Appendix 1 MINUTES

Meeting London Recovery Board - Anchor Institutions Task and Finish Group Date Friday 27 November 2020 Time 11:30am Place Virtual meeting

Attendees Sir David Sloman, London Regional Director, NHS E&I (Chair) Nick Bowes, Mayor's Director of Policy Richard Burge, Chief Executive, London Chamber of Commerce & Industry Cllr Muhammed Butt Leader, London Borough of Brent Cllr Elizabeth Campbell, Leader, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Dame Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cllr Emily Davey, Cabinet member, London Borough of Kingston Dr Vin Diwakar, London Medical Director, NHS E&I Natan Doron, Senior Adviser to Nick Bowes Eleanor Ferguson, London Councils Mary Harpley, GLA Chief Officer Professor Jenny Higham, Principal, St George’s University of London David Hughes, Chief Executive, Association of Colleges Asif Hussain, Senior Stakeholder Relations Officer, GLA Mehboob Khan, London Councils Eleanor Lloyd, Senior Board Officer, GLA Martin Machray, London Joint Chief Nurse, NHS E&I Niran Mothada, GLA Executive Director, Strategy & Communication The Venerable Father Luke Miller, Archdeacon of London Jeremy Skinner, GLA Assistant Director, Strategy, Intelligence and Analysis Wendy Thompson, Vice-Chancellor, University of London Alex Williams, Director of City Planning, Transport for London

Minutes

1 Welcome and introductions

Chair - Welcomed all to the meeting and drew attention to the terms of reference for the Group, which set the task of drawing up a report for the London Recovery Board on the expected role of anchor institutions in supporting the capital’s recovery from COVID-19. Either an interim or final report would be brought to the London Recovery Board meeting of 14 January 2021.

2 Paper on the role of anchor institutions

Niran Mothada – Summarised the paper drawn up by the GLA, London Councils and the NHS. The scale of the challenge meant joint working would be essential. However, experience of similar initiatives had led the Centre for Local Economic Studies to recommend a move away from partnership working to an action- orientated approach focussing on what individual anchor institutions could do to create impact. International comparators would be explored via discussions with Bloomberg the following week.

It was suggested that the work of the Group focus on a few key areas such as job creation and retention, procurement, and estates/building management. This would require rapid conversations with relevant leads from each organisation (for example HR, building management).

The questions for the Group to consider were:  What does success look like in terms of the role of anchor institutions in the Recovery Programme and does the paper set out an approach that can realistically get us there?  Do we agree on proposed next steps? Do we have any alternative approaches?  Are we missing anything in our approach?

3 Discussion

Dr Vin Diwakar – Had been leading new work on the role of the NHS as an anchor institution in London, exactly interfacing with this proposed work. He stressed that the NHS was not an organisation nor indeed an institution but a sector consisting of multiple organisations operating under a common national mandate. The NHS employs around 6% of London’s population.

There was huge enthusiasm from all NHS organisations for the anchor concept and associated work, and some had made more progress in the field than others. Several examples were given, including of the North East London NHS organisations that had come together with other sectors, including local authorities and the VCS, to develop an anchor charter covering issues including healthy new towns (e.g. Barking Riverside) and procurement. The system approach would be essential to avoid duplication and competition.

The NHS had never before come together as a sector to agree common ambitions and identify good practice. NHS organisations in London would now be brought together to develop a shared understanding of the challenge and potential solutions. The first meeting would be on Tuesday 1 December, following which a set of ideas could be shared. A national NHS network was being established in conjunction with the Health Foundation think tank, to explore the same issue. Much could be learned from local government’s experiences in this space.

There was an eagerness to focus on employment and procurement. Given financial constraints, a means would need to be found for the NHS to properly tackle the issue of value for money, identifying which initiatives delivered tangible benefits and were worth scaling, and which ought not to be pursued.

It was noted that there was considerable impetus behind the concept of anchor institutions. This should be capitalised upon, but it would be important to identify and work with London’s unique circumstances and challenges, realising that actions from other regions may not be applicable or beneficial here. There would be a place for multiple strata of collaboration, including borough and sub-regional levels, and the work of this Group should be to look only at what could be done most effectively at a city-wide level.

Lastly, it would be crucial to share best practice and toolkits across organisations and institutions, as well as to review existing policies and consider whether any acted as a disincentive to joint working, or to any of the specific desired outcomes, and advocate for these to be reviewed.

Cressida Dick – The anchor concept was a new one for policing and the MPS was keen to be involved in this work, as well as to be able to contribute more to the development and delivery of the wider recovery missions. The MPS had circa 40,000 employees in London. Again, London’s unique challenges must be considered.

This Group would need the discipline of a tight focus on a few key areas of action and need to involve a small group of major institutions to avoid a sprawl of activity that becomes too complex or duplicatory. A short, sharp piece of work would have the most impact and there should not be too great a degree of design or control, rather a small, central resource to provide guidance, share learning and corral the enthusiasm of a few key organisations.

Cllr Muhammed Butt – Welcomed the discussion bringing together the major influencers. Many councils had examples of good practice to share, particularly in the area of securing social benefit through procurement. He suggested that, given the significance of councils as anchor institutions in each London borough, a leaders’ discussion was needed at London Councils to secure consensus. Also expressed concern over the difficulties presented by the cross-borough boundaries of NHS organisations and MPS command centres.

Cressida Dick – Noted that the public, employers, faith communities and others would be less concerned with borough boundaries. Working with local authorities was vital but should not place unnecessary geographical restrictions on the work.

David Hughes – Favoured a charter approach to provide a set of strategic commitments and a structure for institutions to sign up to, alongside a fast-moving alliance of willing organisations to take decisive action in a few key areas. Commitment to improving recruitment of young people was an initial suggestion. Anchor institutions could be asked to offer placements on the Kickstart scheme, which would predominantly benefit young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. A smaller group could work up a checklist of what a good Kickstart placement looked like and propose two or three other concrete actions to launch publicly in early 2021, with associated positive publicity for any organisation committing to them. Alex Williams – TfL’s core function in the recovery was to get people moving

safely and renew confidence in public transport network while supporting a modal shift toward walking and cycling. Agreed that the breadth of suggested topics was too great for a six-week sprint and supported a narrower focus, ideally on young people and employment, particularly via apprenticeships and internships.

Cllr Elizabeth Campbell - Agreed that the process should be kept tight and unbureaucratic. Noted there was an advocacy role for local political leaders to make direct contact with their local anchor institutions (including commercial organisations and cultural institutions) and encourage their participation.

Wendy Thompson – Acknowledged that higher education could be difficult to work with in terms of sector coherence but stressed there was much universities could do in this space and significant motivation and goodwill on offer. Noted that the University of London careers service was the only pan-London careers service, serving 120,000 students, and might be able to play a role in connecting young people with employment opportunities offered by the other anchor institutions. Supported the Kickstart proposal from David Hughes and flagged the ‘Restart’ programme for the longer-term unemployed announced in this week’s spending review. Expressed concern that London was at risk of suffering from the ‘levelling up’ agenda when there was much levelling up to be done within the capital itself.

Father Luke Miller – Highlighted the difference between institutions and organisations. Institutions are huge and diverse. For example the Church of England encompassed church buildings and other estates, schools, cultural programmes and many other facets, all of which were organised separately. In the round the Diocese of London would have the capacity to act as an anchor institution, with associated major economic impact, but the separate elements could not be corralled into committing to a coordinated set of actions within the short timeframe of this Group. Anchor instructions would therefore need to work as their component organisations to have an impact on these timescales.

Richard Burge – Encouraged the Group to look at what could produce tangible impacts via bilateral rather than only multilateral actions, given the example of businesses working with the MPS on the CAZ.

Jenny Higham – Universities would need to think more about their links to anchor employers, working with FE colleges to link to other anchor institutions to demonstrate clear routes to employment.

4 Next steps

Chair – Noted the consensus on narrowing down the work to manageable, focussed areas, beginning with young people and employment.

Niran Mothada – Acknowledged the clear drive to focus on two of the Recovery Board’s five key outcomes; creating good employment and helping young people to flourish. Asked whether each organisation could consider what it could contribute to these aims to help progress this work. The GLA would be happy to support the group drawn from the organisations represented at the meeting that would take forward the work.

Several attendees (WT, RB, MB, DH, EC, DS) – Expressed support for developing a strategic charter alongside the rapid action on jobs and young people. It was agreed this dual approach would create an inclusive and permissive project that would provide space for wider participation while generating tangible, short-term impacts.

Vin Diwakar – Set the challenge for the Group to recognise the validity of the local, place-based approach of the anchor concept and ensure no duplication of existing activity. Hard work would be needed to identify the unique actions that could be beneficial at a pan-London level.

It would be important not to conflate activity with impact. The Group would also need to decide whether its actions should benefit only those living in London, or also those travelling in from surrounding areas for work or education.

David Hughes – On jobs for young people, organisations should be asked to sign up to Kickstart and set out how their placements would work, and the Group should collaborate on the criteria for a ‘good’ placement. This could then be used as a catalyst to spur similar action from other institutions.

Several members (CD, MH, LM) – Drew a distinction between the themes of young people and job creation, noting that the latter may be constrained by financial circumstances and there were other actions that could be taken to support young people. Mentoring and provision of workspace were cited as examples.

Nick Bowes – Thanked all for a positive discussion and confirmed the Mayor’s determination to provide support for the work. The GLA team would work quickly to draw up proposed commitments that a broad range of organisations would be able to sign up to.

Mary Harpley – Stressed that the actions being developed by this Group did not in any way preclude the institutions present from pursuing other, individual projects in the same areas.

Cressida Dick – Supported the approach of core, focussed work by a few organisations but suggested the Group might want to diversify and bring in, for instance: a few large private sector organisations; the civil service; the Royal Household.

Agreed actions  GLA to begin drafting a charter for anchor institutions.  Each institution to nominate individuals to work on the proposed actions to create jobs and support young people – contact Niran Mothada with names.  Another meeting of this Group to be scheduled just before Christmas to take stock of progress.

5 Any other business

There was no other business. The meeting ended at 12:21pm