information should be withheld from publication and/or GLA officers are currently ensuring that a substantially higher considered in private, including criteria for when information is proportion of Housing Investment Group (HIG) papers are commercially sensitive, and when and how any such information published as a matter of routine than has previously been the could subsequently be released. This is particularly important for case. information that is not covered by Access to Information rules As was made clear in the responses to the Assembly scrutiny, where the bases for deciding what information will and will not these tests already exist through the Freedom of Information Act be published can be less clear. and the Environmental Information Regulations. Indicate who within each GLA Group organisation is responsible for determining whether the test above has been met and I am of the view that transparency should be led from the top of ensuring that the best confidentiality mechanism is being used. each organisation and so I would expect the chief executive of Make proposals as to how progress in publishing more decision- each body, or equivalent, to be the responsible officer for making information could be monitored over the coming transparency issues. months. I am happy for the Assembly to set out how it wishes to monitor Recommendation Mayoral response Comment on the changes to the structure under TfL’s Board the publication of decision-making information. which mean detailed conversations are continuing to happen in Please see TfL’s response shown separately below. private despite the intention of the Localism Act to bring more of them into the public domain.
6 The Mayor should prepare guidance for people working for the GLA Agreed in principle. Group clarifying that it is their duty to assist the Assembly in its role. I would expect all GLA Group officials to respond to Assembly This should also be made clear in documentation when new requests in a professional manner. Similarly, I would expect the appointments are made. Assembly to treat GLA Group officials in the same manner. However, I am not sure that formal guidance or additions to appointment letters would necessarily help in this regard as the solution does not lie in bureaucratic initiatives but in cultural change. Page 112
7 In addition to addressing the specific concerns above, the Mayor Agreed. should establish standards for responses to Assembly committees and In terms of the specific points raised: individual Members. He may wish to use the following parameters, some of which are already established, as a starting point: I expect, and shall to continue to expect, all correspondence to be answered within 20 working days, including Assembly letters. Full responses to correspondence will be received within 20 working days. Functional bodies will not need to be chased. Responses to reports should be sent within the deadline set by Responses to reports will be received within a maximum of three the Assembly, provided that it is reasonable. A maximum time months. elapse of three months is eminently reasonable. Quality: responses should address each recommendation in turn I agree that responses to Assembly reports should take the (even if it is to say why it has not been accepted) and engage trouble to address each recommendation in turn and provide a full with a committee’s concerns and the conclusions it has drawn. account of the GLA Group’s response to the issues raised. In future, the Assembly secretariat will systematically monitor responses to committee information requests and reports. It will I am happy to look at– or ask my team to look at – any instances report to the GLA Oversight Committee instances where in which GLA Group officials fail to meet the standards set out responses take longer than 20 working days or three months above, provided that they are non-trivial. respectively. It will also report responses when committee chairs consider them to be poor quality. The GLA Oversight Committee Recommendation Mayoral response may also choose to refer these cases to the Mayor.
8 To reduce delays in its responses to correspondence, we consider that Agreed. MOPAC should, as a matter of urgency, set up a single email address MOPAC has established such an email address: specifically for enquiries from Members and Members’ staff. [email protected] Additionally, the distinction that MOPAC previously tried to draw between enquiries from Members and their staff was inappropriate In line with protocol in place elsewhere, enquiries from Members’ and MOPAC should confirm that this is no longer its approach. staff should be treated as though they were enquiries from the Members themselves. Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 114 !""#$%&'()
Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Agenda Item 13
Subject: Work Programme for the GLA Oversight Committee 2013-14
Report to: GLA Oversight Committee Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 7 November 2013 This report will be considered in public
1. Summary 1.1 This report provides d etails of the proposed work for the meetings of the Committee in this 2013-14 Assembly year. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the Committee notes its work programme for 2013-14, as set out in this report, and identifies any additional issues it wishes to consider at future meetings. 3. Background 3.1 The GLA Oversight Committee has the following overall functions: • Management and administration of the budget of the Assembly and Secretariat, and overseeing the Assembly’s scrutiny work programme; • Having oversight, on behalf of the London Assembly, of the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) corporate governance policies and activities; • Maintaining a watching brief in respect of the activities of the senior officers appointed by the Mayor; and • Responding to consultations from the Head of Paid Service and scrutinising the Head of Paid Service function. 4. Issues for Consideration 4.1 The main work areas of the Committee are summarised below.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 121
Assembly Budget and Scrutiny Work Programme 4.2 The Committee allocates the Assembly’s budget and receives a report in March each year on that subject (following the approval of the overall amount of the budget and in advance of the start of the financial year in question). 4.3 The Committee receives quarterly monitoring reports from the Secretariat usually in July, October, January and April/May each year. 4.4 The Committee approves individual proposals for non-routine expenditure from the scrutiny programme budget which are referred to the Committee by the subject-related committees during the year. The timing of these reports depends upon when the subject-related committees approve projects and refer proposals for expenditure. 4.5 The Committee approves proposals for rapporteurships referred from subject-related committees during the course of the year. 4.6 The Committee also has the power to consider any issue which does not fall into the remit of one of the subject-related committees (for instance, cross-cutting equalities and governance issues). Staffing Consultations and Appointments 4.7 The Committee will be invited to respond to consultations from the Head of Paid Service (HoPS) from time to time during the year. The Committee’s role in relation to these consultations is reactive and therefore the work programme does not predict what reports will be presented and when. 4.8 The Assembly has a role in appointing the statutory officers to the Authority, and this Committee has delegated authority to fulfil that role as and when the need arises. Other Items of Consideration 4.9 At the Committee’s meeting of 29 January 2013, it was proposed that the following items be included in the Committee’s work programme: • The GLA’s accommodation review; and • Quarterly updates on the evaluation of the Mayor’s Mentoring Programme. 4.10 The quarterly updates for the Mayor’s Mentoring Programme will be considered at the Oversight Committee meetings held in June, September, December and March. The GLA’s accommodation strategy will be dealt with as part of the Committee’s discussion on Shared Services elsewhere on this agenda. 4.11 At its meeting on 21 March 2013, the Committee asked that it be consulted formally on the annual staff pay review. This consultation took place at the Committee’s meeting in July. At the 18 July meeting, the Committee requested that it receives a paper on the “Long Term Infrastructure Investment Plan for London” and arising from that, the Head of Paid Service undertook to provide a further update at a future meeting of the Committee (provisionally added to the December meeting list of agenda items).
Page 122
Scrutiny of the Head of Paid Service Function 4.12 The Committee usually receives reports on the following issues during the course of the year: • Annual Workforce Monitoring Report, incorporating complaints monitoring (plus a six-monthly update); and • Governance. 4.13 The Committee usually receives a report on the Draft Annual Governance Statement in June (together with the GLA’s Audit Panel). GLA Group Transparency 4.14 The Committee appointed John Biggs AM as rapporteur investigating levels of transparency around the GLA group on behalf of the GLA Oversight Committee. The rapporteur’s final report was published on 26 June 2013 and discussed in detail at the Committee’s July meeting. The responses to the report are dealt with elsewhere on this agenda. Shared Services 4.15 In the past, the Assembly’s business management committee received regular updates on the progress of shared services in the GLA group and considered a number of consultation proposals from the Mayor for shared services. The GLA Oversight Committee has requested that it continues to receive updates on the progress of shared services and consider any proposals that may come forward; these have been scheduled for May and November. In addition, representatives of functional bodies have been invited to this meeting to discuss the matter with the Committee. 4.16 The table set out below shows the Committee’s provisional meeting dates for the forthcoming 2013-14 Assembly year and anticipated agenda items. This timetable and agenda items will be reviewed and updated as appropriate.
Date of Main Agenda Items meeting Wednesday, 11 • HoPS Oral Update December 2013 • HoPS Consultation Reports (if any) at 2.00pm in the • Mayor’s Mentoring Programme Chamber • LPFA: question and answer session with the Chairman (agreed at 15 Jan 2013 Plenary) • Long Term Infrastructure Investment Plan for London (tbc)
Page 123
Date of Main Agenda Items meeting Wednesday, 22 • HoPS Oral Update January 2014 at • HoPS Consultation Reports (if any) 2.00pm in CR5 • People’s Question Time – consultation for the March 2014 event • Workforce Report (6-monthly update)
Tuesday, 25 • HoPS Oral Update February 2014 at • HoPS Consultation Reports (if any) 10am in CR5 • The Mayor’s Annual Equalities Report 2013/14 (Deputy Mayor and SMT invited) • Assembly Annual Report • Assembly’s Requirements for Information to be Included in the Mayor’s Annual Report • Secretariat Quarterly Review (Q3)
Wednesday, 12 • HoPS Oral Update March 2014 at • HoPS Consultation Reports (if any) 2.00pm in CR5 • State of London Debate • The Mayor’s Mentoring Programme • Assembly Events • Allocation of Assembly Budget 2014-15 • Secretariat Quarterly Review (Q4) - tbc
5. Legal Implications 5.1 The Assembly has the power to establish committees to discharge its functions, and the GLA Oversight Committee is one such committee. The work programme is in accordance with the GLA Oversight Committee’s terms of reference. 6. Financial Implications 6.1 There are no financial implications for the purposes of this report. List of appendices to this report: None
Page 124
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: John Barry, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4425 Email: [email protected]
Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 126