Public Document Pack
Policy and Resources Committee
Date: THURSDAY, 13 DECEMBE R 2012 Time: 1.45pm Venue: COMMITTEE ROOMS, 2ND FLOOR, WEST WING, GU ILDHALL
Members: Mark Boleat (Chairman) Alderman Sir David Howard Stuart Fraser (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Edward Lord Deputy Ken Ayers Jeremy Mayhew (Chief Commoner) Deputy Wendy Mead Deputy John Barker (Ex-Officio Hugh Morris Member) Deputy Catherine McGuinness Deputy Douglas Barrow Deputy Joyce Nash Deputy John Bennett Deputy Henry Pollard (Ex-Officio Deputy Michael Cassidy (Ex- Member) Officio Member) Stephen Quilter Ray Catt (Ex-Officio Member) John Scott (Ex-Officio Member) Roger Chadwick (Ex-Officio Deputy Dr Giles Shilson Member) Deputy Sir Michael Snyder Simon Duckworth John Tomlinson (Ex-Officio Member) Revd Dr Martin Dudley (Ex-Officio James Tumbridge Member) Deputy Michael Welbank Bob Duffield Alderman Fiona Woolf Martin Farr (Ex-Officio Member) Alderman Alan Yarrow Alderman Sir Robert Finch Marianne Fredericks The Rt Hon the Lord Mayor, Alderman Roger Gifford George Gillon
Enquiries: Angela Roach tel. no.: 020 7332 3685 [email protected]
Lunch will be served in Guildhall Club at 1PM
John Barradell Town Clerk and Chief Executive AGENDA
Part 1 - Public Agenda
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATIONS BY MEMB ERS OF PERSONAL OR P REJUDICIAL INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING
3. MINUTES To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 8 November 2012 (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 1 - 16)
4. PROJECTS SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES To note the public minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2012 (copy attached). For Information (Pages 17 - 22)
5. PUBLIC RELATIONS SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES To note the public minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2012 (copy attached).
For Information (Pages 23 - 26)
6. REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGETS 2013 -14 Joint report of the Town Clerk, Chamberlain, City Surveyor, Remembrancer and the Private Secretary to the Lord Mayor (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 27 - 36)
7. THE CITY, THE UK AND EUROPEAN BANKING UNI ON Joint report and note of the Director of Economic Development and the Director of Public Relations on the European Banking Union and the position adopted by the UK Government and the City (copy attached). For Information (Pages 37 - 54)
8. PUBLIC RELATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUB COMMITTEE Report of the Town Clerk (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 55 - 56)
9. THE LONDON 2012 OLYM PIC AND PARALYMPIC G AMES Report of the Town Clerk (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 57 - 76)
2
10. USE OF CITY WIFI NET WORK Report of the City Surveyor (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 77 - 80)
11. CHEAPSIDE INITIATIVE Report of the City Surveyor (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 81 - 88)
12. AGGRESSIVE CHARITY C OLLECTIONS Report of the Director Markets and Consumer Protection (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 89 - 96)
13. DRAFT LOCAL DEVELOPM ENT PLAN - PUBLIC CONSULTATION Report of the City Planning Officer (copy attached).
NB: Copies of the appendices to this report have been sent to you electronically. Hard copies are also available in the Members Reading Room or from the Town Clerk’s Office upon request. For Decision (Pages 97 - 102)
14. EMPLOYABILITY PARTN ERSHIP Report of the Director of Economic Development (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 103 - 110)
15. ALTERNATIVE INVESTME NT MANAGEMENT ASSOCI ATION - POL ICY AND REGULATORY FORUM 2013 Report of the Director of Public Relations (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 111 - 114)
16. MILE END GROUP - FINANCIAL SUPPORT Report of the Director of Public Relations (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 115 - 118)
17. REFORM AND IPPR - CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP Report of the Director of Public Relations (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 119 - 126)
18. ENTERPRISE AND REGUL ATORY REFORM BILL Report of Remembrancer (copy attached) For Information (Pages 127 - 132)
3
19. CHAIRMAN'S VISIT TO NEW YORK Report of the Director Economic Development (copy attached). For Information (Pages 133 - 138)
20. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT Report of the Director of Economic Development (copy attached). For Information (Pages 139 - 154)
21. POLICY INITIATIVES F UND Report of the Chamberlain (copy attached). For Information (Pages 155 - 164)
22. QUESTIONS O N MATTERS RELATING T O THE WORK OF THE CO MMITTEE
23. ANY OTHER BUSINESS T HAT THE CHAIRMAN CON SIDERS URGENT
24. EXCLUSION OF THE PUB LIC MOTION - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item Nos. Paragraph(s) in Schedule 12A 27 - 33 3
Part 2 - Non -Public Agenda
25. NON -PUBLIC MINUTES To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2012 (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 165 - 180)
26. LIGHTING -UP DEPUTAT ION MINUTES To note the minutes of the meeting held on 31 October 2012 (copy attached).
For Information (Pages 181 - 182)
27. PROJECTS SUB -COMMITTEE MINUTES To note the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2012 (copy attached). For Information (Pages 183 - 188)
4
28. HOSPITALITY WORKING PARTY MINUTES To note the content of the non-public minutes and approve items 5 and 6 contained therein (To Follow). For Decision
29. MEMBERS FACILI TIES AND ACCOMMODATI ON Report of the City Surveyor (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 189 - 214)
30. EUROPEAN BANKING AGE NCY Joint report of the Director of Economic Development and City Surveyor (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 215 - 220)
31. CORPORATE DISASTER R ECOVERY CENTRE - AUTHORITY TO START W ORK Report of the Chamberlain (copy attached).
NB: The progression of this project has been approved by the Projects Sub- Committee. For Decision (Pages 221 - 230)
32. MILTON COURT PROGRES S REPORT Report of the Chamberlain (copy attached). For Information (Pages 231 - 238)
33. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
34. ANY OTHER BUSINESS T HAT THE CHA IRMAN CONSIDERS URGE NT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED.
5
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3
POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 8 November 2012
Minutes of the meeting of the POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE held at Guildhall, London EC2 on THURSDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2012 at 1.45p.m.
Present
Members: Mark Boleat, Cha irman Deputy Edward Lord Stuart Fraser, Deputy Chairman Jeremy Mayhew Deputy Ken Ayers, Chief Commoner Deputy Catherine McGuinness Deputy John Barker Deputy Joyce Nash Deputy Doug Barrow Henry Pollard Deputy John Bennett Stephen Quilter Roger Chadwick John Scott Simon Duckworth Deputy Dr Giles Shilson Dr Martin Dudley Sir Michael Snyder Martin Farr John Tomlinson Alderman Sir Robert Finch James Tumbridge Marianne Fredericks Deputy Michael Welbank George Gillon Alderman Fiona Woolf Alderman Sir David Howard
In Attendance: Robin Eve
Officers: John Barradell - Town Clerk Chris Bilsland - Chamberlain Michael Cogher - Comptroller and City Solicitor Paul Double - Remembrancer Philip Everett - Director of the Built Environment Peter Bennett - City Surveyor William Chapman - Private Secretary to the Lord Mayor Caroline Al-Beyerty - Financial Services Director Simon Murrells - Assistant Town Clerk Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk Paul Sizeland - Director of Economic Development Liz Skelcher - Assistant Director of Economic Development Tony Halmos - Director of Public Relations Angela Roach - Town Clerk’s Office
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Ray Catt, Deputy Michael Cassidy, Bob Duffield, Deputy Wendy Mead and Hugh Morris.
Page 1 2. DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS OF PERSONAL OR PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING
There were no declarations.
3. MINUTES
The public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 4 October were approved.
4. PROJECTS SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES
The public minutes and summary of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 16 October 2012 were considered and noted.
5. CORPORATE ASSET SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES
The public minutes and summary of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 27 September 2012 were considered and noted.
6. ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES
The public minutes and summary of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 19 September 2012 were considered and noted.
7. 2012 SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES
The public minutes of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 12 October 2012 were considered and noted.
8. POST-IMPLEMENTATION GOVERNANCE REVIEW WORKING PARTY MINUTES
The public minutes the Working Party meetings held on 26 September and 4 October 2012 were considered. A Member of the Working Party referred to an alternative option he made regarding the methodology for the election of the Chief Commoner which had not been included in the minutes and express concern that only one option had been referred to. He therefore felt that the minute was inaccurate. The Member also referred to the report on licensing which was to be considered by the regulatory committees and suggested that it also be considered by this Committee.
Page 2 There was a general consensus of the Members of the Working Party that the minutes were an accurate record. However, the matter relating to the election of Chief Commoner could be discussed under the report later in the agenda.
RESOLVED – that the content of the minutes be noted and that the report on licensing also be submitted to the Policy and Resources Committee for information.
9. THE COURT OF ALDERMEN - ELGIBILITY
The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning the creation of a working party to review the criteria for being eligible to become an Alderman.
A Member referred to correspondence which had been circulated to the Livery which alluded to the view of the Chairman and certain Aldermen on the matter and questioned whether it was appropriate to have Members with predetermined views serving on the Working Party. An Alderman also questioned whether there was any merit in including the Chairman of the Livery Committee. Discussion ensued and it was concluded that no change should be made to the proposed composition of the Working Party.
The Committee noted that eight Members had expressed an interest in serving in the two places available on the Working Party for Policy Committee nominees and that a ballot would need to be conducted. Simon Duckworth and Deputy Douglas Barrow were duly elected.
RESOLVED – That subject to the approval of the Court of Common Council, approval be given to:-
1. the establishment of a Working Party comprising the following:-
• The Chairmen of the Privileges Committee of Aldermen and the General Purposes Committee of Aldermen • The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee • The Chief Commoner • Two Aldermen nominated by the Court of Aldermen • Two Members of the Policy & Resources Committee nominated by the Committee • Two Members of the Court (not on the Policy Committee)
2. Deputy Doug Barrow and Simon Duckworth be appointed as the Policy and Resources Committee nominees on the Working Party;
3. the terms of reference of the Working Party being “To undertake a review of the criteria for eligibility to become an Alderman” ; and
Page 3
4. the findings and any recommendations of the Working Party being reported to the General Purposes Committee of Aldermen and the Policy and Resources Committee in the first instance.
10. CITY OF LONDON WARD ELECTIONS
The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning preparations for the forthcoming Ward elections in 2012.
Discussion took place on the options for advertising and it was concluded that whilst advertising was necessary, in general this should be to encourage businesses to register voters rather than encourage voters to vote.
RESOLVED – That the content of the report be noted and that up to £30,000 be provided from the Committee’s 2012/13 contingency for additional advertising to encourage an increase in participation in the Ward elections by registration and, subsequently, voting.
11. PROJECT PROCEDURE REVIEW
The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk reviewing the City Corporation’s project management arrangements.
RESOLVED – That:-
1. no change be made to the Project Procedure at this time and that the Corporate Programme Office work with officers across the organisation to raise awareness of the ability to flex the approval process where it made sense to do so;
2. a further review of the project management arrangements be carried out in autumn 2013;
3. where it made sense to bring forward several projects to the Project Proposal stage together, a composite report be submitted with key information about each project;
4. the Corporate Programme Office be requested to work with officers in departments to capture all projects that were contained within Court approved strategies that had not yet started going through the Gateway approval process. This would provide improved visibility of the projects that had been approved as part of a strategy that was in the pipeline; and
5. guidance be issued to officers about the Project Proposal stages, its purpose and the length of report required. It was noted that in most cases a report of 2-3 pages would be sufficient and good practice examples would be shared to demonstrate what was required. Workshops on completing Gateway report templates would be delivered as necessary.
Page 4
12. POST-IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW OF THE GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning a review of the operation and effectiveness of the changes made to the City Corporation’s governance arrangements in 2011.
The Chairman reminded the Committee that the paper was a report of a Working Party of the Court. He also said that the proposals would be discussed at the informal meeting of Members of the Court on 15 November 2012.
It was noted that the restriction on the number of committees on which Members could serve was eight and not six as referred to in the report.
A Member referred to his earlier comment concerning the alternative option he proposed regarding the methodology for the election of the Chief Commoner and reiterated his concern that only one option was being put forward. The Chairman reminded Members that they would have the opportunity to address concerns and make suggestions when the proposals were considered by the Court in December.
The Committee noted that a number of consequential changes resulting from the proposal to split the Open Spaces, City Gardens and West Ham Park Committee which involved the Chairmen of the new West Ham Park and the Open Spaces and City Gardens Committees being able to chair both committees and the Members of the two Committees (which would be identical) being excluded from the restrictions on the number of committees that Members could serve on.
RESOLVED – That the report of the Working Party be endorsed and forwarded to the Court of Common Council for approval on the basis of the following:-
Court of Common Council
1. as Members already received details of the overseas visits in writing, oral reports on overseas visits be dispensed with or shortened considerably; and
2. the Town Clerk be requested to look into an appropriate mechanism for dealing with matters arising from the minutes at meetings of the Court of Common Council.
Committees
3. the constitution of the Establishment Committee be amended to:-
A Non-Ward Committee consisting of:-
• one Alderman nominated by the Court of Aldermen
Page 5 • 15 Members elected by the Court of Common Council at least two of whom shall have fewer than five years’ service on the Court at the time of their appointment • a representative of the Finance Committee.
4. all committees be requested to review their terms of reference on an annual basis towards the end of the year to enable any proposed changes to be considered in time for the Committees re-appointment in the following year.
Chief Commoner
5. the election of the Chief Commoner take place in October in each year and that the term of office of the Chief Commoner be amended in Standing Orders to “ a period commencing and ending on the date of the first Court of Common Council after the wardmotes each year ”; and
6. the current arrangement whereby Aldermen did not vote in the election of the Chief Commoner be dispensed with.
Investment Committee
7. the terms of reference of the Investment Committee be amended as follows:-
a) To be responsible for the strategic oversight and monitoring of the performance of all of the City of London Corporation’s investments, in accordance with the investment strategy determined by the Policy & Resources Committee;
b) To fulfil (a) above by means of the appointment of a Property Investment Board, a Financial Investment Board and a Social Investment Board responsible for property, financial investments and social investments, respectively; and
c) To provide the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee with advice and guidance on determining the appropriate investment proportions between property and non-property assets as part of the resource allocation process with the final decision remaining with the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee.
8. the Investment Committee be consulted on the respective merits of equity or investment property disposal to generate funds to support the capital programme, the outcome of which should be reported to the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee and the Policy and Resources Committee.
9. the Investment Committee be advised accordingly; and
Page 6 10. the Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee be requested to consider whether the membership of the Investment Committee’s three Boards should be set out in the Pocket Book.
Audit and Risk Management Committee (A&RM)
11. based on the guidance received, the Finance and the A&RM Committees be advised that the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the A&RM Committee should retain the ability to be able to serve on other committees including the Policy and Resources and Finance Committees;
12. subject to the provisions in Standing Orders no action be taken with regard to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman being able to serve as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of any other City Corporation Committee; and
13. the A&RM Committee be requested to consider incorporating within its terms of reference responsibility for making recommendations to the Court of Common Council for the appointment of external auditors within its terms of reference.
Open Spaces, City Gardens and West Ham Park Committee
14. the work currently undertaken by the Open Spaces, City Gardens and West Ham Park Committee be split and a new committee be established for the purposes of the management of West Ham Park to be known as the West Ham Park Committee; that Committee to have the following terms of reference:-
a) to have regard to the overall policy laid down by the Open Spaces and City Gardens Committee;
b) to be responsible for the ownership and management of West Ham Park (registered charity no. 206948) in accordance with the terms of the conveyance of the Park by John Gurney, Esq., to the City of London Corporation dated 20 th July 1874 and in accordance with the Licence in Mortmain dated 22 nd May 1874 and the management of a Nursery; and
c) authorising the institution of any criminal or civil proceedings arising out of the exercise of its functions.
15. the remaining elements of the work of the Open Spaces, City Gardens and West Ham Park Committee be undertaken by an Open Spaces and City Gardens Committee; that Committee to have the following terms of reference:-
Open Spaces
a) dealing with, or making recommendations to the Court of Common Council where appropriate, all matters relating to the strategic
Page 7 management (eg. policy, financial and staffing) of the City of London Corporation’s open spaces where such matters are not specifically the responsibility of another Committee; and
b) the appointment of the Director of Open Spaces.
City Open Spaces
a) the management and day-to-day administration of the gardens, churchyards and open spaces in the City under the control of the Common Council, together with Bunhill Fields Burial Ground;
b) arrangements for the planting and maintenance of trees and other plants and shrubs in open spaces and in footpaths adjacent to highways in the City;
c) advising on applications for planning permission relating in whole or in part to the gardens, churchyards or open spaces in the City under the control of the Common Council; and
d) the functions of the Common Council under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to make safe by felling, or otherwise, dangerous trees in the City generally on receipt of notices served on the City of London Corporation in the circumstances set out in Section 23 of the Act and where trees are in danger of damaging property.
16. the same eight, elected, Court of Common Council Members serve on the two Committees.
Epping Forest and Commons Committee
17. in light of the legal advice with regard to the rights of Verderers the current position be maintained and that the Epping Forest & Commons Committee be advised accordingly.
Policy and Resources Committee
18. the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee be advised of the comments with regard to the remit of Projects Sub-Committee and the Projects Procedure as set out in paragraph 24 and 25 of the report;
19. no change be made to the Committee’s current ex-officio membership and that the Licensing Committee;
20. the Committee’s operational property management responsibilities, currently undertaken by the Corporate Asset Sub-Committee, be transferred to the Finance Committee subject to the Policy Committee retaining the ability to decide how the Guildhall Complex should be utilised;
Page 8 21. the Committee’s energy and sustainability responsibilities currently undertaken by the Energy and Sustainability Sub-Committee be transferred to the Planning and Transportation Committee, subject to the Policy and Resources Committee continuing to exercise its overarching role and responsibility for coordinating and approving strategy and policy;
22. an annual report on the work of energy and sustainability be submitted to the Policy Committee for information;
23. the Hospitality Working Party and the Members Privileges Sub-Committee remain under the auspices of the Committee and they be able to report directly to the Court of Common Council and that the Chief Commoner continue to be entitled to speak and respond to questions as necessary;
24. a Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee be created;
25. with effect from 2013 the Policy Committee elect three Deputy Chairmen, subject to an appropriate protocol;
26. the lead-in time for the ‘Chairman in-waiting’ be reduced to one year, this being achieved by establishing a protocol;
27. the analysis of the Committee’s terms reference as out in Appendix B to the report be noted.
Board of Governors of the Three City Schools
28. no action be taken to limit the number of governors who can serve on each Board and that the three School Boards be advised accordingly;
Service on City Corporation Committees
29. the restriction in respect of service on Grand Committees be waived if a vacancy persists in any particular year and had been advertised on at least two occasions on the basis that the restriction was reinstated in the following year.
Other Committee Issues
30. no further action be taken with regard to the publication of attendances on the website, this was on the basis that details of Members’ attendance were already set out in the minutes of meetings which were available on the City Corporation’s website, and that Members be advised accordingly.
31. Committees be reminded of the need to review the frequency of their meetings on an annual basis.
32. the principle of the producing minutes which were concise and to the point be maintained but that fuller committee minutes should be produced where
Page 9 appropriate particularly for legal necessity and that the Planning and Transportation Committee be informed accordingly.
Comments and other matters not covered by the new governance arrangements
33. with regard to the request for consideration to be given to the overlap of work between committees which were quasi-judicial or regulatory i.e. the Planning & Transportation, Port Health & Environmental Services and Licensing Committees to ensure that issues such as tables and chairs were overseen by one committee, the Directors of the Built Environment and Markets and Consumer Protection be requested to look into the issue of more joined up working and report back to the relevant Committees.
34. Ward Deputies be advised that issues of non-attendance at committee meetings should be addressed in the first instance at ward level by them and that Ward Deputies should be encouraged to be more pro-active in dealing with such matters; and
35. the rule whereby Members were not able to seek election as Chairman of a Ward or non-Ward Committee (other than a specially appointed Reception Committee) unless they had served on that Committee (in any capacity) in the previous year be dispensed with and that Standing Order No. 29 (3) be deleted.
13. HEALTH AND WELLBEING BOARD
The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning the governance arrangements for the creation of a formal Health & Wellbeing Board (H&WB).
It was noted that in other authorities the Leader or equivalent served on the Health and Wellbeing Board and it was therefore suggested that the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee or his or her nominee should serve on the Board. It was also suggested that the Chairman of the Energy and Sustainability Sub-Committee should not be a Member of the Board. Members supported these suggestions. A Member, who was also the Chairman of the Community and Children’s Services Committee, suggested that whilst Health and Wellbeing Boards were not due to go live until April 2013 it would be helpful if arrangements could be made to appoint the Court of Common Council representatives in December so that they had the opportunity to attend meetings of the Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board beforehand.
RESOLVED – That the steps being taken to set up a Health & Wellbeing Board in the form of a standalone Committee of the Common Council, including the timetable for consultation as outlined in the report be noted and that, subject to the approval of the Court the following be agreed to:-
1. The terms of reference of the new Board be as follows:-
Page 10
To be responsible for:-
a) carrying out all duties conferred by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (“the HSCA 2012”) on a Health and Wellbeing Board for the City of London area, among which:-
i) to provide collective leadership for the general advancement of the health and wellbeing of the people within the City of London by promoting the integration of health and social care services; and
ii) to identify key priorities for health and local government commissioning, including the preparation of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and the production of a Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
b) All of these duties should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the HSCA 2012 concerning the requirement to consult the public and to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
c) mobilising, co-ordinating and sharing resources needed for the discharge of its statutory functions, from its membership and from others which may be bound by its decisions; and
d) appointing such sub-committee as are considered necessary for the better performance of its duties.
2. with effect from April 2013 the composition of the Board be as follows:-
Chairman of Community and Children’s Services Committee (or representative) Chairman of the Port Health & Environmental Services Committee, (or representative) Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee (or representative) Three Members of the Court of Common Council appointed by the Common Council ( who are not members of the Health and Care Scrutiny Committee ) The Director of Public Health or his/her representative (to be appointed) Director of Department of Community and Children’s Services (aligned to the statutory membership of Director of Children’s Services and Director of Adult Social Services ) Healthwatch representative (aligned to the statutory membership of Healthwatch ) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) representative (aligned to the statutory membership of Clinical Commissioning Group representative ) Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Safer City Partnership Steering Group Environmental Health and Public Protection Director Representative of the City of London Police
Page 11 3. the convention that the Chairman of the H&WB should be a Member of the Court of Common Council, to ensure a suitable representation at the Court of Common Council.
14. BILL FOR AN ACT OF COMMON COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ELCTION OF WARD BEADLES
The Committee considered a report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor attaching a draft Bill for an Act of Common Council to enable the date for the election of Ward Beadles to be changed to coincide with that of the ordinary elections of Common Councilmen.
The Comptroller and City Solicitor was heard in support of the report. He explained that whilst the issue was not controversial the actual date of the election needed to be clarified to ensure it was correct in the Bill. He therefore suggested that the change of date be approved in principle and that the final wording of the Bill be delegated to the Town Clerk for approval in consultation with the Chairmen of the Policy Committee and the General Purposes Committee of the Court of Aldermen. Members supported his suggestion.
It was noted that the 2003 Act of Common Council provided for the elections of Ward Beadles to take place every four years but that this was not adhered to in all Wards and that this was being looked into as separate matter.
RESOLVED - That the change of date for the election of Ward Deadles be approved in principle, and that:-
1. the wording of draft Bill for an Act of Common Council enabling the change be delegated to the Town Clerk for approval in consultation with the Chairmen of the Policy Committee and the General Purposes Committee of the Court of Aldermen; and
2. subject to (1) above and to the Bill being settled by the Recorder of London, it be submitted to the Court of Common Council for approval.
15. DRAFT LOCAL PLAN – PUBLIC CONSULTATION
This item was withdrawn.
16. YOUNG FOUNDATION - FUNDING
The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Economic Development and the Director of Public Relations concerning the sponsorship of the Young Foundation for a further two years.
RESOLVED - That approval be given to the City of London Corporation’s sponsorship of the Young Foundation for a further period of two years at a cost
Page 12 of £20,000 per year to be met from the Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 and from the Policy Initiatives Fund for 2013/14, charged to City’s Cash and categorised under Research.
17. CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION’S CHINA PROGRAMME - FUNDING
The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Economic Development and the Director of Public Relations concerning the future funding of the City Corporation’s China programme and China-focussed public relations activities.
RESOLVED – That approval be given to the following:-
1. a sum of £340,000 per year for Economic Development Office costs relating to China and to the resultant increase in the base budget for that office to cover the costs in future years; and
2. a further sum of £93,000 per year for Public Relations Office for media and wider public relations work relating to China.
18. CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION’S INDIA PROGRAMME - FUNDING
The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Economic Development and the Director of Public Relations concerning the future funding of the City Corporation’s India programme and India-focussed public relations activities.
RESOLVED – That approval be given to the following:-
1. a sum of £158,000 per year for Economic Development Office costs relating to India and to the resultant increase in the base budget for that office to cover the costs in future years; and
2. a further sum of £60,000 per year for Public Relations Office for media and wider public relations work relating to India.
19. NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT NETWORK – CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP
The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Relations concerning the City Corporation continuing to be a corporate partner of the New Local Government Network for a further two years.
RESOLVED - That approval be given to the City of London Corporation’s corporate partnership of the New Local Government Network for a further period of two years at a cost of £15,000 per year to be met from the Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 and from the Policy Initiatives Fund for 2013/14, charged to City’s Cash and categorised under Research.
Page 13
20. REMEMBRANCER’S BUSINESS PLAN – UPDATE
The Committee considered a report of the Remembrancer updating it on the activities contained in the business plan from 1 April to 30 September 2012.
RESOLVED - That the report be received and its content noted.
21. POST OFFICES – WARDMOTE RESOLUTION FROM THE WARD OF CHEAP
The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk in response to a resolution from the Ward of Cheap concerning the provision of Post Offices within that Ward and within the City generally.
Members noted the difficulties associated with the provision of Post Offices.
RESOLVED – That the content of the report be noted and that officers continue to make representations regarding the needs of the City for Post Offices.
22. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY OR URGENCY POWERS
The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk advising of the action taken by the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman since the last meeting of the Committee, in accordance with Standing Order Nos. 41(a) and 41(b).
RESOLVED - that it be noted that approval was given to an application for the use of Guildhall on Tuesday 20 November from BNP Paribas Real Estate.
23. POLICY INITIATIVES FUND
The Committee considered a statement of the Chamberlain on the use of the Policy Initiatives Fund for 2012/13.
RESOLVED – That the content of the statement be noted.
24. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
There were no questions on matters relating to the work of the Committee.
Page 14 25. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
The following item was considered.
Special Event on Public Highway – RideLondon
The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning RideLondon, an event organised by the Mayor of London as part of Transport for London‘s (TfL) cycling programme.
RESOLVED: That approval be given to the City of London Corporation supporting the RideLondon event on 3 rd & 4 th August 2013, and to officers in the Highways Division working closely with TfL and the event organisers on the proposed routes through the City.
26. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
RESOLVED - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item Nos. Paragraph(s) in Schedule 12A 27-32 3
Part 2 – Non-Public Agenda
27. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES
The non-public minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2012 were approved.
28. HOSPITALITY WORKING PARTY MINUTES
The non-public minutes of the Hospitality Working Party meeting held on 20 September 2012 were considered and approval was given to a number of applications for the use of Guildhall and to the City Corporation hosting a dinner and seminar to mark the forthcoming anniversary of The Honourable The Irish Society and the long relationship between the City of London and Londonderry, on Wednesday 6th February 2012.
29. PROJECTS SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES
The non-public minutes of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 19 October 2012 were considered and noted.
Page 15 30. CORPORATE ASSET SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES
The non-public minutes of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 27 September 2012 were considered and noted.
31. ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY SUB-COMMITTEE MINUTES
The non-public minutes of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 19 September 2012 were considered and noted.
32. PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTANT
The Committee considered and agreed a report of the Director of Public Relations concerning the City Corporation’s retained public affairs consultants.
33. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
There were no questions on matters relating to the work of the Committee whilst the public were excluded.
34. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED.
Diamond Jubilee Trust
The Committee considered and agreed a report of the Remembrancer concerning the Diamond Jubilee Trust.
The meeting closed at 2.45pm
------CHAIRMAN
Contact officer: Angela Roach tel. no.: 020 7332 3685 e-mail: [email protected]
Page 16 Agenda Item 4
PROJECTS SUB (POLICY AND RESOURCES) COMMITTEE Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Minutes of the meeting of the Projects Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee held at Committee Room - 2nd Floor West Wing, Guildhall on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 at 3.30 pm
Present
Members: Deputy Sir Michael Snyder (Chairman) Stuart Fraser Anthony Llewelyn-Davies Jeremy Mayhew John Tomlinson
Officers: Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk Julie Mayer - Committee and Member Services Officer Caroline Al-Beyerty - Financial Services Director Victor Callister - Department of the Built Environment Steve Presland - Department of the Built Environment Peter Bennett - City Surveyor Peter Snowdon - Projects Director, City Surveyor's Department Eric Nesbitt - City of London Police
1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Mark Boleat, Deputy Ken Ayers, Alderman Sir Michael Bear and Hugh Morris.
2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations.
3. MINUTES The public minutes and summary of the Projects Sub Committee held on 16 October 2012 were approved.
4. FLEET STREET TO ST PAUL'S CORRIDOR MAJOR SCHEME - PROJECT PROPOSAL - GATEWAY 2 Members received a report of the Director of the Built Environment about the Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill Corridor. This area is highlighted in the City’s Road Danger Reduction Plan as it experiences a higher than average level of accidents.
RESOLVED, that:
Consultants be commissioned to deliver the corridor study and updated strategy documents as detailed in the report; continue to liaise with Transport for London and other stakeholders on the feasibility and impact of the major schemes bid and undertake initial survey work.
Page 17 5. WIDE AREA NETWORK, NETWORK MAINTENANCE AND FIXED TELECOMS REFRESH - PROJECT PROPOSAL - GATEWAY 2 Members received a report of the Chamberlain about the City’s Wide Area Network (WAN). The contract was last tendered and awarded to BT in April 2010, for a period of 3 years. Separate contracts existed for telephone lines, call charges, support and maintenance and, where possible, these contracts would be aligned to co-terminate in Spring 2013.
RESOLVED, that:
Subject to no capital expenditure being identified at options evaluation stage, further reporting follow corporate procurement regulations and be directly to the spending Committee.
6. BEECH STREET TUNNEL - PROJECT PROPOSAL - GATEWAY 2 Members received a report of the Director of the Built Environment, relating to potential enhancements to the Beech Street Tunnel. Members were generally concerned about the aesthetics of this area.
RESOLVED, that:
The scope of the project be established and a project brief agreed to develop a range of options, through preliminary evaluation and to identify potential sources of future funding.
7. JUBILEE POND, RE-LINING AND ENHANCEMENT - OPTIONS APPRAISAL - GATEWAY 3/4 Members received a report of the City Surveyor about water loss at Jubilee Pond, Wanstead Flats. The installation of an impermeable liner, with a 20 year life span, had been identified as the best option for addressing the leakage.
RESOLVED, that:
1. The re-lining of Jubilee Pond be approved in principle and enhancements undertaken to improve the area; namely capturing surface water to supplement the borehole water supply.
2. That the project continues under the streamlined project procedure: Gateway 5 Report; with the Authority to Start Work delegated to the City Surveyor.
8. LEADENHALL STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS - OUTLINE OPTIONS APPRAISAL GATEWAY 3 Members received a report of the Director of the Built Environment, which sought to address poor accident records along Leadenhall Street. In response to questions, Members noted that, as and when existing on-street parking for motorcycles is removed, it would not be replaced.
RESOLVED, that :
A large signalised junction, as set out in Option 3 in the report, be progessed to a combined Gateway 4 and 5.
Page 18 9. 8-10 MOORGATE AREA IMPROVEMENTS - OUTLINE OPTIONS APPRAISAL - GATEWAY 3 Members received a report of the Director of the Built Environment, which explored options to improve the environment of streets and spaces in the vicinity of the 8-10 Moorgate re-development. In response to a question from the Chairman, Members noted that the issue of residential accommodation in this area had been taken into account by the Planning and Transportation Committee, which concluded that it would not be detrimental to commercial uses in the area.
RESOLVED, that:
Option 1 (Improvements to Telegraph Street and Tokenhouse Yard, directly adjacent to the 8-10 Moorgate Development) be progressed to Option 4 (detailed options appraisal).
10. IS PROJECTS - COMPOSITE OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 Members received a report of the Chamberlain, summarising the outcome position of four projects managed by the IS Division, which had now been closed:
• E-Government • Sharepoint 2010 • Government Connect Sure Extranet • Sun Server Hardware Replacement Project
RESOLVED, that:
The Consolidated Outcome Report of projects managed by the IS Division be noted.
11. ELECTRONIC SOCIAL CARE RECORD SYSTEM - OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 Members received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services on the outcome of the implementation of an electronic document management system for social care clients within the Department of Community and Children’s Services.
RESOLVED, that:
The Outcome Report for the Electronic Social Care Record System be noted.
12. GUILDHALL SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND DRAMA - CONSOLIDATED OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 Members received a report of the Principal of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, which advised members of the outcome of a number of projects which were completed on site from January 2010 onwards:
• Teaching and Learning Phase • Refurbishment of Remaining Lifts • Theatre Lifts
Members noted that the above works had been initiated and managed prior to the changes in project management procedures introduced by the Town Clerk.
Page 19 RESOLVED, that:
The Consolidated Outturn Report for the Guildhall School be noted.
13. CYCLE PARKING 2011/12 - OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 Members received a report of the Director of the Built Environment which had been completed in the 2011/12 Financial year and fully funded by Transport for London.
RESOLVED, that:
1. The delivery of the project, with a high level of success in both of the measured criteria (number of spaces implemented and the initial use of those spaces) be noted.
2. The closure of the project be authorised.
14. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.
15. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no items of urgent business.
16. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED, that under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from items 17-28 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3, Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
17. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES The non-public minutes of the Projects Sub Committee held on 16 October 2012 were approved.
18. POLICE ACCOMMODATION - OUTLINE OPTIONS APPRAISAL - GATEWAY 3 Members received a joint report of the Commissioner and City Surveyor.
19. BOYS' SCHOOL PLAYGROUND - OPTIONS APPRAISAL - GATEWAY 3 Members received a report of the Headmaster at the City of London School.
20. CORPORATE DISASTER RECOVERY CENTRE RELOCATION - PHASE 2 - AUTHORITY TO START WORK - GATEWAY 5 Members received a report of the Chamberlain.
21. REFURBISHMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL CREMATORIUM AT THE CITY OF LONDON CEMETERY - ISSUE REPORT Members received an issue report of the City Surveyor.
22. REPLACEMENT OF THE MILLENNIUM INCLINATOR - OUTCOME REPORT - GATEWAY 7 Members received a report of the City Surveyor.
23. MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMME Members received a joint report of the Town Clerk, Director of Open Spaces and Director of Culture, Heritage and Libraries.
Page 20 24. INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROGRAMME Members received a joint report of the Town Clerk and Chamberlain.
25. CITY OF LONDON POLICE PROGRAMME Members received a joint report of the Town Clerk and The Commissioner of Police.
26. BUILDINGS PROGRAMME: RED AND AMBER PROJECTS Members received a joint report of the Town Clerk, City Surveyor and Director of Community and Children’s Services.
27. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.
28. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED
The Chairman agreed to accept the following items of urgent business:
• Barbican Flying System (Report of the City Surveyor) • Freemen’s School – Authority to Start Work – Phase 1B, Boarding House, Music School and Sports School Extension Works (Report of the City Surveyor) • 15-17 Eldon Street - Options Appraisal – Gateway 3 and 4 (Report of the City Surveyor)
The meeting ended at 4.40 pm
Chairman
Contact Officer: Julie Mayer Tel: 020 7 332 1410 [email protected]
Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 22 Agenda Item 5
PUBLIC RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE
8 November 2012
Minutes of the meeting of the PUBLIC RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE held at Guildhall, EC2 on THURSDAY, 8 November 2012 at 12.00noon.
Members Present : Mark Boleat, Chairman Stuart Fraser, Deputy Chairman Deputy Doug Barrow Roger Chadwick Sir Michael Snyder James Tumbridge
In Attendance: Deputy Ken Ayers, Chief Commoner Deputy John Barker Deputy Edward Lord Jeremy Mayhew John Tomlinson
Officers: John Barradell - Town Clerk Paul Double - Remembrancer Simon Murrells - Director of Economic Development Paul Sizeland - Director of Economic Development Liz Skelcher - Assistant Director of Economic Development Tony Halmos - Director of Public Relations Giles French - Public Relations Office Greg Williams - Public Relations Office Adam Maddock - Public Relations Office Angela Roach - Town Clerk’s Office
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Deputy Michael Cassidy.
2. DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS OF ANY PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA
There were no declarations.
4. MINUTES
The public minutes and summary of the Sub-Committee meeting held on 7 June 2012 were approved.
Page 23 5. PARTY CONFERENCES - EVALUATION
The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Relations evaluating the outcome of the City Corporation’s activities in relation to the main party conferences.
Members commended the arrangements for this year’s party conferences and discussed the venues for fringe events and dinners in 2013. It was noted that that the Labour Party Conference was due to be held in Glasgow. A Member suggested that for next year consideration be given to the possibility of introducing short informal sessions (with light refreshments) into the City Corporation’s programme.
RESOLVED – That the content of the report be noted and that:-
1. with regard to the Liberal Democrat Conference the following be approved:-
a. the City Corporation continues to work with CentreForum for the Liberal Democrat conference events given the knowledge it has of the Liberal Democrat party;
b. the timing of the fringe event at the next Liberal Democrat conference be re-examined as this year’s 5pm fringe event coincided with a formal conference session with adverse effects;
c. consideration be given to other high profile Liberal Democrats for the next fringe and hosting a separate event with the Business Secretary in London;
d. officers look to secure a different room for the fringe event at Labour Party conference in Brighton next year. The Labour Party block books a number of venues close to the conference secure zone and it was apparent that they had already done this for Brighton next year, so it was likely that the City Corporation would be booking its fringe venue through Trust Reservations on behalf of the Labour Party; and
e. The City Corporation continues to use Hotel du Vin as a dinner venue in Brighton.
2. with regard to the Labour Conference the following be approved:-
a. the City Corporation continues to use Manchester Town Hall as a venue for the fringe event at Conservative Party conference next year;
b. Policy Network remains a good candidate as a partner for the fringe event at Labour Party conference next year;
c. officers aim for a more balanced panel at the fringe event comprising both politicians and industry experts at the Labour Party conference next year;
Page 24 d. Stock Restaurant not be used in Manchester next year (Conservative Conference) due to the previous difficulties and officers investigate alternative venues in Manchester over the next few weeks; and
e. the City Corporation seeks to find another partner for the Labour Party dinner next year, particularly as we have worked with Centre for London for the past two years.
3. with regard to the Conservative Conference the following be approved:-
a. Malmaison Birmingham be in future in future years; and
b. Reform be considered as a partner for future Conservative Party conferences.
6. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE
There were no questions on matters relating to the work of the Sub- Committee.
7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
There was no urgent business for consideration.
The meeting closed at 1.00pm
------CHAIRMAN Contact officer: Angela Roach tel. no: 020 7332 3685 e-mail: [email protected]
Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 26 Agenda Item 6
Committee: Policy and Resources Committee Date: 13 December 2012 Subject: Revenue and Capital Budgets - 2013/14 Public Report of: The Town Clerk, The Chamberlain, the City Surveyor, For Decision The Remembrancer and The Private Secretary to the Lord Mayor
Summary
This report is the annual submission of the revenue and capital budgets overseen by your Committee. In particular it seeks approval to the provisional revenue budgets for 2013/14, for subsequent submission to the Finance Committee. The budgets are summarised in the following table and have been prepared within the resources allocated to each Chief Officer. Latest Approved Original Budget Budget Movement 2012/13 2013/14 £000 £000 £000 By Division of Service Security and Contingency Planning 891 836 (55) Public Relations 2,655 2,572 (83) Economic Development 4,671 4,342 (329) Grants and Contingencies 3,358 2,837 (521) Ceremonial 5,547 5,233 (314) Central Criminal Court 4,133 4,084 (49) Secondary’s Office 535 503 (32) Mayor’s Court 122 95 (27) Guildhall Complex – Surveyor 11,743 12,107 364 Guildhall Complex – Remembrancer (428) (440) (12) Mansion House 2,642 1,577 (1,065) Division of Service Totals 35,869 33,746 (2,123) Income and favourable variances are presented in brackets The post-implementation review of the new Governance arrangements has recommended that the operational property management responsibilities currently overseen by your Committee, shown in italics in the table above, should transfer to the Finance Committee. If approved by the Court of Common Council, the latest approved budget for your Committee would reduce to £17.122m and the 2013/14 provisional budget to £15.820m. Under the existing arrangements the 2013/14 provisional revenue budget totals £33.746m, a decrease of £2.123m compared with the Page 27 budget for 2012/13. Main reasons for this reduction are : • the latest approved budget for 2012/13 includes provisions totalling £758,000 (Chief Officers local risk budgets £236,000, Policy Initiatives Fund £280,000 and contingencies £242,000) carried forward from the previous year’s underspend; • lower capital charges of £1.776m mainly due to the 2012/13 budget including the final payment relating to the refurbishment and redecoration of Mansion House; • a reduction in repairs and maintenance expenditure of £243,000 mainly due to the full year effect of the implementation of the MITIE and APEX contracts; partly offset by • an increase of £874,000 in the additional programmes of repairs and maintenance due to the rephasing of schemes. This report also provides a summary of the Committee’s capital and supplementary revenue project budgets. Recommendations The Committee is requested to: • review the provisional 2013/14 revenue budget to ensure that it reflects the Committee’s objectives and, if so, approve the budget for submission to the Finance Committee; • note the capital and supplementary revenue project budgets; and • authorise the Chamberlain to revise these budgets to allow for further implications arising from corporate efficiency projects.
Main Report
Introduction
1. The Committee is responsible for:
• considering matters of Policy and strategic importance to the City of London Corporation including matters referred to it by other Committees and/or Chief Officers; • the review and co-ordination of the governance of the City of London Corporation including its Committees, Standing Orders and the Outside Bodies Scheme, reporting as necessary to the Court of Common Council, together with the City Corporation’s overall organisation and administration; • overseeing, generally the security of the City and the City of London Corporation’s security and emergency planning; Page 28 • the support and promotion of the City of London as the world leader in international financial and business services and to oversee, generally, the City of London Corporation’s economic development activities, communications strategy and public relations activities; and • the effective and sustainable management of the City of London Corporation’s operational assets to help deliver strategic priorities and service needs. 2. The range of services overseen by your Committee results in a considerable amount of detail and some complexity of presentation. The report endeavours to present the proposed revenue budget for 2013/14 as succinctly and clearly as possible. Detailed explanations for individual items can be provided on request. Services Previously Overseen by the City Lands and Bridge House Estates Committee
3. As a result of the Governance Review, the following services are currently overseen by your Committee (through the Corporate Asset Sub Committee), whereas previously they were overseen by the City Lands and Bridge House Estates Committee:
• Central Criminal Court; • Secondary’s Office; • Mayor’s Court; • Guildhall Complex – City Surveyor; • Ceremonial; • Guildhall Complex – Remembrancer; and • Mansion House.
4. However, following the post-implementation review, the operational property management responsibilities currently undertaken by the Corporate Asset Sub Committee have been recommended for transfer to the Finance Committee. If the recommendations are approved by the Court of Common Council, only the ‘Ceremonial’ service would remain under the control of your Committee.
5. The provisional 2013/14 budgets have been prepared in accordance with guidelines agreed by your Committee and the Finance Committee. These include a general cash limit allowance of 1% covering both employee and non-employee budgets, but which is offset by the first 1% of the total 2% efficiency savings required by 2014/15. The budgets have been prepared within the resources allocated to each Chief Officer.
Page 29 6. The budgets are set out in Table 1. Income and favourable variances are presented in brackets. Only significant variances (generally those greater than £100,000) have been commented on in the following paragraphs.
TABLE 1 Actual Latest Original Movement Paragraph Analysis of Service Expenditure Approved 2012-13 Reference 2011-12 Budget Budget to £’000 2012-13 2013-14 2013-14 £’000 £’000 £’000 EXPENDITURE Town Clerk 16,275 17,733 16,038 (1,695) 8 City Surveyor 9,749 10,620 10,450 (170) 9 City Surveyor – Additional Works Prog. 1,624 1,787 2,661 874 9 Remembrancer 2,062 2,493 2,531 38 Private Secretary to Lord Mayor 322 324 316 (8) Total Expenditure 30,032 32,957 31,996 (961)
INCOME Town Clerk (4,810) (5,725) (5,047) 678 10 City Surveyor (32) (503) (504) (1) Remembrancer (1,408) (1,404) (1,404) 0 Private Secretary to Lord Mayor 0 0 0 0 Total Income (6,250) (7,632) (6,955) 677
TOTAL EXPENDITURE BEFORE 23,782 25,325 25,041 (284) SUPPORT SERVICES AND CAPITAL CHARGES
SUPPORT SERVICES 6,565 6,785 6,722 (63) CAPITAL CHARGES (see note iii) 3,751 3,759 1,983 (1,776) 11
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE 34,098 35,869 33,746 (2,123)
BY DIVISION OF SERVICE : Security and Contingency Planning# 751 891 836 (55) Public Relations# 2,730 2,655 2,572 (83) Economic Development 4,915 4,671 4,342 (329) Grants, Contingencies, Miscellaneous 2,669 3,358 2,837 (521) Central Criminal Court 4,104 4,133 4,084 (49) Secondary’s Office 484 535 503 (32) Mayor’s Court 74 122 95 (27) Guildhall Complex – Surveyor* 11,158 11,743 12,107 364 Ceremonial 4,961 5,547 5,233 (314) Guildhall Complex – Remembrancer* (652) (428) (440) (12) Mansion House 2,904 2,642 1,577 (1,065) TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE 34,098 35,869 33,746 (2,123) * Fully reallocated to Corporation Funds through support services # Partly reallocated to Corporation Funds through support services
7. Overall there is a reduction of £2.123m between the 2012/13 latest approved budget and the 2013/14 original budget. The main reasons for Page 30 this movement are explained by the variances set out in the following paragraphs.
8. A decrease in the Town Clerk’s expenditure of £1.695m which is mainly a result of the deletion of one-off carry forwards of £742,000 (Town Clerk’s local risk budgets £220,000, Policy Initiatives Fund £280,000 and contingencies £242,000) from 2011/12 to 2012/13; the deletion of one-off items of expenditure of £678,000 in 2012/13 mainly funded by grants (such as from the Local Area Agreement Scheme) and savings of £180,000 in relation to the final phase of the 10% budget reductions.
9. A net increase in the City Surveyor’s expenditure of £704,000 comprising:
• an increase in the Additional Works Programme expenditure of £874,000. Budgets have provisionally been included for the 2013/14 additional works programme based on the bids considered by the Corporate Asset Sub Committee in June 2012. However, a decision on the funding of the programme is not due to be made by the Resource Allocation Sub Committee until December. It may therefore be necessary to adjust the budgets to reflect the Resource Allocation Sub Committee’s decision; partly offset by • a decrease in other areas of the City Surveyor’s expenditure of £170,000 mainly as a result of new repairs and maintenance contracts. Following the implementation of the MITIE & APEX contracts in July 2012, budgets have been re-aligned to reflect the tendered cost of the new contracts. The 2012/13 and 2013/14 budgets therefore reflect these changes. 10. A decrease in the Town Clerk’s income of £678,000 due to the 2012/13 budget including income/transfers from reserves to fund one-off items of expenditure (see paragraph 8).
11. There is a decrease in the capital charges budget of £1.776m. The 2012/13 budget includes the final payment relating to the refurbishment and redecoration of Mansion House.
12. Appendix 1 analyses the revenue budgets between employees, premises, supplies and services, income etc., and also between funds. A further analysis of the movement in the employee budget is shown in the manpower statement in Table 2 below.
Page 31 Latest Approved Budget Original Budget 2012/13 2013/14 Table 2 - Manpower statement Manpower Estimated Manpower Estimated Full-time cost Full-time cost equivalent £000 equivalent £000 Town Clerk 191.3 8,217 190.7 8,248 Remembrancer 25.0 1,520 25.0 1,557 City Surveyor 93.0 3,476 92.0 3,451
TOTAL 309.3 13,213 307.7 13,256
Potential Further Budget Developments
13. The provisional nature of the revenue budgets particularly recognises that further revisions may arise from the necessary realignment of funds resulting from corporate projects including;
• savings arising from the on-going PP2P reviews;
• the implementation of the City of London Procurement Service; and
• central and departmental support service apportionments. Revenue Budget 2012/13
14. The forecast outturn for the current year is in line with the latest approved budget of £35.869m (as detailed in Table 1). Draft Capital and Supplementary Revenue Project Budgets
15. The Committee’s draft capital and supplementary revenue project budgets are summarised in the Tables below. Estimated expenditure is analysed as follows:
• Committed – Projects which are contractually committed.
• Uncommitted – Projects which have been the subject of an options appraisal report but are not yet contractually committed.
• Options Appraisal costs – The costs of evaluating all other schemes approved to proceed to that stage.
Page 32 Table 3 - City's Cash Draft Capital Budget Exp. Pre Later 01/04/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Years Total £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Evaluated schemes - Committed Milton Court specialist equipment 3,529 6,239 1,174 10,942 Guildhall fire alarm phase 1 607 8 615 Guildhall improvement schemes 112,585 113 112,698 Guildhall back up power supplies 23 165 188
Unevaluated schemes Guildhall fire alarm phases 2 & 3 - options appraisal costs 63 63
Total 116,744 6,588 1,174 0 0 0 0124,506
Table 4 - City's Cash Draft Supplementary Revenue Projects Budget Exp. Pre Later 01/04/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Years Total £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Evaluated schemes - Committed Guildhall area strategy phase 1 7 53 60
Unevaluated schemes West Wing roof level access equipment - options appraisal costs 2 3 5 Guildhall accommodation review 435 165 600
Total 9 491 165 0 0 0 0 665
Table 5 - City Fund Draft Capital Budget Exp. Pre Later 01/04/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Years Total £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Evaluated schemes - Uncommitted Central Criminal Court 16 61 1,518 4,225 3,740 7,02520,41537,000
Total 16 61 1,518 4,225 3,740 7,025 20,415 37,000
Table 6 - City Fund Draft Supplementary Revenue Projects Budget Exp. Pre Later 01/04/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Years Total £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Unevaluated schemes Central Criminal Court - options appraisal costs 369 18 387 Guildhall area strategy - options appraisal costs 40 40
Total 369 58 0 0 0 0 0427
Page 33 16. Summaries of these budgets will subsequently be used to determine overall financing, with the full capital and supplementary revenue project budgets being presented to the Court of Common Council for approval in March 2013.
Contact Officers: Ray Green - Chamberlain’s Department [email protected]
Paul Debuse - Town Clerk’s Department [email protected]
Page 34 APPENDIX 1
Analysis of Service Expenditure Actual Latest Original Approved 2011-12 Budget Budget £’000 2012-13 2013-14 £’000 £’000 EXPENDITURE Employees 13,396 13,213 13,256 Premises 8,657 11,009 11,756 Transport Related Expenses 150 207 212 Supplies & Services 7,466 7,686 5,022 Private Contractors 312 343 321 Transfer to Reserve 51 0 0 Committee Contingency 0 499 1,429 Total Expenditure 30,032 32,957 31,996 INCOME Government Grants (356) (369) (369) Other Grants & Contributions (3,670) (4,986) (4,696) Use of Guildhall Facilities (2,097) (1,947) (1,890) Transfer from Reserve (127) (330) 0 Total Income (6,250) (7,632) (6,955)
TOTAL EXPENDITURE BEFORE SUPPORT 23,782 25,325 25,041 SERVICES AND CAPITAL CHARGES
SUPPORT SERVICES 6,565 6,785 6,722 CAPITAL CHARGES 3,751 3,759 1,983
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE 34,098 35,869 33,746
CITY FUND 9,922 10,221 9,865
CITY’S CASH 13,670 14,333 12,214
GUILDHALL ADMINISTRATION 10,506 11,315 11,667
TOTAL NET EXPENDITURE 34,098 35,869 33,746
Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 36 Agenda Item 7
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 13 December 2012 Subject: The City, the UK and European Banking Union Report of: Public Director of Economic Development and Director of For Information Public Relations
Summary
1. Attached is a position paper on the European Banking Union prepared by the Directors of Economic Development and Public Relations. The paper was recently considered at informal meetings of the Public Relations Sub- Committee and the Court of Common Council.
Recommendation 2. That the content of the position paper be noted.
Contact: Paul Sizeland, Director of Economic Development – 020 7332 3600/[email protected] Tony Halmos, Director of Public Relations - 020 7332 1450/[email protected]
Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38
Position Paper considered at the Informal Meeting of the Public Relations Sub-Committee on 8 November and at the Informal Meeting of the Court on 15 th November 2012
The City, the UK and European Banking Union
This paper details the latest situation in the development of a European Banking Union (EBU) and the position being adopted by UK Government in response.
It also explains the policy position being taken by the City of London Corporation as part of its role in supporting and promoting London as the world’s leading international financial and business centre.
Background
• The crisis in the Eurozone has lasted more than 3 years. It is both a banking crisis and a sovereign debt crisis; • Many policy makers in Europe blame the crisis as having been caused by the “Anglo-Saxons” and imported into the Eurozone through London; • Mainstream opinion in the Parliamentary Conservative Party is more Eurosceptic than it has ever been since the UK joined the EU. The Prime Minister’s use of the ‘veto’ at last December’s EU Summit may have caused concern amongst European countries, but it was hugely popular amongst the Conservative Party and contributed to the Conservatives taking an opinion poll lead over Labour; • The Foreign Secretary’s speech in Berlin on 23 October 2012 is an excellent synopsis of the Coalition’s position on Europe. We have been advised by the FCO that it represents the views of the Conservatives and the LibDems. The speech is available here and as an appendix to this paper: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest- news/?view=Speech&id=825459182 • The same themes are included in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Speech given at TheCityUK’s annual dinner at Mansion House on the 24 October: http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/deputy-prime- minister-s-speech-thecityuk-annual-dinner • It is worth noting that whilst the Labour leadership remain convinced that Britain’s best interests remain served by continuing membership of the EU, they are reluctant to be seen defending Brussels bureaucracy. The Shadow Chancellor has called for cuts to the EU budget, and the Labour Party policy review is looking at a future commitment to an EU referendum.
Page 39
London as the World’s Leading International Financial Centre
London is the world’s leading international financial centre because it is Europe’s financial centre, and because of its connectivity with the world’s fastest growing economies. Major financial institutions locate their global, European, or EMEA businesses in London for many reasons, but access to the Single Market is an essential part of London’s attractiveness. This is also true for small businesses based in the City, which also want access to the Single Market or provide part of the supply chain to the major global businesses located here.
London’s position enables the provision of cross-border products and services to Europe, and the export of European financial services through London to the rest of the world benefits the UK.
European Banking Union
The 17 members of the Eurozone are in favour of a banking union. The UK Government is also in favour of a banking union and believes it is a necessary step to resolving the Eurozone crisis and making the Euro a stable currency union.
A banking union will entail much greater fiscal and therefore political harmonisation that has previously occurred. While this will be difficult to achieve, the determination of some EU countries to do this should not be underestimated. We should also note that some of the 10 non-Eurozone members are planning to join the Eurozone area and would therefore become part of the banking union.
The UK’s position
The UK Government supports a banking union, because it believes it is essential to prevent the break-up of the Eurozone, the consequences of which would be hugely damaging to the UK economy. However, it is seeking clarity on what an EBU would look like.
A successful banking union could have major implications for the UK:
• an EBU could undermine the Single Market; • Britain could have reduced influence in the EU; • the UK would be unable to block the development of any prudential rules, due to the EBU voting as a block with the EBA. That could
Page 40 2
incentivise business to locate with the EBU, particularly if there are additional capital requirements for firms located outside the EBU and the ECB’s direct supervision; • Infrastructures, such as clearing houses, having to relocate to within an EBU, on the grounds of Euro liquidity provision by the ECB; • Any limitation on access to the Single Market by firms based outside the EBU would make London a less attractive base for third country firms, e.g. Swiss banks; • ECB may put prudential pressure on firms to relocate riskier business e.g. securities trading, to within the EBU, where it will have oversight; • Bank of England could be outvoted in any binding mediation undertaken by the EBA in case of disagreement with the ECB.
These concerns mean that London’s position as Europe’s financial centre (and the world’s leading centre) is at risk. Whilst some may argue that the same concerns were raised at the time of the creation of the Euro, a banking union would create a very different structure for the currency. Policy makers in Europe have already suggested that all Euro transactions may have to be cleared in a banking union member state, which would have a major impact on London.
The UK needs to be fully engaged in the discussions on the creation of the banking union - because of London’s preeminent role as Europe’s financial centre we should be committed to helping to find the best solution - with a view to achieving the following:
• Banking union is successful, and reduces instability in global financial markets caused by the Eurozone crisis; • Preserve the Single Market and protect Britain’s position by ensuring that non-members of the banking union have an adequate say in EU wide regulations; • Ensuring successful, well-functioning financial services can contribute to the creation of jobs and growth across Europe; • Keeping Europe open to the rest of the world and resist financial protectionism.
Next Steps
Given it is far from clear what a banking union will look like or how it will work, we do not know what the impacts will be on the UK and London as a financial centre.
Page 41 3
The UK should have constructive engagement in the months ahead to help with the development of a successful banking union for the benefit of all member states, whilst protecting UK interests. The financial services industry, and those who represent them, should also engage in that process. The Government is currently seeking the views of business and we should welcome this and assist where we can.
Concerns
The UK is not in a strong position for these negotiations:
• As the Foreign Secretary highlighted in his speech, the UK public’s support for Europe is at its lowest level. This is partly due to the Eurozone crisis; • This antipathy towards Europe raises concerns that the UK may vote in a referendum to leave the EU. This would be disastrous for the financial services industry in London – a status comparable to Switzerland and Norway is not desirable, as they have no influence in shaping rules they have to adhere to; • There are few Britons in senior positions in the Commission; • Whilst we have some excellent MEPs who work constructively in the Parliament, it is not clear how much influence they have; • Some EU member states are still angry that the UK used its ‘veto’ at last year’s summit. Others are confused as to the UK’s policy on Europe, often unaware of the impact of UK domestic politics; • Business in the UK is not as active as it could be in engaging and influencing policy development in the EU.
The position of the City of London Corporation
The City Corporation seeks to promote and support London as the world’s leading international financial centre. We know that financial services businesses place access to the Single Market high on their list of reasons for locating in London. We also know the Eurozone crisis continues to undermine market confidence and the UK Government has stated it believes banking union is essential to resolve the crisis. Therefore the public position of the City Corporation on banking union should be:
• We support the position of the UK Government on the development of the EBU; • Protecting the Single Market must be paramount;
Page 42 4
• The UK should seek reassurances that the 10 member states outside the banking union should not be outvoted by a block vote of the Euro 17 ; • We need clarification on the future role of the European Banking Authority, which covers all 27 member states; • Both the UK Government and business should work constructively in Europe during these negotiations, as there are many allies who share our ambitions; • Encourage trade, financial and banking agreements at a higher international level such as the G20 and IOSCO.
29 October 2012
Page 43 5
Appendix 1
Europe at a crossroads: what kind of Europe do we want? 23 October 2012 Today the Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke about the challenges facing European nations for the future. Speaker: Foreign Secretary William Hague Location: Körber Foundation Conference, Berlin
This is a time of epochal change as globalisation tests developed countries’ ability to pay their way in the world.
So there could be few better places to talk about the future of Europe than here in Berlin. Germany is a globalisation success story. Others can learn lessons, Britons among them, from Germany’s policy choices: structural reforms, its sound public finances and its culture of excellence and enterprise have made Germany globally competitive. It is one of the great trading nations of the world. The previous British Government did not maintain sound public finances. It did not foster trade with the fastest growing economies. Our education system did not provide the skills we need to compete. This British Government’s task is to correct those great errors.
Clearly, there is no more important issue here than resolving the Eurozone crisis. We all want to see a sustainable solution as quickly as possible: because nothing would help our own economic recovery more than an end to the crisis, because the hopes and livelihoods of tens of millions of fellow Europeans depend on it and because broader political stability is at stake.
Today I want to look at the future of the EU from a wider perspective. As the Nobel Peace prize reminded us, the EU is about much more than just the Eurozone. I understand what the Euro means to its members but the EU’s greatest achievements, the things that have the most real good for the peoples of Europe, are the establishment of the Single Market and the enlargement of the European Union.
The European Union, alongside NATO, has been an instrument of peace and reconciliation. It has helped to spread and entrench democracy and the rule of law across Europe. It has helped make armed conflict between its members unthinkable. The Single Market has opened up prosperity and opportunity to hundreds of millions of people. We must ensure that the solutions we adopt
Page 44 6
for the current crisis do not jeopardise the integrity and achievements of the EU as a whole.
Globalisation and competition with hundreds of millions of highly skilled, hard working and determined people in the world marketplace mean that despite the huge new opportunities on offer equally developed nations cannot assume that the next generation will be better off than the present. The challenge for every European nation is how we earn our living and make our voices count in this new, more multipolar world. And the question for the European Union is how it helps us meet those two great challenges.
Many European economies are stagnant. Weak public finances, and a recovering financial system mean we cannot rely on increased public or consumer spending for growth. The only way our economies can grow is through trade, trade within the EU and outside it.
That means an expansion and deepening of the Single Market. The Single Market is one of the European Union’s greatest achievements, the largest market in the world, with more than 500 million consumers and 21 million companies. Both Germany and the UK had essential roles in establishing it. It is no coincidence that the crucial period was one when the Conservative Party, the CDU and the FDP were in Government.
The Single Market and its four freedoms have helped make today’s Britain. There are over 1,000 British companies in Germany, together employing more than 200,000 people. Total British Foreign Direct Investment in Germany currently amounts to nearly €40 billion. As one commentator has noted, someone in Britain can go through a day wholly dependent on it - a Pole, one of half a million living in our country, can leave their home, heated courtesy of a German company – EON, catch a bus owned by a French company – RATP, make a phone call, using a Franco-German provider – Orange on the latest Nokia phone from Finland and stop to get money from a Spanish bank – Santander. Others may preach Europe but Britain practises it.
We welcome the proposals on the Single Market Act II, which are absolutely in the right direction. But we need to be bolder. Europe started with Coal and Steel but the future lies in high value services, the digital economy, advanced engineering, nanotechnology and biotechnology. We need the collective will and ambition to deepen the Single Market in areas like the digital economy, services and energy.
We should also use to the full our collective weight as the world’s largest trading bloc. Germany is the largest exporter in Europe and ours is one of the world’s most open economies. In July, for the first time, British trade with the
Page 45 7
rest of the world outstripped our trade with the rest of the EU and we want to strengthen both. Stronger trade relations with emerging powers present huge opportunities. The EU has free trade negotiations with countries including Canada, Japan, Singapore and India. If we completed all trade deals currently under negotiation, EU GDP could be increased by up to €60bn a year. We should go further and try to achieve our ambition to conclude an EU- US free trade agreement. We are all looking for economic growth. That would be serious economic growth and there is no other way to provide it.
If we do not succeed in making our economies globally competitive and generating sustainable growth then whatever else we do, whatever treaties we sign, whatever structures we build, whatever declarations we sign, will all ultimately be irrelevant. There will be no Social Europe, there will just be an Excluded Europe. If Europe becomes a neighbourhood of economic decline we will not matter in the world and we will have betrayed the peoples of Europe. I know that Germany and Finland understand this clearly. This is a mission for the EU27 and the UK will be at the forefront of this effort.
Then there is the second challenge we all face: the global diffusion of power and wealth and the rise of many more centres of decision making than ever before.
The last few years have shown what European nations can achieve by working together: squeezing the Iranian nuclear programme and supporting democracy in Burma, offering help to emerging democracies in the Arab world, leading the way on climate change and tackling piracy off the Horn of Africa.
In all of these areas the UK has played a leading role in forging EU policy and will continue to do so.
It would be a grave mistake if we turned inward as a result of current economic difficulties. We should be confident and outward looking. As the Arab Spring proved again, our European values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law are universal values. Our open societies and open economies are the models for the future.
In the broader European Neighbourhood, the EU must still have a compelling offer for those who share our values and interests and continue with the mission of enlargement. It is profoundly in our collective strategic interest that Turkey continues on an EU track. And Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine are European nations. Their future lies with Europe. It is up to us to promote democracy and encourage them to embrace freedom fully.
Page 46 8
We live in a world of networks. We can best attain our goals by exploiting all our networks flexibly and to the full. Each Member State in the EU should make the most of its own special links around the world, whether Britain with countries such as Canada and Australia, Spain with the vast Spanish speaking world and France with the Francophonie.
The EU’s most remarkable achievement is that its four freedoms have fostered vast and intense connections of the kind I have just mentioned, although the health of these networks need constant tending.
Co-operation within the EU on the great global issues has allowed us to advance our shared interests and values with effect. But that does not mean we should try to forge a single European position and voice on everything.
We want British, German and Finnish national diplomacy, and international institutions like NATO to thrive alongside coordinated action at the EU level. The EU is part of but far from all of the solution to the fundamental challenges we face.
Often important things will not be agreed or cannot be done through the EU. It would be neither right nor realistic to think that questions of war and peace could or should be decided by QMV. Indeed, just because some things work well in coordination with all of our European partners does not mean we should do everything at 27. A more effective EU does not have to mean a bigger, more expensive or more centralised EU.
There are three great problems of Europe’s future we need to solve if we are to ensure that a wider European Union has the flexibility, the legitimacy and the agility to succeed in the 21st century.
First, how we structure the EU when many countries want differing kinds of integration and still preserve the EU’s essential unity.
Second, how we deal with the problem of democratic legitimacy and accountability of decision-making in the EU, which is a growing concern in most Member States.
Third, how we get the right balance of what the EU does do or doesn’t do. These are not simple matters. Clearly the Eurozone’s current structures are not working. We respect the democratic decision of the countries of the Eurozone to preserve it. That will require changes. We know the options. It is not for Britain to tell you what the exact remedy should be. The choices faced by Eurozone countries are not easy. Some proposals would severely curtail national democracy – issues like national budgets – forever. Others might mean decades of financial support
Page 47 9
from stronger economies to the weaker. How to find a way through these problems in a way that is fair and commands democratic consent is immensely difficult.
Britain wants you to succeed in your efforts to find a resolution of the crisis. Certain responsibilities go with a currency. It is our responsibility to ensure that balance is restored to our own public finances. We did not ask for others to contribute when we recapitalised our banks four years ago: it was our responsibility, even though thirty per cent of the money went to repairing the balance sheets of other European banks.
But while developing a governance of the Eurozone that really works we must equally ensure this leaves the Single Market coherent and intact. The debate on establishing a full banking union shows that this will be complex and sometimes difficult. There are obvious issues for countries not in the Eurozone, for whom it will never be acceptable to have a situation in which the Eurozone acts as a bloc in Single Market institutions in a way that determines the outcomes before the others have even met. This is not just an issue for Eurozone outs. The balance of power within the Eurozone, in particular between the more liberal economies and the more interventionist, will be different from the balance in the EU as a whole.
Part of the answer to the problem of legitimacy and democratic disconnect, must lie in giving national parliaments a much greater role in the EU. No other institutions compare to their lasting democratic authority. Germany’s Constitutional Court has insisted on decisions being taken by the Bundestag for that reason. We need a system that makes it easier for a citizen of one of our countries to know how they should vote at a national level and whom they should speak to, to get things changed. That is the essence of democracy.
We need to look afresh at some of the things the EU does. They have to make sense to our voters. That is why, over the next two years, the British government will be reviewing what the EU does and how it affects us in the United Kingdom: a constructive and serious British contribution to the public debate across Europe about how the EU can be reformed, modernised and improved. We are also looking at the right balance on Justice and Home Affairs given our distinct legal tradition.
Take the EU budget: we want one which adds value and is in touch with the real world. Britain is the second largest net contributor after Germany but we are having to reduce spending at home on every single area other than health and international development. In that context people simply do not understand why there should massive increases in the EU budget when all EU countries are trying to balance the books at home. EU Member States are
Page 48 10
€3.5 trillion more in debt now than when the last EU budget was negotiated. The EU budget has to reflect these changed facts.
In some cases, such as a wider Single Market or effective action on international problems, more European activity makes sense. But sometimes less is more; less is better. The EU would be stronger if it made more sense to people by only acting where there was clear justification for action at the European level. I do not understand, for instance, why junior doctors’ working hours should not be decided nationally. There is some commonality of view here with Germany: at last week’s European Council your Chancellor successfully and rightly pressed for the Commission to look at areas where the regulatory burden could be lightened.
The EU is already a diverse place and with further enlargement it will become more so: by the time all the Western Balkan nations join there will be more than thirty countries in it. Its peoples do and will want different things from the EU. Some will be in the Eurozone and some not. Some are comfortable with ideas of federalism, other are not. Some, like Britain, play an active part in foreign and security policy, others find its practice difficult. Some yearn to go further in opening up markets. Others find the idea threatening.
We should recognise and embrace that diversity – it would be a dangerous denial of reality to wish it away. We must respond to what our people and democratic institutions are saying – not just in Britain, but across Europe. We ignore them at our peril. Extremist parties have enjoyed no significant success in Britain or Germany but worryingly that is not true of every EU Member State.
This Coalition Government is committed to Britain playing a leading role in the EU but I must also be frank: public disillusionment with the EU in Britain is the deepest it has ever been. People feel that in too many ways the EU is something that is done to them, not something over which they have a say. The way in Britain Lisbon was ratified without any consultation of the voters has played a part in that. People feel that the EU is a one way process, a great machine that sucks up decision-making from national parliaments to the European level until everything is decided by the EU. That needs to change. If we cannot show that decision-making can flow back to national parliaments then the system will become democratically unsustainable. Subsidiarity must really mean something.
Those points may be felt most acutely in Britain but they are not felt only in Britain. We need to approach these hard and multi-faceted issues calmly, honestly and inclusively.
Page 49 11
We respect the serious and methodical way in which Germany is tackling them. The British debate tends to be rough and raucous. After so long working together we should know enough to accept those differences. We must each avoid the trap of thinking we know the mind of the other without properly talking it through. We need to talk about Europe because both our perspectives matter to its future. That is why the Körber Foundation’s conference is so timely.
It is obviously in Britain’s interests for the EU to succeed in the tasks I have described and for Britain to play a leading role in it. The Eurozone countries must do what they must to resolve the crisis, but the way forward for the EU as a whole is not more centralisation and uniformity but of flexibility and variable geometry, that allows differing degrees of integration in different areas, done in ways that do not disadvantage those that do not wish to participate in everything, and preserves the things we all value.
It will not be easy to achieve but this would be a Europe that thrives on its diversity and allows all of its peoples to fulfil their aspirations. It would be a Europe built on sustainable democratic foundations. And it would be a Europe which kept pace with the rapid changes in the world and the developing interests of each of its members, a Europe adapted to the 21st century
Page 50 12
Appendix 2
Deputy Prime Minister’s speech to TheCityUK annual dinner The Deputy Prime Minister gave a speech to TheCityUK annual dinner on 24 October 2012. Text is below – [Political content removed] Bluntly, with the economy still fragile, this is not the time for dogma. There’s a lot of speculation about what tomorrow’s GDP figures will bring. Whatever they look like, we know that, overall, we’ve set the economy on the right path. But recovery is slow and fitful. Repairing the damage following the shock in 2008 is a gradual healing process. And the Government must remain absolutely focused on the reforms that will drive growth. Indeed, it’s dogma – at least in part – that got the economy into this mess. It was blind faith in the unrestrained operation of financial markets that helped take the banking system to the edge of a precipice. Political, regulatory and financial elites were so intoxicated with an unfettered and over-leveraged banking system that they refused to hear the alarm bells as the financial crisis loomed; they refused to see the deep, structural weaknesses that had emerged in our economy. So we’re turning a page on the economic ideology of our recent past. And, as we navigate these extreme times and uncharted waters, we should be vigilant against kneejerk or dogmatic responses to our economic challenges. And tonight I’d like to single out three areas where pragmatism is especially needed from both Government and business, as we work together. First, we need a balanced, engaged approach to Europe - essential to the interests of the City. Second, we must prioritise lending to sound business – critical for our economic recovery. Third, we need to lead the shift to a more responsible, more sustainable corporate culture – crucial to our long term success. First, defending the City in Europe. The Coalition’s starting point is simple: we support difficult regulatory surgery – at home and abroad – where that is needed to stabilise the financial sector. But we will not accept steps that are anticompetitive or protectionist. The playing field must be level. That’s why, for example, I don’t support a Europe-wide Financial Transaction Tax. Though I would support a global one. Limiting the FTT in this way would skew the playing field. It would be bad for Europe in the world, and bad for the UK in Europe. And, what’s more, at a time of high unemployment in Europe. The Commission has itself said that it would cost more jobs than it creates. On the other hand, I welcome the Liikanen Report: a set of reforms for Europe’s banking system. It’s largely consistent with our domestic intentions, as set out in the Vickers Report. And I’m keen that we support implementation of the Liikanen proposals across Europe. Alongside implementing Vickers here in the UK.
Page 51 13
Where our situation is less straightforward is the Eurozone banking union – at the top of the agenda at last week’s European Council. And it’s here that we need a sophisticated approach. Clearly it’s not a good idea for the UK to be part of a full Eurozone banking union designed to break the vicious circle between sovereign debt and bank debt in the single currency area. But let’s not forget that we’re already part of a banking union-lite: the single market in financial services. And so, while we have an obvious interest in the full, Eurozone banking union succeeding. At the same time, we need to make sure it doesn’t prejudice the UK. The worst outcome would be the creation of an over-powerful banking bloc. Able to undermine the single market. Able to undermine what remains – by far – Europe’s largest financial centre: the City of London. So the question is: how do we get the best outcome? As someone who worked in Europe for years, my view is the best approach is to engage fully and properly in the debate. Making our case and winning the argument over and over again, while decisions are being made. That’s why the Coalition Government will now do two things: One: after last week’s summit, we’ll work flat out to make sure that the rules governing the relationship between the European Central Bank, in its new supervisory role, and the Bank of England – and the role of the European Banking Authority - are settled in a sensible manner. Two: we want to work with you to show that the City is not just a British asset, but a European asset too. It’s responsible for over a third of the European wholesale market. 80% of the EU hedge fund industry is based here. Our financial and professional services employ more people than Paris and Frankfurt put together. We’ve got more foreign banks than any other city. The largest insurance industry in Europe. AIM - Europe’s biggest equity market for small business. The City is the biggest exporter of financial services in the world. And you know better than anyone that if London-based firms decided to leave they wouldn’t all head straight to Frankfurt or Paris. Many would go to New York, Hong Kong, Dubai. That’s the reality I’m pressing with my European counterparts. And I implore the industry to do more to push this message yourselves – not least City UK. The rest of Europe needs to be crystal clear: If they integrate in a way that hurts the City, they potentially hurt Europe as a whole. Second: lending. The thing our economy needs most, right now, is money flowing through it. Especially for SMEs. That is urgent. And it’s essential if we’re going to build a private sector that is vibrant, entrepreneurial, diverse. So Government is doing everything we can to help finance business: working with the Bank of England to deliver the £80bn funding for lending scheme; creating a new Business Bank to support up to £10bn worth of loans; setting up a Green Investment Bank for low carbon companies specifically; investing directly – and leveraging private money – through schemes like the Regional Growth Fund; as well as seeking to boost non-bank forms of financing like peer-to-peer-lending, supply-chain finance; and so on. But with such tight
Page 52 14
constraints on the public finances, we can only do so much; the bulk of the money has to come from you. I know that there are issues with demand – I don’t discount those. But perception is as big a problem as any: many small firms simply don’t think they’ll get the loans. I know that the banks feel restricted by their capital and liquidity requirements. But the FSA has recently announced more flexibility in those requirements – a move I very much welcome. Precisely because it increases the banks’ capacity to lend. Third: responsible enterprise – the theme of my last speech here, in January. It’s an issue David Cameron and Ed Miliband have also spoken about. And, while it is encouraging to see the parties converge for once. This must not be mistaken for a political bandwagon that will, eventually, roll on. It won’t. Responsible capitalism is not a fad, it’s hard-headed economics. It’s about empowering shareholders, investors and ordinary workers to create a check on reckless decisions. It’s about rewarding people who drive short-term profit but who think about long-term stability too. It’s about fair and healthy competition so the best companies flourish and the most talented individuals rise. That’s a corporate world more sustainable, ultimately more profitable, and which commands public support. Business doesn’t operate in a social vacuum. Especially at a time when banks have come to rely – for their very survival – on an explicit or implicit taxpayer guarantee. The public backlash against the banks hasn’t just been uncomfortable for the sector, it has threatened the basic consent in society. Without which the modern commercial banking sector would be unable to operate. So it’s in businesses’ own interests to be sensitive towards their social context. In government, we’re delivering a range of reforms that will strengthen our corporate culture, many led by Vince Cable:
• New powers for shareholders, for example, to hold directors to account. • Greater corporate transparency for investors; • I’m pushing employee ownership to give more ordinary workers a stake; • We’re intervening to curb excessive supermarket dominance, providing extra protections for smaller retailers. • Taking action to open up more boardrooms to more women.
The list goes on. But there is no silver bullet, and government can’t do this alone. So, where companies are moving in this direction themselves, that is extremely encouraging. Because this has to be the direction of travel. If we want a prosperous future, enlightened enterprise is the only way. And I ask this audience – the powerful commercial enterprises represented here tonight – to lead the way. I want us to work together as we rescue, repair and reform the British economy after the damage sustained in 2008. A partnership based on hard-headed pragmatism, not dogma, and an unshakeable belief in the dynamism and innovation of British business and the British people.
Page 53 15
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 54 Agenda Item 8
Committee(s): Date(s): th Policy & Resources Committee 13 December 2012
Subject: Public Relations and Economic Development Public Sub Committee Report of: Town Clerk For Decision
1. Members will recall that, as part of the recent post-implementation review of governance considered by this Committee in September, approval was given to setting up a Public Relations and Economic Development Sub Committee to replace your existing Public Relations Sub Committee. This proposal has since formed part of the overall review of governance arrangements considered by the Court of Common Council on 6 December.
2. In view of the synergy between public relations, corporate affairs and economic development (examples of cross-cutting activities include topical work on immigration and visas, hosting events and research), Members agreed that the creation of a new Sub Committee would bring about a greater focus to these areas and the way they are overseen. Since your meeting in September, Members of your Public Relations Sub Committee have met informally to consider the way forward. Views put forward at that meeting helped formulate the suggested Terms of Reference and composition for the new Sub Committee, as set out below.
3. The Terms of Reference for the new Sub Committee are proposed as follows: ‘To consider and report to the Grand Committee on all matters relating to the City Corporation’s Economic Development, Public Relations, Public Affairs and Communication activities, including any related plans, policies and strategies’. Subject to your approval, various functions of the Public Relations Committee would need to be handed over to the new Sub Committee, such as attendance at Party Conferences. It is suggested that this be left to the new Sub Committee to resolve as necessary.
4. The proposed composition for the new Public Relations and Economic Development Sub Committee be:
• Chairman and Deputy Chairman (men) of the Policy and Resources Committee • Past Chairmen of the Policy and Resources Committee, still on the Committee if willing to serve • Chairman of the Finance Committee if willing to serve Page 55 • 5 Members of the Policy and Resources Committee, elected by the Committee • 3 Members of the Court of Common Council, co-opted by the Sub Committee (this would be following an invitation for expressions of interest based on relevant expertise and knowledge)
5. Subject to the Court of Common Council having supporting the creation of a new sub-committee, it is recommended that:-
(i) approval be given to the establishment of a Public Relations and Economic Sub Committee comprising:- • Chairman and Deputy Chairman (men) of the Policy and Resources Committee • Past Chairmen of the Policy and Resources Committee, still on the Committee • Chairman of the Finance Committee • 5 Members of the Policy and Resources Committee, elected by the Committee • 3 Members of the Court of Common Council, co-opted by the Sub Committee
(ii) the terms of reference of the Sub Committee be “ to consider and report to the Grand Committee on all matters relating to the City Corporation’s Economic Development, Public Relations, Public Affairs and Communication activities, including any related plans, policies and strategies”.
Contact: Sam Hutchings [email protected] 020 7332 1407
Page 56 Agenda Item 9
Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Policy & Resources 13 December 2012 Subject: Public The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Report of: For Decision Town Clerk
Summary
The Olympic and Paralympic Games held in London this summer are generally considered to have been a big success. The City of London played a very full part in this success, delivering a number of high profile events and projects in support of the Games.
The City carefully planned for the summer over a number of years and then delivered through bespoke arrangements under the coordination and management of the 2012 Lead Officer, guided by your committee’s 2012 Sub- Committee.
The main highlights of the summer are reported, but more importantly a number of observations are made on lessons learnt, including:
• A clear, high-level, declaration that the City supported the Games, and would work in partnership with others to ensure their success and maximise the benefits to the City, focussed minds • For complicated, multi-partner events there is a distinct advantage in developing clearly understood, stable and robust structures at both Member and officer-level that allow relationships to be developed and understanding of desired outcomes and issues to be transferred from planning to delivery. • Although various offers were made to support central Government’s hospitality programme and a number of ambassadors were offered hospitality for visiting Heads of State, interest in this offer was not as great as anticipated. • Use of Guildhall Yard for informal events (Barbecue) during Marathons proved popular and may be a model for how we organise events with less traditional stakeholder groups in the future. The careful positioning of planters demonstrated that higher quality planters and other dressing could be used in the Yard to enliven its appearance whilst not having a detrimental effect upon its use. • Celebrate the City, was a very popular cultural event in advance of the Games with a wide range of participants and consideration is underway as to how it can be repeated. • In recognition of the once in a lifetime nature of the Games a pragmatic approach was taken to where banners and other types of dressing were allowed, but expectations may have been raised and Page 57 planning officers are having to be robust in refusing advertising approaches.
• The City and much of central London was quieter than expected during the first week of the Olympics despite record ridership of the tube and DLR. There was also visitor displacement – a bumper Spring and good post September but City visitor attractions saw a drop in footfall of 14% July-September and some individual attractions saw a 40% year on year drop in July.
A fter the Games the 2012 Sub-Committee was particularly keen to consider legacy issues. Opportunities that have been identified are discussed at the end of the report and recommendations made as to how these can be taken forward.
Recommendations It is recommended that Members: • note the contents of this report and particularly the observations on the main issues. • review the legacy issues identified at paragraph 32 and decide on the appointment of Member representatives to lead on Legacy issues.
Main Report
Background
1. The Olympic and Paralympic Games were held in London between 27 July and 9 September 2012. They are widely held to have been very successful events for the UK and London. In the words of the Mayor of London:
“It was surprise, wasn’t it? There we were, little old us, the country that made such a Horlicks of the Millennium Dome. Putting on a flawless performance of the most logistically difficult thing you can ask a country to do in peacetime. And some of us were frankly flabbergasted, gobsmacked. And I want you to hold that thought, remember that feeling of surprise – because, that surprise is revealing of our chronic tendency in this country to underestimate what we can do. And we need now to learn the lessons of the Olympics and Paralympics. The moment when we collectively rediscovered that we are a can-do country. A creative, confident, can-do country.
Page 58 The Olympics succeeded because we planned for years and we worked 1 together. Public sector and private sector.” 2. It was certainly the case for the City Corporation that the ability to respond to the challenges leading up to and through the Games depended upon sustained and detailed planning. The general approach was to plan for the worst case, but not to expect it. The following sections discuss certain key activities and seek to bring out lessons which may be adapted to future activities or opportunities which remain to be addressed.
A. Delivery against the original 2012 Strategy 3. The City’s 2012 Strategy was produced in April 2007 as an overarching framework to inform and guide the development of other strategies, policies, plans and programmes. The Strategy expressed the desire to maximise the benefits and opportunities offered by the Games and this aspiration guided much of the work over the intervening years. However, given the date of its production, much was aspirational and in some cases it was over-taken by events.
4. Nevertheless it is still instructive to consider how well the aims were addressed. Appendix A is a short table identifying activities undertaken under each of the aims. Some of these activities are discussed in more detail below and others have been reported elsewhere and are referenced in the Background papers.
Observations:
a. The clear high-level declaration that the City supported the Games, and would work in partnership with others to ensure their success and
maximise the benefits to the City, focussed minds. Coupled with an immovable deadline it encouraged a can-do attitude and at times a more imaginative take on how to get things done.
b. It was not possible to absorb all costs within existing budgets, especially as significant cuts to departmental budgets had been made since the original strategy expressed the hope that “The City of London Corporation will, in the main, seek to meet its strategic objectives for London 2012 from existing resource provisions, or
through alternative funding streams.” Details of this extra spending are reported in the Financial Implications section.
1 Boris Johnson to Conservative Party Conference,Page 9 October 59 2012. City Promotion and Engagement 5. In June 2011, this Committee agreed to allocate a total of £250,000 towards promotional activities relating to the 2012 Games. Appendix B details how this money was allocated.
6. To supplement the programme of promotion and ensure the City Corporation could respond to the additional engagement activity expected over the summer, an additional £120,000 was allocated from the Policy Initiatives Fund in May this year. A breakdown of how this money was allocated is also at Appendix B. Only about half of this latter sum was allocated for events and the remainder, along with the balance of the sum awarded for promotional activities will be released back into the Policy Initiatives fund. During the Games, the City Corporation was able to work with central Government to support a number of high profile events aimed at welcoming visiting dignitaries to London. The highpoints of this joint working were two receptions held at Guildhall for the opening ceremonies of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Both events involved senior domestic and international government representatives and business leaders, providing an excellent backdrop to engage with these distinguished guests. Other highlights included the London reception held at Mansion House on the eve of the Games, Barbecue celebrations in Guildhall Yard to welcome the Marathons coming through the City and a breakfast with GB athletes prior to their parade through London.
7. The City supported the International Olympic Committee (IOC) by hosting their art exhibition in the Guildhall Art Gallery and France, Austria and Belgium based popular National Olympic Houses in the City.
8. The City, the GLA and London and Partners collaborated to deliver a successful event focussed on attracting inward investment to London. This event formed part of the Mayor of London’s business engagement programme and enabled the City to work with partners to promoted London’s inward investment offer. The Lord Mayor also took part in a number of events at the British Business Embassy at Lancaster House.
9. With the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) being based at the Grange St Pauls, particular attention was paid to ensuring this relationship was nurtured. Regular liaison took place with the IPC and the hotel on an operational level, 500 Welcome Packs were produced for delegates, the President of the IPC Sir Philip Craven was entertained by the Lord Mayor and the IPC Board met in Guildhall. It was, therefore, particularly gratifying that Sir Philip specifically mentioned and thanked the City of London in his closing ceremony remarks.
Page 60 10. A number of privately organised events also took place at Guildhall and Mansion House during the Games. City Corporation buildings were hired out by organisations such as Panasonic, EDF Energy, the Global Health Policy Forum and the Israeli Embassy. All of these events served to support the City’s Olympic objectives and also enhance its reputation as a hospitality provider.
Observations:
c. Although various offers were made to support central Government’s hospitality programme and a number of ambassadors were offered hospitality for visiting Heads of State, interest in this offer was not as great as anticipated. It is difficult to determine the reason behind this, but obvious logistical constraints may have played a part as much of the hospitality for the Olympics went on at the Park or near the Olympic Family Hotel in Park lane. Central government was nonetheless very appreciative for our offer to assist with hospitality. It is worthwhile noting that other organisations, such as the GLA and London & Partners, also saw limited throughput of senior visitors.
d. Use of Guildhall Yard for informal events (Barbecue) during Marathons proved popular and may be a model for how we organise events with less traditional stakeholder groups in the future.
11. Members will recall that the City purchased 100 tickets from LOCOG for the Olympic Games and a further 96 tickets for the Paralympics. It was agreed that the Olympic tickets would be used to host key contacts and thank individuals, with a relevant Member acting as host for most occasions. Although the process of allocating the tickets was somewhat time-consuming, it proved to be a valuable exercise and provided for a number of excellent hosting opportunities. The City’s guests at the Olympic events included a number of ambassadors, journalists and European policy makers.
12. The City Corporation also used the tickets to recognise those individuals who had contributed a great deal to the work of the City Corporation. These included volunteers, charity representatives, and high achievers from City schools. Tickets to the Paralympics were distributed to interested Members, staff and pupils from schools associated with the City Corporation. Feedback from the events attended was extremely positive and many took the opportunity to write to the Chairman to thank the City Corporation for this experience.
Page 61 Observation:
e. Engagement activity was further enhanced by the accreditation of the Lord Mayor and Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the 2012 Sub Committee for all venues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This provided for many exceptional networking opportunities / meetings with senior British and international policy makers in a relaxed and informal setting. It also ensured all three representatives were able to promote the City of London and its objectives at the highest levels during their visits to the Olympic venues. The Lord Mayor was also given the opportunity to present a number of medals at the Paralympic Games.
B. Organisation 13. Oversight of this Summer’s activities was provided by your 2012 sub- Committee. At officer level a clear structure for Games related issues was established early with a Lead Officer and delivery groups, chaired by experienced managers, covering transport, operations, events and culture reporting to the 2012 sub-Committee. These arrangements were communicated to all those engaged in Games related activity so it was clear where decisions could be made and the Lead Officer and delivery groups were able to respond quickly as issues arose – something that became more common in the couple of months before the Games started. Operational Games-time working arrangements were exercised internally and with partners across London.
14. During the key Games period (mid-July to mid-September 2012) a Coordination Centre (BOCC) was established in Committee Rooms 3 & 4 providing the main focus for departmental coordination and management of the process of reporting to the Borough Group Support Unit (BGSU) in Westminster. A regular morning meeting with departmental Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) proved extremely valuable in ensuring that issues were addressed promptly and there was a coherent view of the Corporation’s activities shared by all key players.
15. Senior level input to the BOCC was provided on a 24 hour a day rota system by the 2012 Lead officer and those officers who had chaired delivery working groups. This continuity between operational planning and delivery (the SPOCs had usually also been key individuals engaged in departmental level planning) was extremely valuable as the London Games was ultimately delivered by many different organisations operating within a unique framework established for the Games. The knowledge built up over many months of planning ensured that solutions to problems or the right contact in a partner organisation could be found quickly. Page 62 16. The engagement of the 2012 Sub-Committee throughout the main planning period before the Games allowed Members to be briefed on developing issues and offer support, advice and guidance during both planning and delivery. It was particularly useful, as deadlines loomed, that the Policy & Resources Committee had allocated funding from the Policy Initiatives Fund to allow the City to respond to emerging opportunities as, with a well-developed understanding of the relationships, Members were able to advise upon and agree appropriate initiatives in a speedy manner.
Observations:
f. For complicated, multi-partner events there is a distinct advantage in developing clearly understood, stable and robust structures at both Member and officer-level that allow relationships to be developed and understanding of desired outcomes and issues to be transferred from planning to delivery. This facilitated timely and informed decision making, especially when supported by appropriate budgetary provision.
g. Structures and plans designed for the worst gave confidence in ability to deliver; there was real pride amongst those involved in doing a good job, contributing to the success of the Games and being part of a once in a lifetime event.
h. The Coordination Centre, with key staffing from Security & Contingency Planning and access to CCTV feeds, worked very well. This model was used for this year’s Lord Mayor’s Show and will be used for other events in the future.
C. Operational Deliverables Celebrate the City
17. This highly successful event which ran from 21 - 24 June was promoted by the City Corporation and the Diocese of London with the Lord Mayor and the Bishop of London as Patrons. It was developed as a vehicle to showcase the myriad of cultural activities taking place in the City and 93 partners participated in delivering over 120 events.
18. Over 1,500 spectators attended the launch event (1812 Overture) in the Yard; the Cheapside Fayre on Saturday 23 June attracted over 27,000 visitors with the Guildhall Market attracting nearly 8,000 visitors.
Page 63 Observations:
i. Given the event’s popularity and wide range of participants from Livery Companies to retailers and hotels, consideration is underway as to how this type of activity can be repeated.
j. The close working relationship established with the Diocese has already seen a sponsorship commitment from them towards the new City Visitor Trail.
k. Having demonstrated the success of a Guildhall Market the opportunity was taken to hold another market in the Yard on Saturday 1 December as part of the Cheapside Traffic Free Shopping Day
Road Events
19. The Highways Team in the Department of the Built Environment was particularly heavily loaded in the run up to and delivery of the Games. The change of the Marathon route in 2010 brought three major events to more of the City than originally planned. The Olympic torch relay also proved to be far more popular than we had initially expected and then the excellent performance of the GB Olympic and Paralympic Athletes led to huge interest in the Athletes’ Parade.
20. Working in partnership with London Marathon Limited, the City Corporation’s Visitor Development Team delivered on-street animations at all Marathon events – this comprised 23 acts across the three Sundays.
21. All of these events were extensively planned and delivered without incident to the credit of the City. Indeed the City was specifically mentioned by the Metropolitan Police as an organisation that managed the torch events well. In this case our experience of large street events such as the Lord Mayor’s Show gave confidence in our ability to deliver and adopt a marshalling strategy that differed from other part of London.
Observation: l. The multi-agency Augmented Safety Advisory Group (ASAG) established to consider applications for major events and advise organisers of safety concerns proved an effective means of sharing information between interested parties such as the Police, Fire and Ambulance Services and it will be retained.
Page 64 Projects
22. Tower Bridge was a global image of the Olympics in London. The Bridge, whilst already an iconic London site, benefited from a new low- energy lighting scheme and had the rings and agitos suspended from the walkways over the summer. The projects to achieve re-lighting and ring suspension involved complex collaborative working with a range of different partners.
23. Separately the other City bridges received lighting enhancements in a project part-funded by the GLA and this will be a legacy of the Games.
24. DDA legislation indicated the need for better access between the Tower Bridge Engine Room Exhibition and the main Exhibition entrance itself on Tower Bridge Road. The Thames Path around the GLA building and Shad Thames was also likely to see an increase in visitors as Potters Field was to be a Live Site and Tower Bridge would have the Olympic rings suspended. Therefore a project to install a lift was progressed by the City Surveyor. This required sensitive planning issues to be resolved, but the lift was delivered in time for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations and was available throughout the Games period.
25. Given the poor performance history of the previous inclinator next to the Millennium Bridge (and near the IPC hotel) the project to replace the Millennium Inclinator was programmed to achieve delivery as early as possible to allow for a thorough testing in June. There were no reported incidents during the two Games periods although service was lost for one weekend between the two events because of misuse.
Observations:
m. Multi-partner projects can take a great deal of time in managing relationships. However, the re-lighting of Tower Bridge project attracted £1.6m of commercial sponsorship and consideration could be given to other sponsorship opportunities.
n. The new Tower Bridge lighting allows the bridge to be lit in different colours. A protocol is being developed to allow officers to respond in a consistent manner to approaches for the bridge to be re-lit for specific events.
Page 65 City Dressing
26. The City benefitted from relatively large amounts of dressing provided directly by the GLA as part of the central area dressing. This was concentrated on main routes and areas likely to get TV coverage, but even so some parts of the City still looked under-dressed. Supplied dressing was complemented by planting in Open Spaces which was refreshed in Olympic colours after the Jubilee celebrations and a number of planters sponsored by Livery Companies along Peters Hill.
Observations:
o. The internal vinyls applied to the Art Gallery windows worked well without unduly affecting light levels and the use of such applications could be considered to advertise certain events in the gallery or elsewhere.
p. Major events were held in Guildhall and the Yard and the careful positioning of planters enlivened the appearance of the area demonstrating that higher quality planters and other dressing could be used in the Yard whilst not having a detrimental effect upon its use.
q. In recognition of the once in a lifetime nature of the Games a pragmatic approach was taken to where banners and other types of dressing were allowed, but expectations may have been raised and planning officers are having to be robust in refusing advertising approaches.
Transport and Communications
27. Transport was commonly considered to be a major risk for the Games. The bid had committed London to a predominately public transport Games and the delivery of an Olympic Route Network (ORN) for the Games family. Officers developed close working relationships with TfL and achieved a number of changes to the ORN. Then, as issues emerged with the operation of the ORN, changes were negotiated, as it became apparent that the ORN was not as busy as expected, to increase the safety of the route for pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross it at certain locations in the City.
28. PRO worked closely with TfL communications staff to ensure that messages were suitable for a City audience and that every effort was made to ensure that residents and businesses understood the changes to
Page 66 the transport arrangements and opportunities to engage with the Games such as the torch relay and Marathons.
29. Social media was used extensively by TfL to provide up to date travel information and the City Corporation had its own 2012 Twitter feed.
Observations:
r. Close working relations were developed with TfL and National Rail stations which the City should seek to maintain.
s. The City and much of central London was quieter than expected during the first week of the Olympics despite record ridership of the tube and DLR. There was also visitor displacement – a bumper Spring and good post September but City visitor attractions saw a drop in footfall of 14% July-September and some individual attractions saw a 40% year on year drop in July.
Financial Implications 30. Whilst departments did reallocate resources to support Olympic related activity, as has been discussed in section B, additional funding was approved for promotional and engagement activities. The allocation of these resources is reported at Appendix B.
31. In addition, in May 2012, in recognition of the extra demands being placed on the City operationally, a budget of £650K was allocated by Policy & Resources Committee. This budget was for specific Games related activity only and overseen by the Chamberlain. Spending against this budget is reported at Appendix C.
LEGACY 32. In order to maximise the benefits of the Games coming to London, it is important that a structure for dealing with Legacy be identified. The Games were a success and it is important that we recognise and capitalise on the achievements when deciding how to take forward the Legacy objectives. Indications are that Central Government is taking Legacy very seriously. Lord Coe has been appointed as Legacy Ambassador by the Prime Minister and a new Games Legacy Cabinet Committee has been set up to oversee Legacy work.
33. At the final meeting of the 2012 Sub Committee in October, several Members highlighted a number of on-going Legacy objectives which should be considered. These include: Page 67 • Supporting World Sporting Events in the UK – there are already a number of events confirmed in the near future, including the Rugby World Cup in 2015 and the World Athletics Championships in 2017. Endorsed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK Sport recently announced a ‘Gold Event Series’ campaign to bring 36 World and European championships to Britain. As with the 2012 Games, the City Corporation could play an important role in this, by providing hospitality to support campaigns and also during any championships that take place in London. It is therfore important that the City Corporation maintains and develops its links with UK Sport and other bodies involved in this campaign.
• Attracting World Sport Bodies to London – following on from a successful Games, sporting bodies may have an interest in moving their headquarters to London, including the Square Mile. Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate for the City Corporation to be involved in negotiations going forward on this.
• Promoting the Benefits of Sport – this was one of the key objectives in the City Corporation’s original strategy and would obviously bring benefits to residents and workers, as well as Members and officers. Through events such as the Olympic Marathons, the City demonstrated its suitability for hosting major sporting events. These events bring people together and can also serve to promote the Corporation and bolster tourism in the Square Mile. In order to support this objective, future large scale sporting events, particularly involving City Corporation venues, could be looked on more favourably and given support where appropriate. The City Corporation has already backed the Mayor’s plans for a Ride London Cycle event next year and there are also plans for a large scale cycle ride from the City to Cambridge, involving the Lord Mayor. A report on this will be submitted to this Committee at its next meeting. Likewise, sporting activity and events took place at City of London Open Spaces, encouraging active participation and community engagement; the Green to Gold campaign will continue to provide legacy activities.
• Encouraging Volunteering – the scale of volunteering during the London 2012 Games has been widely hailed as a key success over the summer. The City Corporation mobilised a team of ‘Street Guide’ volunteers to welcome visitors to the Square Mile during this time. Such was its success that the scheme will be used again for major events in the City. The Visitor Development Team, responsible for the deployment of the volunteers, also trained over 300 GLA “Ambassadors” in local area knowledge. This has led to Page 68 discussions with the GLA regarding the role the team can play on an on-going basis training on-street volunteers recruited to the GLA’s Team London programme.
• Developing Links with Key Partners – the London 2012 Games demonstrated the benefits brought by working collaboratively within the organisation, as well as with external partners. It is important that we capitalise on this and continue to develop relations with organisations such as the GLA and London & Partners. Specific to the Games, it could also be felt appropriate to develop links with key legacy bodies, such as the Legacy Trust UK and the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority (allocated responsibility for a number of Olympic Park venues), to see if the City can help take forward their legacy goals.
• Resilience – The City Corporation was heavily involved in contingency planning and resilience for the 2012 Games. Recently, Simon Murrells, Assistant Town Clerk, has accepted an invitation to chair a London wide group looking at how to take forward lessons learnt from the pan London resilience arrangements during the London 2012 Games.
• Olympic Legacy Fund – Officers from the City Bridge Trust have been in discussions with the Government and GLA to establish a permanently endowed fund in the wake of London 2012, with major seed funding from the underspend on the capital budget from the Games. The aim would be to develop a legal entity that can receive and raise additional monies for community sport on the back of a primary donation from government and then channel these through existing bodies that know the field. Plans are in their early stages and more information will be provided to Members in due course
34. In light of the above, the 2012 Sub Committee suggested it might be appropriate that an informal arrangement be put in place to ensure these Legacy issues were properly addressed and managed. It was felt that such an arrangement should involve Member and officer representation.
35. Following further discussions with your Chairman on this matter, it is proposed that officer responsibility for this area continue to fall within the remit of the Town Clerk’s department (Sam Hutchings). It is also proposed that a Member representative be appointed to deal with on- going legacy issues. However, given the potential appointment of three Deputy Chairmen to this Committee from May next year, it might be felt appropriate that this area of responsibility be incorporated into the remit of one of these appointments. Alternatively, a group of Members,
Page 69 including the Chairman, could be asked to informally take these issues forward and report back to the Committee as necessary.
Conclusion
36. The Olympic and Paralympic Games were delivered in London very successfully this summer and the City Corporation along, with local government across London, played no small part in the success. Although lessons can be learnt from the arrangements put in place, it must be recognised that these events were a national priority from the time London won the right to host the Games and the cross-party support and feeling that this was something that the country could not fail at permeated the whole process. Decisions had to be made to meet an immoveable deadline and there was also the opportunity to try something different at times knowing that in all likelihood the summer would be a unique period of London life and not repeated in our lifetimes.
37. Nonetheless there are some lessons to be learnt and some, such as improved coordination for major events in a single control room, have already been put into practice. Attention now rightly falls on legacy issues. As the report notes there are opportunities to be developed over the coming months and years that would benefit from the focus of a lead officer and Member(s) to ensure that they do not get forgotten or we fail to act in the coordinated manner that marked out the success of the summer.
Contact: Peter Lisley | [email protected] | Sam Hutchings | [email protected] |
Background papers:
Policy and Resources Committee Report on ‘Funding the City of London’s 2012 Promotional Activities’; 16 th June 2011 Policy and Resources Committee Report on ‘Business Engagement Activity – Summer 2012’; 3 rd May 2012 Policy and Resources Committee Report on ‘Preparing for the Operational Impact of the 2012 Games’; 3 rd May 2012 2012 Sub Committee Report on ‘Visitor Development for the 2012 Games’; 12 th October 2012
Page 70 Appendix A Objectives of the Original 2012 Strategy
Objectives Strategic Aim Outcome
1. To encourage Green to Gold: • Local outdoor activities developed participation in Increase the legacy of e.g. - Eco Bike Challenge sporting activities outdoor activities in the - Football freestylers City’s Open Spaces. - Healthy Eating Vendors
• Encouraged outdoor recreation & community participation • Increased community utilization of green areas and open spaces
City of Sport (COS) • COS developed a calendar of sporting Programme: activities tailored to suit the interest of Work in partnership to City workers who identify as inactive develop & support inactive or cannot afford access to sporting and lower paid City workers establishments and venues; into physical sporting activity
• COSP delivered this sporting
programme throughout the course of (jointly funded by the GLA) London 2012 increasing the interest of City workers into sporting activity
Re-opening of Golden Lane • Refurbishment of Golden Lane Sport and Fitness Leisure Centre and its re-opening in February 2012 resulted in an increased number of memberships with continued growth throughout the 2012 Games period
City Lifestyle festival • June 23 rd encouraged the public to become involved in a variety of competitions, including a temporary 50 metre running track for children painted in the middle of Cheapside.
2. To recognize and Celebrate the City: four days • Successful multi-agency partnership enhance cultural in the square mile: a major established across the City; facilities in the City collaborative project between • Structured programme of special events and across the the City’s arts partners aimed & entertainment; nation to provide a mixture of free • Project diversity established with free
& ticketed events for visitors & ticketed events; to the Square Mile • Increase in local tours to reflect
increase of visitor activity ; • An increase in print and online promotional exposure of City landmarks; Page 71 • Established planned and place based participation & entertainment • Increased access to local and world heritage sites; • Increased a legacy of on-going partnerships across the City
Time Out Guide to the City • A tailored 2012 City Time-out and Olympic Map guide was produced to mitigate visitor displacement for major events (e.g. marathons); 171,000 copies distributed during Games period. • 100,000 City maps distributed in Games period.
GLA Ambassador Pods • Four City pods were located at Liverpool Street Station, Fenchurch Street Station, Tower of London and Spitalfields, covering local visitor information;
• Key information included essential services such as local toilet locations and cash machines heightening visitor knowledge. • Ambassadors trained in local knowledge by the Visitor Development Team.
3. To take advantage London Ambassadors - • Visitor Development Team of the learning and Street Guides launched a staff volunteer scheme skills opportunities through which staff from across the presented organisation were trained in Games time – and City Visitor Information, security and Public Order Issues; 95 Guides trained and deployed.
The Big Busk (VDT – The • Run by the City’s visitor City’s Visitor Development development team and the GLA Team in partnership with the this allowed young musicians to GLA’s Big Busk Team) play at certain City locations as part
of the Big Busk competition with audiences voting on their favourite act; 154,000 spectators saw the Big Busk at City sites. Page 72
4. To maximise the benefits brought to Operational Resilience • Internal structures were developed the local and City Safety to reflect the range of key issues community during Games-time. Lead Officers co-ordinated key work-streams focussed on transport, operations, events and culture;
• BOCC formed in connection with the Borough Group Support Unit in Westminster which ensured 24/7 cover during Games time and enabled issues to be addressed promptly; and shared with all key partners. Staffing supported by volunteers from the Town Clerk’s office who were given appropriate training.
Road Events: Torch Relays, • Road events efficiently planned by Marathons the Built Environment teams Athletes Parade ensured a logistical success for the wide transient commuter and business population;
• City workers and businesses encouraged to celebrate the occasions;
• Olympic torch bearers hosted in Guildhall before the City leg
City Promotion and • Monthly updates were provided to Engagement – online & staff and residents on the activities print taking place associated with the 2012 Games which encouraged local workers / business and residential community to get involved in local activities such as the Torch Relay and Athletes Parade
City Dressing • Concentrated on main routes and areas • Discovery trails of Wenlocks and Mandevilles proved very popular • Tower Bridge re-lit, other bridge Page 73 lighting enhanced and a soundscape installed to Millennium Bridge.
5. To support and City Hotels – The Grange • The Grange St Pauls hotel was promote the headquarters for the IPC with Business City overflow at Grange City. where possible • 500 delegates’ Welcome Packs created and distributed by the City Corporation in partnership with the Cheapside Initiative.
Hosting • Worked with Government, LOCOG and the Mayor of London to host a number of prestige events. • The City Corporation itself hosted a range of events at Mansion House and Guildhall. • A number of Members hosted individuals at sporting events.
National Olympic • France, Belgium and Australia Committee Houses based their National Houses in City venues.
6. To develop • Regular meetings with TfL and effective Transport Planning and National Rail allowed targeted and partnerships at communication accurate communications with City local, regional and businesses, visitors and residents. international levels • Adopted TfL code of conduct for
night time deliveries
Member of GLA chaired • Regularly attended and contributed City Operations group to the planning for local authority operations across London
Resilience and City Safety • A coordinated approach through the Augmented Safety Advisory Group structure worked well. • Offered advice well in advance for licensed premises
Page 74
APPENDIX B
Funding Allocation – 2012 Promotional Activities
Activity Allocation 250,000 Promotion material e.g. posters, banners, flags etc 7,500 IPC Governing Board Meeting 4,375 96 Paralympic Tickets 5,850 Transport Planning Seminars 1,939 2012 Time Out Guide 50,000 City Open Weekend Project Manager 25,000 Hampstead Heath Cross Country Hospitality 1,000 Celebrate the City Launch Events 15,000 2012 Street Guide Scheme 11,000 Golden Lane Leisure Centre Opening 8,000 Rings on the River Reception 5,200 Marathon Hospitality 34,500 2012 Promotional Material 9,134 IOC Art Gallery Reception 6,000 Informal Supper for Opening Ceremony 5,000 London & Partners Financial Services Conference 4,000 Paralympics Opening Ceremony Reception 10,000 British Olympians Reception 4,150 Paralympic Marathon Event 10,000 Sub Committee Dinner 7,000 Guildhall Wenlock 10,000 Staff and Volunteer Reception 8,000 Total 242,648
Funding Allocation – 2012 Engagement Activities
Activity Allocation 120,000 London Olympic Reception 31,300 Paralympic Ball 8,000 Seminar with President of Brazil 4,950 Lunch with President of Kazakhstan 400 Breakfast with Mayor of Amsterdam 350 UKTI Olympic Business Reception 2,600 Lunch with PM of North-Rhine Westfalia 300 Breakfast with President of Bulgaria 460 Hamburg Delegation Reception 100 Dinner with the President of the IPC 900 Lunch with US Paralympic Team 3,220 Team GB Parade 15,000 Total 67,580 The actual spend will be reported in the regular Policy Initiatives update report once internal recharges have been completed.
Page 75
Appendix C
Funding Allocation - Operational Activity
Item Estimate Recoverable £ Actual Comments d costs £ £
Torch Relay event 38,000 111,397 Two additional torch management relays had to be funded
Marathon days parking 21,000 21,000 0 enforcement
On-street parking 94,000 74,494 enforcement
Open Spaces 91,000 44,160 Floral bedding costs met from local risk.
Blackfriars Gardens - 12,750
Enhanced lighting – - 11,500 Tower Bridge
Public Protection 23,000 0 Met from local risk
Visitor Services 41,000 50,796
Housing- loss of rent - 8,376 Two flats held vacant for City officers during Olympics Highways- staff costs 47,000 34,239
Highways- additional - 27,038 Staff costs for three staff cost months on post- Olympic wrap up work
Highways changes- non - 93,791 competition venues
Cleansing operations 222,600 11,600 plus 162,708 proportion of post-marathon cleansing costs
Totals 577,600 631,249
Approved contingency 650,000 631,249
Page 76 Agenda Item 10
Committee: Policy & Resources Date: 13th December 2012
Subject: Public Proposal for unrestricted free use of City WiFi network. Report of: For Decision City Surveyor CS: 478/12
Summary
1. In July 2012, the Policy and Resources Chairman agreed under Urgency powers to a proposal from The Cloud to provide unrestricted free use of the City’s WiFi network, during the period of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. A request has been made by a number of Members that the unrestricted free use of the WiFi network be made permanent.
2. The Cloud has submitted a proposal to the City Corporation to provide unrestricted free use of the City WiFi network on a permanent basis. As part of the City Corporation’s extended contract with The Cloud, which commenced in January 2012, The Cloud pay a fixed sum for each asset, and a small revenue share for data used across the network. The Cloud proposes to retain the revenue share element, which is estimated at no more than £2,500 for the year. The City would retain the fixed asset fee which is around £80,000. The Cloud is also seeking clarification that they can retain any revenues generated through promotional advertising over their content portal landing page.
Recommendations i. That Members agree to vary the contract with The Cloud to provide unrestricted free user access across the City WiFi network, on the basis that City Corporation: • Retains the fixed asset fee element of the revenue share from The Cloud, but relinquishes the variable data usage element of revenue share estimated at £2,500 per annum with effect from January 2013. • Agrees to The Cloud retaining revenues generated from promotional advertising over their content portal landing page. ii. Subject to agreement to i. that officers work with The Cloud & the Public Relations Office to maximise publicity for the launch of unrestricted free use across the City WiFi network.
Page 77
Main Report
Background
1. The City WiFi network, operated by The Cloud (owned by BSkyB), was first launched in April 2007, and was originally a pay for use service, until January 2011, when The Cloud introduced a daily 15 minutes free WiFi service for all users across the network. The network generated around £54,000 of revenue to the City Corporation in the calendar year 2011, based upon the 30% revenue share of variable customer minutes used over the network. In December 2011, your committee agreed to vary the methodology for calculating the revenue fee to the City Corporation, which introduced a revenue stream based upon variable data usage over the network, and fixed asset revenue, from The Cloud’s use of City owned street furniture assets to house the WiFi infrastructure. In July 2012, you further agreed to provide an unrestricted free use of the WiFi network for the period of the Olympic and Paralympic games during August & September 2012. The Cloud agreed to this element on the basis of the City Corporation relinquishing its variable revenue share for the period of 27th July – 30 th September. This period saw users over the City WiFi network increase to 172,076, compared with 90,015 for the previous calendar quarter (April – June 2012). Members have subsequently requested further consideration of providing unrestricted free WiFi use on a permanent basis, and details of the financial implications of this option in order to determine value for money.
Current position
2. Since September, The Cloud has continued to offer unrestricted free use of the City WiFi network in good faith, whilst revisions to the revenue model are being considered.
3. The City of Westminster announced in July 2012 that it is partnering with O2 to launch an outdoor WiFi network in parts of the West End. The network will provide unrestricted free use in certain areas, and it is understood that it is provided on the basis that users provide their mobile phone contact details, making them available to be contacted for promotional offers for mobile telephony / WiFi products and services. Such a model, which involves users being contacted by ongoing sales and marketing campaigns, is not being proposed by The Cloud
4. The Cloud wishes to ensure that the City WiFi network is regarded as the best outdoor network in the UK, and understands that the unrestricted free user model will support the City Corporation in providing more accessible communications for business and residential users, and also complement Page 78 other initiatives to attract visitors to the Square Mile, such as the recently launched “Cultural App”.
Proposal for unrestricted free access to City WiFi network
5. The Cloud has proposed that the unrestricted free user model can be provided on a permanent basis (for the remaining duration of the contract which runs to 2017), on the condition that the City Corporation relinquishes the variable data usage element of revenue share derived from the network. In the first two quarters of the calendar year 2012, the variable data usage element derived from the network was £1,225 which would give a full year equivalent income figure of approximately £2,500, although this will not be fully realized in 2012, as the City Corporation waived the variable income element Olympic and Paralympic period. Since The Cloud’s wholesale arrangement with O2 expired in January 2012, much of the data usage over the network has been as a consequence of use by Sky subscribers, who can access the network for free (as part of the Sky Anywhere customer package) and therefore this element of revenue is unlikely to grow. The Cloud also already offers 15 minutes free, per day, to all users, which has further reduced revenue derived directly from data usage over the network. This reduction in income received directly from network use means it is now commercially viable for The Cloud to propose unrestricted free use of its network.
6. As a consequence of the changing charging environment, The Cloud has looked at other ways to derive income. The Cloud has identified advertising on its content portal landing page as one means to achieve this, and has requested the City Corporation’s confirmation that these revenues remain outside of the contractual arrangements for revenue share. This may provide opportunities in the future to promote local City services. The look, feel and usage of The Cloud’s content portal has not previously been subject of contractual control and it is considered that the City Corporation should confirm its agreement to The Cloud retaining use of this as a means for it to derive future revenue opportunities in return for unrestricted free use of the network by the public. The Cloud will bear all costs and risks associated with incorporating advertising onto its content portal landing page. The Cloud has confirmed that there will be no advertising of inappropriate adult content and entertainment venues, or gambling websites, on the content portal landing page, which could damage the reputation of the City Corporation, and that such organisations would be “blacklisted” as part of the variation to the contract with The Cloud. The first company to advertise on the content portal will be Pizza Express, which is promoting an awareness campaign.
Page 79 7. The Cloud’s proposal will not affect the guaranteed revenue share, payable to the City Corporation, for its use of City owned street furniture to house WiFi infrastructure, which has produced 98% of all revenue generated by the network since Q1 2012. The fixed asset fee element of the revenue share equated to £77,625 for 2012, relating to The Cloud’s use of 106 of the City Corporations street assets for which The Cloud pay £750 per annum per asset. The number of assets used by The Cloud is likely to grow by a further £10,500 annually following the proposed use of another 14 street assets as part of The Cloud’s current network upgrade, which is expected to be completed by April 2013.
Financial Considerations
8. At the Policy & Resources Committee in December 2011, Members agreed that the first £61,000 of revenue generated from the City WiFi network should be apportioned to the City Surveyor’s Department to cover staff costs, with the remainder staying under Corporate Management within the Finance Committee on City Fund.
9. Under The Cloud’s proposal the City Corporation would potentially lose up to £2500 per annum, by relinquishing the variable data usage revenue (with future data usage not expected to grow). However this loss has been offset by an increase in guaranteed revenue, which has already risen from an expected £72,000 per annum to £77,625 per annum for Q1-Q4 of 2012, and is expected to grow by a further £10,500 per annum based upon the addition of a further 14 street assets to house WiFi infrastructure.
Conclusion
10. The Cloud’s proposal for the City WiFi network to adopt an unrestricted free user model would deliver enhanced communications services for workers, residents and visitors to the Square Mile, which could be achieved at no loss of total revenue to the City Corporation.
Contact: Steven Bage | [email protected] | 0207 332 1910
Page 80 Agenda Item 11
Committee(s): Date(s): Policy and Resources Committee 13 December 2012
Subject: Public Cheapside Initiative Report of: For Decision City Surveyor
Summary
The Cheapside Initiative (CI) has been running for 5 years. In December 2010 your Committee resolved to provide further support for a 2 year period. The further support was specifically targeted at paying for the staffing element of the Initiative, so that the additional partner contributions raised could be spent directly on core activities. It was hoped that through this support the CI would increase the number of partners to provide a more financially sustainable model in future years The anticipated growth in new members has not materialised which, in part, has been a consequence of the difficult economic environment but also due to the benefits of partnership not being sufficiently tangible to encourage further members to sign up. In response to these concerns, the CI will launch a member’s privilege card in January that will provide members’ employees with a range of discounts at retail and catering outlets in the area and is supported by members of the recently formed Cheapside Retail Club. Experience of similar initiatives in other areas, such as the Victoria BID, have demonstrated much stronger engagement with the member communities when privilege cards have been introduced. The new privilege card, when added to the other activities undertaken by the CI, should see an increase in businesses joining the partnership, putting it on a sound and sustainable financial basis for future years The City Corporation is being asked to continue to support the partnership for one more year, reducing the current level of payment from £65,000 to £20,000. The CI has been a positive partnership with the City Corporation that is supported by strategic aspirations contained in the City Together Strategy. Failure to commit this level of funding would, in all likelihood result in there being insufficient funds to take the partnership forward and would result in the CI being wound down. It is considered that this level of commitment to working in partnership with CI would provide sufficient support to encourage existing members to commit to on-going support of the Initiative and to develop a more sound and sustainable financial basis for the partnership to move forward.
Page 81 Recommendations That the Policy and Resources Committee agree to support the Cheapside Retail Initiative for one more calendar year from January 2013 at a cost of £20,000 to be met from the Committee’s Policy Initiatives Funds, with £5,000 being provided in 2012/13 and £15,000 in 2013/14 and charged to City’s Cash (the funding being categorised under the “Promoting the City” heading).
Main Report
Background
1. On 16 December 2010 your Committee resolved to support the Cheapside Initiative (CI) for a further 2 years from January 2011, with a mutual option to terminate the agreement after 12 months, at a maximum cost of £65,000pa, to be met from the Committee’s Policy Initiative Funds in 2010/11 to 2012/13. The City Corporation’s contribution would cover the staffing costs to resource the CI. On 8 December 2011 your Committee received a further progress report on the activities of the CI and resolved to reconfirm its support to fund the staffing costs of the CI for the second year.
2. The CI is a voluntary partnership that has been in existence since 2007. The financial support agreed by your committee was to be used to cover the employee costs for the CI Director and part time assistants, who are not employed directly by the City Corporation. It was considered that paying for the staffing element for 2 years would maximise opportunities for the Initiative to develop and attract new partners and financial contributions and it was hoped that the further support would allow the Initiative to move towards a more sustainable model, reducing the need for future City Corporation funding and involvement. The CI director is currently housed within the City Property Advisory Team (CPAT), based in the City Surveyors Department, and the City Corporation is responsible for holding the contributions received from the CI and administering the account through receipt and payment of invoices
3. Previously, you were advised that it was considered important to support the on-going development of the CI as a voluntary partnership rather than through an alternative mechanism such as a BID, which could undermine the ability of the City Corporation to promote its unique position, through its franchise, to support the needs of the financial and business services cluster. Also, the initiative was of strategic importance as being key to the revitalisation of the area at the heart of the City’s shopping offer. It was considered that through a partnership with the CI it would be possible effectively to manage the needs of the area. Page 82 Current Position
4. The City Corporation’s funding package of the CI runs out in December this year. Corporate membership over the last 12 months has fallen with both the London Stock Exchange and ING no longer involved. ING has been acquired by CBRE, who, to date, have chosen not to join the partnership. In addition to the City Corporation, core paying members of the CI include Land Securities, Eversheds, Orrick, Aviva, Chartis Insurance and the Worshipful Company of Mercers. In addition to the paying members both St Vedast and St Mary le Bow churches are non- paying members of the Initiative. Attempts to bring on board new partners have proved difficult which, in part, has been a consequence of the current economic climate, and due to the core activities not having sufficiently tangible benefits for members.
5. During the course of the year a new Cheapside Retail Club has been established with over 40 members representing retail premises in the Cheapside area. Whilst it has not been possible to secure membership income from the retailers, many of them have committed to provide discounts and offers as part of a new member privilege card to be launched in January 2013. The new card is exclusively available for the workers of all the member organisations. It is thought that the introduction of the card will, in combination with the other activities of the CI, provide a more attractive offer to businesses. Experience of similar initiatives in other areas, such as the Victoria BID, have demonstrated much stronger engagement with the member communities when privilege cards have been introduced. Initial discussions with businesses have been positive and it considered that a target of achieving a further twelve members during 2013 would provide sufficient revenue to support the activities of the CI. The proposed privilege card would provide an opportunity for retailers and businesses to join together in partnership to promote the on-going development of Cheapside as a retail destination whilst providing a good corporate offer to their staff.
6. All contributions received from CI partners go toward funding identified priorities. This amounted to £139,500 over the last two years which is in addition to the £130,000 the City Corporation has paid to staff the Initiative. The CI has delivered a programme of activity over the last two years based upon the four key strategic objectives identified within their Cheapside Action Plan:-
• High quality public spaces • A world Class gateway to the Square Mile • A leading retail quarter for the City of London • A prosperous and competitive business community
Page 83 7. The CI works with various departments of the City Corporation to assist in co-ordinating delivery of initiatives. During the course of the year this has included working closely on elements relating to the Celebrate the City event and on the production of a joint welcome pack for the London Paralympic Games family staying at the Grange St Paul’s Hotel. In addition to this, the partnership has worked closely with the Economic Development Office in delivering an employment charter, the City Police relating to community policing and the Department of the Built Environment relating to the delivery of the Cheapside Area Strategy, which has been a key driver for many of the group members’ involvement. Other key elements of its programme that have been taken forward during the year which will form the basis of future activity include:
Green Infrastructure Audit: Undertook a Green Infrastructure Audit to identify opportunities across the footprint set out in the Cheapside Area Strategy for future greening. An evaluation of these opportunities is now being undertaken by City Corporation Officers.
Facewatch: A scheme providing a crime reporting system direct into the police to help prevent bag thefts, shoplifting and pick pocketing in licensed premises and shops is being implemented across Cheapside in partnership with the Police.
Retail Club: Developing a relationship with all retailers within the Cheapside area, with over 40 members, hosting quarterly symposium meetings to provide them with updates on key issues and events, which included during the last year the Diamond Jubilee and Olympics.
Events: In addition to the previous year’s activities that have included participating in the City of London Festival and having a float at two of the Lord Mayor’s Shows, the Initiative hosted a traffic free shopping day in December 2011 and in June 2012 (as part of Celebrate the City). This is to be repeated on 1 December 2012 and remains a key component of raising public awareness of the retail offer in the City.
Marketing and promotion: A range of marketing collateral, including the development of a website, has been produced throughout the lifetime of the Initiative. Communication has been a large element of activity with regular updates on safety, logistics deliveries and co-ordination of event information such as the traffic free shopping days.
Employment: The CI is working in partnership with the City Corporation and JCP (Job Centre Plus) to implement an employment charter that has seen the placing of 40 local people in employment during the last year. This will continue to be a key element in the coming year with JCP pledging to place a further 200 people into employment.
Page 84 Resource Efficiency Club: On-going research to develop a portal that could provide up to date information for facilities managers and to work collectively on identifying cost saving services through joint procurement.
Community safety: working with the City of London Police to investigate a more joined-up approach to developing a Business Continuity Management Forum, promoting business continuity practices to industry recognised standards.
Options 8. There are two possible options:-
a. To no longer provide financial support for the CI, but to continue to offer administrative support in terms of providing desk space and account management support. This option would leave the partnership with insufficient funds to provide for the resourcing of the Initiative and would, in all likelihood, lead to other representatives of the group deciding not to renew their membership, with the consequence of the group being wound down. To date, there has been no discussion with CI members about their intention for next year as it is felt that City Corporation financial commitment is necessary , in advance of any future decisions being made. Previously there has been concern about the CI seeking to promote a BID for the area. The City Corporation has taken the view that it should seek to support the activities of the partnership to demonstrate that it is possible to provide the benefit of working in partnership to deliver on the aspirations of the area. Whilst the CI is not currently proposing to promote a BID, it is are not prepared to rule this out as an option in the future, as such an arrangement would provide guaranteed income from which to deliver tangible benefits.
b. To agree to provide funding to cover part of the human resource element of the partnership for one more year, at a cost of £20,000 (preferred option) The CI director has advised that a contribution of £20,000 for 2013 would provide sufficient support to allow the roll out of the privilege card to help drive activity forward and bring on board additional partners. The CI director has set a target to bring on board another 12 members, each paying £5,000, which would deliver additional income of £60,000. This would more than make up for the reduction in City Corporation contribution of £45,000. The CI Director is of the opinion that failure to sign up new Page 85 members to the anticipated level, would result in the CI being wound down at the end of 2013. Contributing £20,000 would demonstrate that the City Corporation is committed to working in partnership to deliver benefits to the Cheapside area. The CI has been a positive partnership with the City Corporation that is supported by strategic aspirations contained in the City Together Strategy. Continued funding would also mean that City Corporation Staff would benefit from the discounts and offers being made available by the Cheapside Retail Club to CI members.
Proposals
9. It is proposed that the City Corporation supports the CI for a further year during 2013 by contributing £20,000 from the Policy Initiatives fund. The contribution will part fund the human resource element of the management of the Initiative. The existing accommodation arrangements whereby the CI Director is housed in the City Surveyors Department would be maintained
Corporate & Strategic Implications
10. The on-going funding of the CI would be key to the delivery of four of the five Key Themes contained in the City Together Strategy. In addition to this, policies contained in the LDF Core Strategy and the aspirations of the City Visitor Strategy are relevant.
Financial Implications
11. It is proposed that the City Corporation provides £20,000 for the next calendar year (2013) to the CI, to part fund the staffing element of the partnership. The proposed funding would be apportioned 2012/13 £5,000, 2013/14 £15,000. There is provisional commitment within the Committee’s Policy Initiatives Funds for 2012/13 and 2013/14. All expenditures will be charged to City’s Cash
Conclusion 12. The CI has been in existence for 5 years and during that time significant commitment has been provided by partners, including the City Corporation, to deliver actions contained in the Cheapside Initiative Action Plan. The City Corporation has worked closely with the Initiative in seeking to promote the on-going development of the area, following completion of the One New Change development
13. The last few years have been challenging in terms of developing the corporate membership base, although the successful establishment of the Cheapside Retail Club will lead to the creation of a privilege card for Page 86 members which will provide additional tangible benefits that should drive up membership in the coming year.
14. Failure for the City Corporation to support the Initiative for one further year, would, in all likelihood, lead to the CI being wound up meaning that there would no longer be a focus for promoting and managing activity and events in the area, to the detriment of its future development.
Contact: Simon McGinn | [email protected] | 1226
Page 87 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 88 Agenda Item 12
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 13 December 2012
Subject: Public Discouraging aggressive charity collections on the street ("chugging") Report of: For Decision Director of Markets & Consumer Protection
Summary
Concerns have been expressed by the Police Committee regarding the potential nuisance caused by charity collectors on City Streets who stop people – known as “chuggers”. As there are no legal sanctions currently available, the Committee requested that the matter be referred to your Committee for consideration. This report examines the options that are available to discourage the practice and outlines the rules that should be followed by members of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA), which purports to represent 95% of the organisations involved in the practice. The following options have been identified to tackle this issue. i. Write to the Chief Executives of the relevant charities and request that they comply with PFRA rules. ii. Refer complainants to the PFRA. iii. Investigate complaints and undertake monitoring to ensure compliance with PFRA rules, then refer any collectors that are not complying to the PFRA under its complaints procedure. iv. Establish a site management agreement with the PFRA for the whole of the City. v. Explore the possibility of introducing byelaws to prevent the nuisance caused by chugging in the City.
Recommendations I recommend that your Committee considers the above options and, depending on the seriousness with which you view the activity, instructs officers to proceed accordingly but, in the first instance, options (i), (ii) and (iii) are approved by your Committee, and that the number of complaints is recorded to see if compliance improves.
Page 89
Main Report
Background
2. The administration associated with the issuing of permits for legitimate charity collections is carried out by officers of the City of London Licensing Service on behalf of the City of London Police. This covers the places and times where collections can be carried out in the City.
3. The City Corporation, together with other local authorities, has experienced an increase in the number of collectors attempting to stop people in the street and ascertain either bank details, obtain a signature on a direct debit mandate or make donations to a particular charity by texting a number from a mobile telephone which deducts a sum from the senders bank account. The collectors known as “chuggers” do not have permits to carry out street collections.
4. A report submitted to the Police Committee on 11 July 2012 considered whether there was any existing legislation that could regulate this activity, and included two legal opinions from QCs. The conclusion was that chuggers comply with current legislation.
5. Consequently, given that aggressive charity collections can cause a nuisance to pedestrians and the practice can affect businesses, particularly small retailers, the Police Committee agreed that the matter should be referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration.
6. Since that time, officers have investigated the options open to the City Corporation and met with a representative of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association. This organisation has recently introduced new rules for its members and these are discussed below.
7. The purpose of this report, therefore, is to examine the options available to your Committee to discourage this practice and to seek approval for the most appropriate option.
Current Position
8. As indicated above there is currently no legal sanction that can be exercised against “chugging”, but in mid August, the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA), introduced a new rule book for street face to face (F2F) fund raising. The PFRA is the charity led self-regulatory membership body for all types of F2F fund raising, with both charity and fund raising agency members, allegedly comprising about 95% of the organisations currently involved in all types of F2F activity. It has 143 members: 111 are charity members, 26 fund raising agencies and 6 associates. This figure is
Page 90
out of 162,624 charities registered with the Charity Commission as at 30 September 2012.
9. An initial survey of the charities and City locations involved in chugging identified the following:
Charities
Age UK* Merlin*
Aids UK Save the Children*
British Heart Foundation* Shelter *
British Red Cross * St Mungos *
Greenpeace* Unicef *
Healing UK World Vision *
Help for Heroes World Wildlife Fund*
* denotes user members of the PFRA.
Locations
Aldgate East High Holborn
Bank Liverpool Street
Bank Station Lombard Street junction/King William Street
Cannon Street Moorgate junction/London Wall
Cheapside Poultry
East Cheap St. Martin’s Le-Grand,
Fenchurch Street (Tower Hill) St. Paul's
Fish Street Hill (Monument) Tower Hill Tube Station
Fleet Street
Page 91
10. Under the new PFRA rules that were introduced on 20 August 2012, a chugger must not:
i. Follow a person for more than three steps;
ii. Stand within three metres of a shop doorway, cash point, pedestrian crossing or station entrance;
iii. Sign up to a direct debit anyone unable to give informed consent through illness, disability or drink or drugs;
iv. Approach any members of the public who are working, such as tour guides or newspaper vendors;
11. Further to this, fund raisers must always terminate an engagement when they are clearly and unambiguously asked, by speech or body language, to do so.
12. The rules, which were trialled for a year, enhanced the existing Code of Practice produced by the Institute of Fund Raising. Fund raising organisations that transgress the rules will rack up a series of penalty points that will then be converted into a monetary fine once they reach a threshold.
13. There are penalties of 20, 50 or 100 points, which are awarded by the PFRA against a fund raising organisation – whether they are agencies or charities running in house teams - each time they breach one of these rules. When a fund raising organisation’s points tally exceeds 1,000 points, that total is converted to a monetary fine on the basis of £1 per point. Further breaches are invoiced by the PFRA at £1 per point per month.
14. The PFRA will monitor compliance with both the new rules and the Code of Practice through a mystery shopping programme, spot checks by its compliance staff, and through co-regulation with the fifty local authorities with which it has site management agreements (SMAs).
15. The aim of the SMA scheme is to facilitate F2F fund raising in a given location or locations within a local authority area and provide a balance between the right of the charity to fund raise and the right of the public to go about their business with the least possible impression of inconvenience. These provisions only apply in “public places” i.e. highways, open spaces etc., over which the local authority has a duty of care to provide and protect access.
16. Typically, a SMA will address issues such as location and frequency of visits, permitted team sizes, communication channels and dealing with complaints. The PFRA claims that once an agreement is in place it should minimise the administration for all concerned, providing just one channel Page 92
for information which is the PFRA, instead of dealing with each individual charity and fund raising organisation separately.
17. The Local Government Association is promoting the scheme and conducted a survey of those councils that had implemented a voluntary agreement which showed that 74% found them very or fairly successful at regulating chugging.
18. The PFRA has a complaints procedure where by it will respond to and deal with any complaints made directly about F2F relating to:
a. a breach of the IOF Code of Practice on F2F activity, such as abuse, harassment, approaching pedestrians in a non-designated area.
b. a breach of a SMA such as five chuggers in an area where there are only supposed to be four.
c. a complaint (or observation) about the nature of F2F fund raising in general.
d. a complaint about the operation of F2F fundraising, either where a SMA is or is not in place, such as where there appear to be too many chuggers in a given street or at a given time.
19. The PRFA will deal with complaints made by local authority officers, elected members, police officers, other regulatory or government bodies, members of the public, any others at the discretion of the relevant PFRA staff member. There is a full procedure that deals with how the PFRA will handle and process the complaint as well as outcomes and records.
20. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council has byelaws for “good rule and government” in its area prohibiting touting for sale to the annoyance or obstruction of passers-by, which it now uses against chuggers. The PFRA is challenging another local authority that is planning to introduce byelaws to address this nuisance.
21. The Government’s Public Administration Committee recently took evidence from the Chief Executives of the Institute of Fundraising, the Fundraising Standards Board, and the PFRA. The PRFA emphasised that where it had site management agreements in place with a local authority there was a great reduction in the level of complaints. This approach would probably need to be tried before it would be possible to argue strongly for the introduction of a byelaw.
Page 93
Options
22. Depending on the seriousness with which your Committee views this activity, there are a range of options that can be considered to tackle it.
i. write to the Chief Executives of the relevant charities and request that they comply with PFRA rules.
ii. refer complainants to the PFRA.
iii. Investigate complaints and undertake monitoring to ensure compliance with PFRA rules, then refer any collectors that are not complying to the PFRA under its complaints procedure.
iv. establish a site management agreement with the PFRA for the whole of the City.
v. explore the possibility of introducing byelaws to prevent the nuisance caused by chugging in the City.
23. Options i and ii have minimal resource implications, but any monitoring of compliance with PFRA rules that is carried out will incur officers' time, although this could be undertaken by a range of departments and the City of London Police.
24. It is possible that a brief campaign to ensure that all charities comply with the PFRA rules would have the desired effect, but as not all charities are members of the organisation there could still be some non-compliance.
25. Section 39 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1961 allows the City Corporation to make byelaws where necessary and appropriate for the good rule and government of the City of London and for the suppression of nuisances. This would require a formal consultation process and the approval of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is likely that this process would take between one and two years.
Proposals
26. I propose that your Committee considers the above options and determines the one that is commensurate with the seriousness with which you view chugging in the City. Depending on the option(s) you select, a further report could be brought before your Committee to update you on actions taken and the outcome of any compliance checks.
Page 94
27. In the first instance I recommend that options (i), (ii) and (iii) are approved by your Committee and that the number of complaints is recorded to see if compliance improves.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
28. Any action taken to control chugging in the City will be in accordance with the strategic aim: to provide modern, efficient and high quality local services and policing within the square mile for workers, residents and visitors with a view to delivering sustainable outcomes.
Implications
29. The financial implications of taking action against “chuggers" will need to be assessed in the light of the option determined by your Committee. There would be additional costs associated with any increased monitoring, and the costs would be greater if, after any byelaws were enacted, prosecutions were being undertaken. There would also be some costs associated with staff time and newspaper advertising if the introduction of byelaws was pursued.
30. The legal implications will only need to be taken into account if byelaws are to be sought. These would need to be the subject of a more detailed report.
Conclusion
31. Whilst there is no legal sanction against ”chugging ”, there are other mechanisms for discouraging the activity and there is also the potential to explore the introduction of byelaws to prevent potential nuisance caused by the practice.
Background Papers:
Charitable collections in the City of London - report to the Police Committee on 11 July 2012. PFRA Rules for Street F2F PFRA Complaints Procedure PFRA Site Management Agreement Contact: | [email protected] Tel: 020 7332 1603|
Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 96 Agenda Item 13
Committee(s): Date(s): Planning &Transportation 27 November 2012 Policy & Resources 13 December 2012
Subject: Public Draft Local Plan: Approval for Public Consultation Report of: For Decision City Planning Officer
Summary
Recent national reforms of the planning system have encouraged local authorities to speed up plan preparation work by producing a single local plan document where practicable. As a result it has been agreed that the City’s Local Development Framework (LDF) will be replaced by a single Local Plan for the City. This will be formed by combining the City’s Core Strategy, which was adopted last year, with the more detailed development management policies that have been in preparation. A small number of alterations to the Core Strategy’s adopted policies are proposed to bring it up to date. These are complemented by 67 development management policies which are largely derived from the existing UDP policies plus some new policies to address new issues that have arisen. The combined Core Strategy and development management policies that will form the Draft Local Plan must be subject to public consultation. Because the Core Strategy has already been adopted, only the alterations to its policies will be open for comment. Following consultation I will report again with a revised version of the Local Plan, which will be subject to a further round of consultation and public examination before it is adopted. Recommendations • That the Draft Local Plan, set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3, be approved and issued for public consultation. • In the event that the Policy & Resources Committee propose non- substantive changes to the Draft Local Plan, the City Planning Officer, in consultation with your Chairman, be authorised to agree these prior to the document being issued for public consultation.
Main Report
Background 1. The Local Development Framework (LDF) comprises a series of documents, separately prepared, that together set out the City Corporation’s planning policies. The most important of these are known as Development Plan Documents (DPDs). The Core Strategy DPD was adopted last year and Page 97 contains the City’s planning vision and 22 key policies. A separate Development Management DPD, setting out more detailed policies for deciding planning applications, has also been in preparation, and was subject to an initial round of public consultation last year.
2. On 15 th May 2012 the Planning & Transportation Committee considered my report “Local Development Framework – Timetable.” This outlined the implications for the LDF of the government’s recent reforms to the planning system. Members agreed that, to meet the recommendations in the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the requirements of the Localism Act, the Core Strategy and the development management policies should be merged into a single document called the Local Plan.
3. I consider that the merger of the documents can be achieved by retaining the Core Strategy while adding more detailed development management policies to follow each Core Strategy policy where they are needed.
Core Strategy 4. The Core Strategy was adopted on 8 th September 2011. Because it was recently prepared and is up to date, it is not in need of extensive review. However, it was adopted before the issue of the NPPF, which was published on 27 th March 2012. I have assessed the Core Strategy against the NPPF and consider that, although it is very largely in conformity, limited changes to twelve of its policies are needed to bring it into greater conformity, or to take account of minor wording changes or provide further clarification. My assessment of conformity has been carried out using a template recommended by the national Planning Advisory Service; a copy of the assessment is available in the Members’ Reading Room. Some changes to the supporting text of policies are also needed for updating and consistency with the development management policies. I am proposing to delete supporting text which relates to the evidence base and monitoring. This information will instead be included on the City Corporation’s website where it can be kept up to date without a need for formal review of the Plan. Because the Core Strategy is already adopted, only the alterations to it would be the subject of the forthcoming public consultation.
Development Management Policies 5. The Core Strategy policies focus on the overall vision for planning the City and co-ordinate this with other plans and strategies. The development management policies complement the Core Strategy by setting out more detailed considerations for determining applications for planning permission and related consents.
6. A first stage of consultation on the development management policies was carried out during July-September 2011 when the public were asked for their views on issues and options for the policies. Copies of the public’s comments are available in the Members’ Reading Room and a summary of Page 98 them has been published on the City’s web site. I have taken account of these comments in preparing the draft policies.
7. It is proposed that the development management policies should be structured under the same headings as the Core Strategy. Not all of the Core Strategy’s policies need detailed development management policies to support them. Therefore, only 14 of the Core Strategy’s 22 policies have complementary development management policies.
Draft Local Plan 8. The Draft Local Plan, marked as Appendix 1, is available in the Members’ Reading Room and has been circulated to Members electronically. It comprises the text of the adopted Core Strategy, plus the new development management policies. Text carried forward from the Core Strategy is shown in italics, and alterations to it are shown by underlining and strikethrough. The new development management policies are shown in normal font. Unaltered text from the Core Strategy will not be open for public consultation.
9. The Core Strategy includes a number of appendices including a monitoring framework, infrastructure delivery plan and a glossary. To avoid the Local Plan being over-long, it is proposed that these should become separate documents.
10. The LDF Proposals Map was adopted on 8 th September 2011. It shows which policies of the Core Strategy and the UDP apply to geographically specific locations. Under the new legislation this map must be renamed the Policies Map. It also needs to be altered to replace references to UDP policies with new development management policies, and to update its contents. Alterations to the Policies Map, marked as Appendix 2 are also available in the Reading Room and have been circulated electronically. The map will be displayed at your meeting.
11. Other maps and diagrams will be included in the text of the Draft Local Plan published for public consultation, as set out in Appendix 3. Again this appendix is available in the Reading Room and electronically. They comprise diagrams from the Core Strategy that need updating, plus additional maps related to the new development management policies. Maps unaltered in the Core Strategy or with only minor factual updates are not included in the appendix.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 12. The UDP adopted in 2002 contained 171 policies. Most of these policies were replaced by the adopted Core Strategy, but 55 remain in force. These 55 will be superseded by updated development management policies when the Local Plan is adopted. The current intention is that the 171 policies in
Page 99 the original adopted UDP will eventually be replaced by 92 policies (22 Core Strategy and 67 development management) in the finalised Local Plan.
Scope of the Local Plan 13. In drafting the development management policies I have reviewed the UDP policies that remain in force and considered if and how these need to be carried forward. In doing so, I have attempted to rationalise the policies, and approximately 30 of the proposed development management policies replace the 55 UDP policies.
14. In the decade since the UDP was adopted a considerable number of new issues have arisen in planning that need to be addressed, and additional policies are required for these. Furthermore, the NPPF has removed or simplified a large amount of guidance formerly set out in national Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). Consideration has been given as to how the Local Plan should take account of these factors. The following are the principal areas where it is considered that additional policies are needed:
• Balance between offices and other uses . At the time the UDP was prepared, there was little question that offices were the dominant land use in most of the City. However, in recent years other uses have become financially more attractive to developers, notably housing and hotels, which has led to concerns at changes to the City’s function and character and the loss of sites suitable for office use, which might undermine its business role. As a consequence changes to the Core Strategy policies for offices and housing and new development management policies providing protection for buildings or sites suitable for offices are proposed.
• Security . The increase in security measures within and around buildings needs to be addressed, alongside new development management policies dealing with night-time entertainment.
• Environmental issues . New policies are needed to address climate change, sustainable design, waste and flood risk.
15. The Planning Inspectorate also requires the inclusion of an additional policy indicating that planning decisions will be taken in accordance with the NPPF. The wording of this policy is set nationally with no scope for local variation. The policy is included in the Introduction to the Local Plan.
Public consultation 16. Public consultation on the Draft Local Plan must be carried out in accordance with the City’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).
17. It is recommended that the Draft Local Plan should be issued for consultation during January to March 2013. Responses are particularly Page 100 encouraged at this stage as there remains scope for their consideration before the Draft Local Plan is finalised.
18. I will subsequently produce a report recommending a revised version of the Local Plan, having taken into account representations received. This will be intended as the Corporation’s final draft of the Plan and, although it must be published for a further formal period of consultation, it is not expected that the Corporation will make substantive changes in response to any objections received at that stage. The Local Plan and any objections will then be submitted to the Secretary of State, who will appoint an independent planning inspector to hold a public examination, expected to take place later in 2013. The inspector will issue a report on the examination and the Plan can then proceed to adoption.
National Planning Policy Framework 19. The NPPF states that for 12 months from the day of its publication (27 th March 2012) decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the National Framework. After this period due weight should be given to the relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Some weight may be also be given to emerging plans, depending on the stage of preparation they have reached and whether there have been significant objections to particular policies. By 27 th March 2013 the Local Plan will have completed the second stage of public consultation, the public’s comments will have been analysed and the version for submission will be in preparation. This will mean that, subject to any unresolved objections, weight may be given to the Local Plan as a basis for planning decisions.
Supporting documents 20. The preparation of the Draft Local Plan has been carried out in the light of a sustainability appraisal and an equalities impact assessment. Copies of these reports are available in the Members’ Reading Room and must be made available to the public alongside the Local Plan.
Authorisation 21. Under its terms of reference the Planning & Transportation Committee may approve this version of the Draft Local PlanThe next version of the Local Plan, which is submitted to the Secretary of State, must be approved by Common Council, as also must the final adopted version.
22. This report was initially considered by the LDF Sub-Committee on 9 th October 2012. A copy of the Draft Local Plan showing the amendments made between the version presented to the Sub-Committee and the version appended to this report is available in the Members’ Reading Room.
Page 101 23. To avoid a lengthy report, the version of the Local Plan seen by the sub- committee only included those Core Strategy policies subject to substantive alterations. The version in Appendix 1 now includes the policies and other text in full.
24. It is recommended that the Policy & Resources Committee be consulted on this report. In the event that Members of that Committee propose amendments to the Draft Local Plan, providing these are not substantive, I recommend that they should be agreed by the City Planning Officer in consultation with your Chairman. However, if more substantive changes are sought, these would need to be reported back to the Planning Committee on 15 th January 2013.
Background Papers: Reports of the City Planning Officer: Planning & Transportation Committee 15 May 2012 “Local Development Framework – Timetable” and minutes. Local Development Framework Sub-Committee 9 October 2012 “Draft Local Plan: Approval for Public Consultation” and minutes.
Comments made by the public in response to consultation on development management issues and options July-Sept 2011. Sustainability appraisal report, October 2012. Equalities impact assessment NPPF conformity checklist.
Appendices Appendix 1 Draft Local Plan Appendix 2 Proposals/Policies Map Appendix 3 Maps and diagrams
Contact: Derek Read | [email protected] | 020 7332 1846
Page 102 Agenda Item 14
Committees : Dates: City Bridge Trust 29 November 2012 Finance 11 December 2012 Policy and Resources 13 December 2012 Community and Children’s Services 14 December 2012 Committee (for information) Subject: Public City of London Corporation’s Employability Partnership Report of: For Decision Director of Economic Development Chief Grants Officer, City Bridge Trust
Summary
1. On 6 July 2012 the Resource Allocation Sub Committee requested officers to investigate developing an employability initiative in partnership with Central London Forward to be aimed specifically at the City Corporation’s neighbouring boroughs. 1 2. The following proposal has been worked up by Central London Forward in consultation with the Economic Development Office, City Bridge Trust, Community and Children’s Services Department and Public Relations Office. 3. The programme would provide a flexible menu of joined-up, cross-borough provision able to meet the needs of both employers and unemployed people across Borough boundaries in Central London. This will include, but not be exclusive to, work with young people. 4. The proposal is to use up to £2.1m over two years from Bridge House Estates which it is anticipated can be provided from within the revenue surplus indicated by the five year financial forecast. This would be used to leverage in additional funding and commitment from wider organisations. Some key players have already demonstrated an appetite for such an approach. The £2.1m includes a budget of £100,000 to cover the commissioning, managing and monitoring of the programme. 5. This approach (which it is hoped would generate a total allocation of some £4-5m) of joining up key London stakeholders in a more simplified, streamlined, offer would, crucially, meet the expressed needs of employer businesses and would deliver greater impact than the City Corporation and CLF developing a separate initiative.
1 CLF authorities: Camden, Islington, City of London, Lambeth, Southwark, City of Westminster, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Tower Hamlets and Hackney also have the option to join the initiative. Page 103
6. The project would comprise three strands:- • Pre-employment training through training providers • Employability Passport for 14 – 16 year olds • Mentoring between employees / unemployed
7. It would benefit unemployed residents of the CLF boroughs, as well as the City. Tower Hamlets and Hackney would also have the option to join.
8. Because the funding would be sourced from the Bridge House Estates Fund the project would be delivered by organisations in the boroughs which meet the requirement of the City Bridge Trust.
9.Estimating a metric of £1.5k per head job outcome costs, an allocation of £4m in total, with £2m provided by the City Corporation, would achieve 2000 jobs /apprenticeships, along with 1,200 additional mentoring, skills and skills passport interventions.
10. This proposal offers the potential to act as a catalyst and game-changer for London’s employment and skills system. The opportunity to leverage in additional funding and partner commitment shows the capacity to add impact and value above and beyond the core funding for which the authority is sought. The City Corporation will gain considerable credit as the driver and major funder of such an initiative.
Recommendation It is recommended that: a) Subject to the agreement of the Court of Common Council, approval be given to the approach outlined in this report for a new employability initiative for Central London, the City and neighbouring boroughs; b) that the Policy and Resources and Finance Committees agree that a sum of £2.1m be allocated over 2013/4 -2014-15 (for a £2m programme plus a £100,000 (5%) budget for management costs) from the revenue surplus in the Bridge House Estates Fund (towards a total sum of £4-5m to be assembled from our partners); and c) the Community & Children’s Services Committee note the proposals.
Main Report
Background
1. On 6 July 2012 the Resource Allocation Sub Committee requested officers to investigate the development of an employability initiative in partnership with Central London Forward (which covers 6 Central London boroughs and the Page 104 City) to be aimed specifically at the City Corporation’s neighbouring boroughs 2, which have some of the highest deprivation levels in the country . 2. The purpose of this report is to seek authority for such a proposal costing up to £2.1m (a £2m programme plus a budget of £100,000 for management costs) from Bridge House Estates, which it is anticipated can be provided from the revenue surplus indicated by the five year financial forecasts. 3. The aim is that this new employability proposal would complement The “Get Young People Working – The Youth Offer” City Corporation scheme (developed with London Councils and recently launched) to make £3.2m available, from which the 32 London boroughs could bid, to help 1000 NEETs into jobs across London.
4. It further complements City Bridge Trust’s £1m awarded to 11 organisations for horticultural work training and apprenticeships in several London boroughs. Current Position
5. Nationally, the government has recognised youth unemployment as a particular priority and is implementing a range of measures targeted at young people amid broader reforms to welfare, education and training.
6. The boroughs surrounding the City experience high levels of unemployment:-
• One in four economically active young adults in London is unemployed, compared to the average of one in ten for all working-age adults. The young adult unemployment rate in Inner London is higher and has risen faster than the rate in Outer London. • Of the 51,000 18-24 year olds currently unemployed claiming Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) in central London, 8,000 (16%) have been unemployed for more than 12 months. 3 However, we should not lose sight of the fact that 134,000 25-49 year old central Londoners are also unemployed claiming JSA, with 42,000 (30%) unemployed for over 12 months. The project will therefore include, but not be exclusive to, work with young people.
Proposals
7. The following proposal has been worked up by Central London Forward as part of its employability work-stream, following analysis of the most successful models, and in consultation with a working group of CoL officers from the
2 CLF authorities: Camden, Islington, City of London, Lambeth, Southwark, City of Westminster, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Tower Hamlets and Hackney also have the option to join the initiative. 3 Nomis, October 2012 Page 105 Economic Development Office, City Bridge Trust, Community and Children’s Services Department and Public Relations Office.
8. It is intended that, as well as the CLF boroughs, this project would benefit unemployed residents of Tower Hamlets and Hackney, as well as the City.
9. The preferred option is to provide a flexible menu of joined-up, cross- borough provision able to meet the needs of both employers and unemployed people across Borough boundaries. It would use £2m from Bridge House Estates to leverage in additional funding and commitment from wider organisations. Some key players have already demonstrated an appetite for such an approach. 10. This approach (with a single pot, potentially up to a total of £4-5m), joining up key London stakeholders in a more simplified, streamlined, offer would, crucially, meet the expressed needs of employer businesses who consistently cite multiple initiatives, strands, entry points and ‘blind alleys’ as a key barrier to engagement with a disparate, confusing employment and skills system. Addressing this employer need, joining up the offer and leveraging additional funding and partner commitment would deliver greater outcomes than the City Corporation and CLF developing a separate initiative. 11. It is considered that this sum would be sufficiently sizeable to make a difference as a stand-alone project and /or to leverage in other funds. In the latter case it also ensures that the City Corporation remains the biggest single funder and so can ensure its priorities are met.
The proposed programme
12. The following activities would be funded:
• Pre-employment training through training providers – including bespoke pre-recruitment preparation aligned to the skills, attitudes, behaviours and branding requirements of employers undertaking large- scale recruitment and tackling the core issues of employability and soft skills. Provide more pre-apprenticeship/pre-employment support for people who are not equipped with the skills necessary to present themselves well to employers.
• Employability Passport for 14 – 16 year olds – including supporting and increasing local recruitment and encouraging local businesses to take young people on work placements and in apprenticeships and support for schools and colleges to develop and extend their links with business
• Mentoring between employees / unemployed - work with employers to extend mentoring programmes between their employees and unemployed local people.
Page 106 Delivery partners
13. The project could be delivered by organisations which meet the requirements of the City Bridge Trust, i.e. registered charities and properly constituted, not for profit/social enterprise organisations in the eight Boroughs.
Funding partners
14. The following partners have been identified. A number of these have already expressed interest and possible commitment of funds: • the six ‘other’ CLF Boroughs (and potentially Hackney and Tower Hamlets - to fit the “neighbouring boroughs” remit), • GLA, • London’s allocation of the EU’s European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) which has an underspend in excess of £11m, • London Enterprise Panel (LEP) employment and skills working group, • JobCentrePlus (JCP), • Employer Ownership of Skills (EOS) programme (BIS/UK Commission on Employment and Skills).
Outputs
15. Estimating a metric of £1.5k per job, which is in line with known comparators 4, a total fund of £4m (with £2m provided by the City Corporation) could provide, over 2 years:-
• 2000 people into jobs /apprenticeships, along with • 1,200 additional mentoring, skills and skills passport interventions • 17 schools engaged with employer links facilitated and capacity building delivered and • demonstration of the value and impact of a joined-up but semi- autonomous, devolved London-level skills and employment funding stream • support 3rd sector employment and skills providers who have valuable experience and community engagement as well as some innovative delivery models.
4 This approximation is based on combined programme start and job output payments for a Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimant Work Programme participant, equates to previous delivery by the London Employer Accord and has also been ‘sense checked’ with current Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) provision in London, funded under JCP District Flexibility Funds
Page 107 16. City residents would be able to benefit from the programme, as well as residents of the eight boroughs.
Monitoring and Evaluation
17. A budget of £100,000 (5%) would be added to cover the commissioning, managing and monitoring of the programme. 5
18. Central London Forward would develop with the City Bridge Trust a detailed monitoring and evaluation and provide regular monitoring reports. Payments will be released in instalments and will be subject to satisfactory progress.
Profile
19. The Working Group officers agreed that this proposal offers the potential to act as a catalyst and game-changer for London’s employment and skills system. The opportunity to leverage in additional funding and partner commitment shows the capacity to add impact and value above and beyond the core funding for which the authority is sought. Because of these significant potential wider impacts, this proposal is also broadly supported by the GLA, Jobcentre Plus and the LEP as well as the Boroughs.
20. For these reasons of the additional impacts and added value, as well as the positive PR and kudos accruable to the City Corporation as the driver and major funder of such an initiative, we recommend this proposal for approval.
21. The PRO will ensure that the City of London obtains maximum recognition for its contribution.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
22. This proposal fits within three of the strands of the community strategy – “is competitive and promotes opportunity”, “supports our communities” and “is safer and stronger”. It also supports the Corporate Plan objective of providing “valued services to London and the nation” – and key policy priority to “be a good neighbour”. It meets the priorities within the business plans of the City Bridge Trust, the EDO and the Community and Children’s Services Department.
5 5% is the same percentage as is used by London Councils for commissioning and monitoring EU-funded programmes. This is a complex project. While the management and financial reporting arrangements have yet to be settled, it is likely that Central London Forward would work to leverage in the funds. Discussions will be held with appropriate bodies (eg Cross River Partnership) who would manage procurement and commissioning. Page 108 Implications
23. While the larger, partnership, project proposed will produce greater impact overall than each partner using its own funds for separate initiatives, it inevitably carries with it a risk of delays in assembling all of the funding and of a more involved monitoring and reporting process. This is considered worthwhile in order to achieve a ground-breaking initiative.
24.Should it not prove possible to piece together all of the proposed funding within a reasonable timescale, a worthwhile project could still be implemented with a smaller total amount of funding than the £4-5m or with the £2m City 6 Corporation funding alone. 25. The ambition would be to get the initiative out to tender as early as possible in 2013. The timeline on this will be challenging given the partners and additional funding to align. Delivery could commence within the first quarter of 2013/14 and the funding would be profiled over the two financial years 2013/14 and 2014/15. 26. The Comptroller and City Solicitor has advised that grants for charitable purposes associated with addressing employablity made to organisations which meet the criteria for funding by City Bridge Trust may be regarded as within the Guidelines and the purposes of the Charitable Scheme.
Conclusion
27. Unemployment in Central London and surrounding boroughs is a particular concern. The opportunity has arisen to implement a ground-breaking project which joins up funding sources and agencies to produce greater impact than any single agency acting alone. With £2m of City Corporation funds there is the opportunity to achieve £4-5m worth of outputs, to lay the ground for a different way of doing things to tackle unemployment in London and to bring credit to the City Corporation as a catalyst and single major funder.
Contacts: Liz Skelcher, Assistant Director of Economic Development, [email protected] 020 7332 3606
Clare Thomas , Chief Grants officer, City Bridge Trust, [email protected] 020 7332 3715
6 For £2m we would anticipate 800 jobs, 500 mentoring, skills and passport interventions and 8 schools engaged. It would not be the game changer or generate the broader impacts envisaged for the larger project.. Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 110 Agenda Item 15
Committee : Policy and Resources Date: 13 December 2012
Subject: City of London Corporation to host AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum 2013 Report of: For Decision Director of Public Relations
Summary The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) is the global representative of the hedge fund industry. Founded in 1990, AIMA represents all practitioners in the alternative investment management industry – including hedge fund managers, prime brokers, legal and accounting firms, investors, fund administrators and independent fund directors.
AIMA’s annual Policy and Regulatory Forum 2013 is scheduled to be hosted in London. The last two years have seen the Forum hosted in Brussels and Hong Kong. It is the main hedge fund industry event that brings together senior policy makers, regulators and industry figures to discuss regulatory issues.
It is proposed that the City of London Corporation host the 2013 AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum on the 20 March, by providing the Guildhall as a venue. AIMA will fund all hospitality, branding, set design and AV costs. Hosting the AIMA annual conference would provide the City Corporation with an opportunity to engage with senior hedge fund figures, policy makers and regulators thereby broadening and strengthening the relationship with this key growing industry. It also offers the City Corporation a prime opportunity to be seen as a strong supporter of the industry and facilitate key discussions around the challenges facing the alternative investment industry. The City of London would receive branding on all literature associated with the event, would have input into the guest list and would have places for City Corporation senior Members and Officers at the Forum. The Policy Chairman would have a prominent speaking role and would be able to host a high level dinner on the evening prior to the Forum. Recommendation This report recommends that the City of London Corporation hosts the 2013 AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum and dinner, covering the cost of £12,000 for the use of the Basinghall Suite on 19 March and the Livery Hall, Crypts, Print Room and Old Library on 20 March to be met from your Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 and charged to City’s Cash.
Page 111 Main Report
Background 1. The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) is the global representative of the hedge fund industry. Founded in 1990, AIMA represents all practitioners in the alternative investment management industry – including hedge fund managers, prime brokers, legal and accounting firms, investors, fund administrators and independent fund directors. It acts for the global hedge fund industry at national and international levels in ongoing discussions about the future regulatory framework for the industry.
2. AIMA’s work addresses issues affecting the industry’s development. It has three core objectives: • To provide an interactive and professional forum for its membership and act as a catalyst and promoter of the industry’s global development; • To provide leadership to the industry and to be its pre-eminent voice; and • To develop sound practices, enhance industry transparency and education, and to liaise with the wider financial community, institutional investors, the media, regulators, governments and other policy makers.
3. AIMA has built an excellent reputation for its professionalism, high quality output and meaningful dialogue with policymakers around the world. AIMA is governed by its Council of 12 senior members which is chaired by Kathleen Casey (Patomak Global Partners). AIMA’s membership consists of several hundred firms representing the broad range of the alternative investment industry but also including major Global Partners such as Clifford Chance, PwC, UBS and KPMG.
4. AIMA’s annual Policy and Regulatory Forum is the biggest annual hedge fund industry events focused on regulatory issues. The event attracts leading speakers from the industry, regulators and policy makers. The 2012 Forum had keynote speeches from Alexa Lam, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Securities and Futures Commission, and John Tsang, Financial Secretary of the Government of Hong Kong SAR. Other speakers included Tilman Leuder, European Commission; Anthony Byrne, Deutsche Bank; and Lee Chuan Teck, Monetary Authority of Singapore. There were 300 attendees at the event from around the world.
Page 112 5. In September 2012, the City of London Corporation hosted the AIMA annual conference which was attended by over 340 delegates representing 230 firms from 20 countries. The event was regarded as having been very successful by City Corporation Members and Officers who attended. The proposed arrangements for the Forum would be the same as those agreed for the conference.
Proposal 6. The 2013 AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum is due to take place on 20 March. The Forum will feature keynote speeches plus panel discussions focusing on the global regulatory framework and policy developments. These plenaries will be followed by a networking reception. It is anticipated that the Forum will attract several hundred senior representatives of the hedge fund industry drawn from firms across the globe.
7. It is proposed that the City of London Corporation hosts the 2013 AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum on 20 March and a private dinner on 19 March at a cost of £12,000. AIMA would finance all hospitality including catering, branding, set design and any audio visual equipment above and beyond the basic on site provision.
8. On 19 March the Basinghall Suite will be used to host a high level private dinner with leading figures from the alternative investment industry. The dinner will be hosted by the Policy Chairman and other representatives of the City Corporation will be able to attend. On 20 March the Livery Hall, Crypts, Print Room and Old Library will be used to host the AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum.
9. Hosting the AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum would provide the City Corporation with an opportunity to engage with senior hedge fund figures, policy makers and regulators from around the world. It will enable the City Corporation to strengthen and develop relations with this key industry. It also offers a prime opportunity to be seen as a strong supporter of the industry and facilitate key discussions around the challenges facing the alternative investment industry. The event accords well with our communications objective: to support and promote “The City” as the world leader in international finance and business services .
10. The City of London would receive branding on all literature associated with the forum and at the event, and would have input into the guest list. Places will be available for senior Members and Officers to attend the Forum. The Policy Chairman would receive a prominent speaking slot and would additionally be able to host a high level dinner on the evening prior to the Conference which would further bolster the City Corporation’s relationship with the sector.
Page 113 Financial Implications 11. It is proposed that the City Corporation hosts the AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum at a cost of £12,000. These sums will be paid for the use of the Guildhall Complex. The hospitality, administrative and running costs associated with the conference are being met by AIMA and the City Corporation is not liable for any additional costs.
12. There is no possibility of meeting the proposed financial support from existing local risk resources, because this proposal entails a substantial item of expenditure, for which no provision has been made in the Public Relations or other local risk budgets. The Policy Initiatives Fund 2012/13 is now fully committed. It is therefore proposed that the required funding of £12,000 is drawn from your Committee Contingency for 2012/13 and charged to City’s Cash. These sums will be paid for the use of the Guildhall complex.
13. The current uncommitted balance available within your Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 amounts to some £445,000, prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusion 14. It is proposed that the City of London Corporation host the 2013 AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum on 20 March by providing Guildhall as a venue. Hosting the AIMA annual conference would provide the City Corporation with an opportunity to engage with senior hedge fund figures, regulators and policy makers, thereby broadening and strengthening the relationship with this key growing industry. It also offers the City Corporation a prime opportunity to be seen as a strong supporter of the industry and facilitate key discussions around the challenges facing the alternative investment industry. 15. The City Corporation would also receive branding on all literature associated with the forum and at the event, and would have input into the guest list. The Policy Chairman would receive a prominent speaking slot and would additionally be able to host a high level dinner on the evening prior to the Forum which would further bolster the City Corporation’s relationship with the sector.
Contacts: Giles French Assistant Director of Public Relations: Corporate Affairs 020 7332 1758 [email protected]
Page 114 Agenda Item 16
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 13 December 2012
Subject: Public Financial support of the Mile End Group Report of: For Decision Director of Public Relations
Summary
The Mile End Group (MEG) is the Queen Mary, University of London’s (QMUL) forum for government and politics and was created in December 2003 by research students of Peter Hennessy, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History, at QMUL. The MEG is a formidable network of academics who are joined by politicians past and present, civil servants, journalists and business- people who come together on average once a month to attend lectures, receptions and dinners to hear and talk to VIPs from the world of government. The MEG has hosted high-profile guests over the past nine years including Ed Balls MP, Alastair Campbell, Sir John Major, Lord Mandelson, Baroness Manningham-Buller, Andrew Marr, Lord O’Donnell, Sir David Omand, Jeremy Paxman and David Willetts. Planning is already underway to host events with Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Lord Adonis, Oliver Letwin, Danny Alexander, Kenneth Clarke, and Tony Blair in 2013. MEG is seeking sponsorship for two years at a cost of £20,000 per year. This would contribute towards the operating and hospitality costs for MEG’s continued programme of seminar, networking and dinner events. The relationships with this organisation allows for high level interaction with a number of the City Corporation’s key audiences and also allows the City Corporation to engage with a leading London academic institution extending our network in this area and providing us with new opportunities which might not have been available before. In return for sponsorship the City Corporation would receive due recognition on printed literature and online, the opportunity for the Chairman to speak at relevant events, and invitations to all MEG events for Members of the Policy and Resources Committee. Recommendations The Committee is recommended to agree to support the Mile End Group (MEG) for two years, 2012/13 and 2013/14, at a cost of £20,000 per year to be met from your Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 and Policy Initiatives Fund for 2013/14, charged to City’s Cash and categorised under the Research section of the Fund.
Page 115 Main Report
Background 1. The Mile End Group (MEG) is the Queen Mary, University of London’s (QMUL) forum for government and politics and was created in December 2003 by research students of Peter Hennessy, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History, at QMUL. QMUL is one of the UK’s leading higher education institutions and a member of the Russell Group (UK’s 24 leading research intensive universities). The university is based in Mile End, Tower Hamlets.
2. In 2012, the now Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield became Patron of the MEG and Dr Jon Davis, a founder-member and Executive Director since its creation, was appointed Director. It has an Advisory Board containing Lord Hennessy, Lord Adonis (previously Secretary of State for Transport), Sir Mark Allen (served in British Foreign Service for 30 years), Baroness Shephard of Northwold (previously Secretary of State for Education), Sir Kevin Tebbit (former Permenant Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and UK Chairman of the Italian defence manufacturers Finmeccanica) and William Keegan (The Observer’s senior economics commentator). The Board is chaired by the Principal of Queen Mary, Professor Simon Gaskell.
3. The MEG is a formidable network of academics who are joined by politicians past and present, civil servants, journalists and business-people who come together on average once a month to attend lectures, receptions and dinners to hear and talk to VIPs from the world of government. The MEG co-operates with a number of institutes and think tanks and has partnerships and links to the Attlee Foundation, the British Academy, the Cabinet Office, Churchill College Cambridge, Corpus Christi College Cambridge, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Ministry of Defence, the National Archives, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Royal Society, the Royal United Services Institute, the Science Museum, the Treasury, and the Young Foundation.
4. The MEG has hosted high-profile guests over the past nine years including Ed Balls MP, Alastair Campbell, Sir John Major, Lord Mandelson, Baroness Manningham-Buller, Andrew Marr, Lord O’Donnell, Sir David Omand, Jeremy Paxman and David Willetts. The involvement of such noted speakers has served to widen the appeal of MEG events, and attendees include those from academia, business, government and journalism. Many students also attend, making the group a truly intergenerational forum for the exchange of ideas and experience. MEG events are open to all and free to attend.
5. From 2004, the IT firm EDS began sponsoring MEG events. This continued when it was bought by the computer giants Hewlett Packard. Page 116 This sponsorship has allowed the MEG to flourish and now provides for student bursaries and internships.
6. In addition to events, MEG has produced a number of publications. In 2005, the Mile End Institute (for the Study of Government, Intelligence and Society) was created and in 2007 jointly-published two books, The New Protective State and Cabinets and the Bomb. In 2012, the MEG was asked to help re-write the biographies of the Prime Ministers since 1945 for the No. 10 website.
Proposals 7. MEG is seeking sponsorship for two years at a cost of £20,000 per year. This would contribute towards the operating and hospitality costs for MEG’s continued programme of seminar, networking and dinner events. Arrangements are already in place for an event with Sir Nigel Sheinwald on What the 2012 US election will mean for the UK and Lord Adonis talking about his new book Education, Education, Education . MEG are also in the process of arranging events with Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander on Coalition policy-making , Kenneth Clarke on Being Chancellor and Tony Blair on Global governance . It is also discussing a project with Sir Nick Macpherson on a history of the Treasury which would include a series of events.
8. In return for sponsorship the City Corporation would receive due recognition on printed literature and online, the opportunity for the Chairman to speak at relevant events, and invitations to all MEG events for Members of the Policy and Resources Committee.
9. The work of the MEG accords well with the role of the City Corporation in promoting debate on key policy issues that affect the City and London. The relationships with this organisation allows for high level interaction with a number of the City Corporation’s key audiences and its work will link well with key elements of The City Together Strategy: The Heart of a World Class City 2008-2014. The City Corporation is also able to engage more easily with key audiences, through attending events, that would prove more difficult and time consuming to achieve without these links. It also allows the City Corporation to engage with a leading London academic institution extending our network in this area and providing us with new opportunities which might not have been available before. It also accords well with the City Corporation’s new communications priority, supporting London’s communities, with MEG based at the Queen Mary hospital in neighbouring Tower Hamlets.
10. This report recommends that the City Corporation sponsors MEG for two years at a cost of £20,000 per year to be met from your Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 and Policy Initiatives Fund for 2013/14
Page 117 categorised under the Research section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash.
Implications 11. There is no possibility of meeting the proposed financial support from existing local risk resources. The Policy Initiatives Fund 2012/13 is now fully committed. It is therefore proposed that the required funding for MEG of £20,000 per year for two years is drawn from your Committee Contingency for 2012/13 and Policy Initiatives Fund for 2013/14, categorised under the Research section of the Fund and charged to City’s Cash. The current uncommitted balances available within your Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 amounts to some £445,000 and for the Policy Initiatives Fund 2013/14 some £575,000, prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusion 12. The work of the MEG accords well with the role of the City Corporation in promoting debate on key policy issues that affect the City and London. The relationships with this organisation allows for high level interaction with a number of the City Corporation’s key audiences and its work will link well with key elements of The City Together Strategy: The Heart of a World Class City 2008-2014. The City Corporation is also able to engage more easily with key audiences, through attending events, that would prove more difficult and time consuming to achieve without these links. It also allows the City Corporation to engage with a leading London academic institution extending our network in this area and providing us with new opportunities which might not have been available before. It also accords well with the City Corporation’s new communications priority, supporting London’s communities, with MEG based at the Queen Mary campus in neighbouring borough, Tower Hamlets.
Contact: Tony Halmos Director of Public Relations 020 7332 1450 [email protected]
Page 118 Agenda Item 17
Committee : Policy and Resources Date : 13 December 2012
Subject: Public Reform and IPPR: City of London Corporation corporate membership renewals and sponsorship of IPPR research project Report of: For decision Director of Public Relations
Summary The development of effective working relationships with a range of think tanks across the political spectrum is a key objective of the City of London Corporation. This programme of work aims to address key themes and further the organisation’s strategic objectives.
Reform was established in 2002 to promote the need for radical public sector and economic reform. It has quickly established itself as a leading source of innovative thought on the centre right. Since its inception in 1986, the IPPR has developed into the largest centre left think tank in the United Kingdom with a reputation for research, seminars and conferences of the highest quality.
The City Corporation has a long history of successful co-operation on a series of events and projects with both Reform and IPPR and has been a corporate partner of both since 2005; these memberships are now due for renewal.
As a corporate partner, the City Corporation is able to engage more easily with key audiences and be closely involved in policy development work. Renewing the City Corporation’s corporate partnership to these two think tanks will continue this programme of work and further the organisation’s strategic objectives.
In addition to renewing the City Corporation’s corporate partnership with IPPR, it is proposing a major research project that will establish the opportunities to create a global emissions trading scheme involving the EU, China and other participating countries. This research programme will result in a report which will be distributed widely to networks in the EU, China and the UK. This will include major political parties and government departments, media contacts, low carbon businesses, and environmental groups and NGOs. The project will be led by the IPPR’s Associate Director, Will Straw, who worked on the successful globalisation project that the City Corporation part sponsored in 2011.
The total cost of the project will be £60,000. IPPR has positive indications that it will receive financial support for the project from Deutsche Bank and the Foreign
Page 119 and Commonwealth Office. It is therefore seeking £15,000 from the City Corporation to complete the funding package. In the unlikely situation that insufficient funds are raised from other sponsors and the project does not proceed, the City Corporation would have no financial obligation for the project. Recommendation
The Committee is recommended to agree that: • The City Corporation remains a corporate partner of Reform for two years at a cost of £7,500 per year; • The City Corporation remains a corporate partner of IPPR for two years at a cost of £12,500 per year; and • That the City Corporation gives financial support of £15,000 to the IPPR’s project on global emissions trading.
As the Policy Initiatives Fund for 2012/13 is now fully committed it is recommended that the total cost of £35,000 for this year’s corporate partnership renewals and the IPPR project is met from your Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 and charged to City’s Cash, and the second year corporate partnership renewal total cost of £20,000 is met from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2013/14 and charged to City’s Cash.
Main Report
Reform and IPPR corporate partnership renewal 1. The development of effective working relationships with a range of think tanks across the political spectrum is a key objective of the City of London Corporation . This programme of work aims to address key themes and further the organisation’s strategic objectives. 2. Reform was established in 2002 to promote the need for radical public sector and economic reform. It has quickly established itself as a leading source of innovative thought on the centre right. The leading political commentator Peter Oborne has stated that “Reform is the most important Think Tank to emerge on the scene since the IPPR in the 1980s.” The membership of Reform’s advisory board includes Chris Gibson-Smith, Sir Steve Robson and Lord Warner. The original Director, Nick Herbert is the former Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and his successor Andrew Haldenby was a key player in Reform’s establishment. 3. The City of London Corporation has worked with Reform on a number of successful events including speeches by the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne and Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary Chris Grayling and dinners with the Shadow Arts Minister Ed Vaizey and Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office Francis Maude in the run up to the 2010 General Election. More
Page 120 recently, there have been a one day conference on financial services, a dinner with members of the new intake of Conservative MPs, dinner with the Chancellor’s then PPS Greg Hands, plus a highly successful fringe meeting at this year’s Conservative Conference that featured the Employment Minister Mark Hoban, Simon Walker ( Institute of Directors) and Sam Fleming (The Times).
4. The IPPR was founded by Lord Hollick and Lord Eatwell, who developed the idea for an independent progressive think tank in 1986. It was launched in 1988 with Baroness Blackstone as its first chair. Since its inception the IPPR has developed into the largest centre left think tank in the United Kingdom with a reputation for research, seminars and conferences of the highest quality. The current Director Nick Pearce was previously head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit. The IPPR’s Advisory Council includes Anthony Browne, Phillip Stephens and John Studzinski. IPPR is expected to play a pivotal role in the Labour Shadow Team’s policy formation.
5. The City of London Corporation has previously worked with the IPPR on a number of high quality projects including a study of London Governance, a project on London Transport, well attended fringe meetings at the Labour Party Conference, an event on Arts Philanthropy and a major speech by the Deputy Prime Minister. More recently, the City Corporation sponsored a major IPPR project on globalisation, hosted a conference on industrial policy that featured a speech by the Business Secretary Vince Cable and a dinner discussion on getting young people in London into work led by the Shadow Employment Minister Stephen Timms.
6. The City of London Corporation became a corporate partner of both Reform and IPPR in 2005. Other corporate partners of the IPPR include Deloitte, HSBC, Microsoft and Unilever; other members of the Reform partnership scheme include Citi, Clifford Chance, Aviva and KPMG. The City Corporation is also a corporate partner of a number of other leading thinks tanks from across the political spectrum including Demos, CentreForum, the European Policy Forum and the Foreign Policy Centre.
7. As a corporate partner, the City Corporation is able to engage more easily with key audiences and be closely involved in policy development work. Renewing the City Corporation’s corporate partnership to these two think tanks will continue this programme of work and further the organisation’s strategic objectives.
Page 121 IPPR research project on a global emissions trading scheme 8. The European Union (EU) has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 against 1990 levels with an offer to extend the pledge to 30 per cent if a global deal is reached through the United Nations process. To deliver this target, the EU has a suite of policies including its flagship Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The ETS was launched in 2005 and placed a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gases that factories, power plants and other types of installations could emit over a specified period of time. It is the first and most comprehensive international scheme of its kind and now covers 11,000 industrial plants and power stations over 30 countries.
9. The world’s largest emitter is China, which is responsible for 25 per cent of global emissions. Last year, Premier Wen unveiled new goals to bring down both energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40- 45 per cent by 2020 against 2005 levels. Among the policies used by China to reduce its energy intensity is a trial cap-and-trade scheme, similar to the EU ETS. If China developed a national emissions trading scheme, it would become the largest such scheme in the world and could pave the way for a global market in emissions permits. A global emissions trading scheme would be a significant boost to the City of London and to the UK’s GDP.
11. IPPR are planning a major research project to establish the opportunities for the UK of helping to create a global emissions trading scheme involving the European Union, China and other participating countries. This will examine a number of key research questions, namely:
• Has the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme succeeded in reducing EU emissions to date? What lessons does this provide for other cap-and- trade systems around the globe?
• How developed are China’s plans to develop a cap-and-trade scheme? What are the key milestones determining whether the regional pilots will be expanded to the national level?
• Where else in the world is progress taking place to develop emissions trading schemes or other forms of carbon pricing? What would a global emissions trading scheme between the EU and China do to encourage global progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How could the EU and China benefit from a global cap-and-trade scheme?
• What are the City of London’s key attributes in relation to emissions trading? What other financial centres could compete with the UK to
Page 122 become the global hub of emissions trading? What opportunities would the creation of a global emissions trading scheme present for London?
12. This research programme will result in a report which will be distributed widely to networks in the EU, China and the UK. This will include major political parties and government departments, media contacts, businesses, and NGOs.
13. The project will be led by Will Straw, Associate Director for Globalisation and Climate Change, who worked on the successful Globalisation project that the City Corporation part sponsored in 2011. Through the Global Climate Network, which IPPR has convened since 2008, IPPR has developed links with think tanks in 12 countries focused on climate change including the Research Centre for Sustainable Development at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in China. Through IPPR’s work on globalization with Lord Mandelson, it has developed strong links with the China Centre for Contemporary World Studies, a think tank attached to the International Department, and with the Central Party School as well as with the British Embassy in China. It has also concluded two related studies on business attitudes to the low carbon transition in the UK and EU with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
14. The total cost of the project will be £60,000. IPPR has positive indications that it will receive financial support for the project from Deutsche Bank and the Foreign Office. It is therefore seeking £15,000 from the City Corporation to complete the funding package. In the unlikely situation that insufficient funds are raised from other sponsors and the project does not proceed, the City Corporation would have no financial obligation for the project.
Proposal 15. This report proposes that the City Corporation remains a corporate partner of Reform and IPPR for two years at a cost of £7,500 per year and £12,500 per year respectively. These are the standard rates in both instances for corporate partnership.
16. Being a corporate partner not only strengthens the overall relationship between the City of London Corporation and each think tank but also carries a number of additional benefits. As a corporate partner, the City Corporation has regular contact with research directors to discuss the progress of relevant projects, enabling the City Corporation to be closely involved in policy development work. The City Corporation is also able to engage more easily with key
Page 123 audiences, either through hosting or attending events, that would prove more difficult and time consuming to achieve without these links to key think tanks. The City Corporation receives invitations to the extensive programme of seminars, conferences and briefings including some partner-only events and also receives copies of all publications and policy briefings produced by each think tank.
17. This report also proposed that the City Corporation provides financial support to IPPR’s research project on global emissions trading at a cost of £15,000.
18. Supporting the IPPR project on global emissions trading would place the City Corporation at the centre of an important debate that has the potential to greatly benefit the wider City and provide synergy between two key policy areas, namely China and the carbon markets.
Financial implications
19. There is no possibility of meeting the proposed financial support from existing local risk resources. The Policy Initiatives Fund 2012/13 is now fully committed. It is therefore proposed that the required funding of £35,000 from 2012/13 for the corporate partnership renewals for IPPR of £12,500 per year for two years and for Reform of £7,500 per year for two years plus the £15,000 support for the IPPR global emissions trading project is drawn from your Committee Contingency for 2012/13 and charged to City’s Cash. The second year corporate partnership renewal costs of £20,000 should be met from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund 2013/14 and charged to City’s Cash.
20. The current uncommitted balances available within your Committee’s Contingency for 2012/13 amounts to some £445,000 and for the Policy Initiative Fund 2013/14 some £575,000, prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda.
Conclusions 21. The relationship with Reform and IPPR accords well with the City Corporation’s key objective to develop effective working relationships with a range of think tanks across the political spectrum. Renewing the City Corporation’s corporate partnership to these two think tanks will continue this programme of work and further the organisation’s strategic objectives. It also gives access more easily to City Corporation key audiences creating opportunities for high level interaction and enables the City Corporation to be closely involved in policy development work.
Page 124 22. Supporting the IPPR project on global emissions trading would place the City Corporation at the centre of an important debate that has the potential to greatly benefit the wider City and provide synergy between two key policy areas, namely China and the carbon markets.
Contact: Adam Maddock Corporate Affairs Manager 020 7332 1771 [email protected]
Page 125 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 126 Agenda Item 18
Committee(s): Date(s): Policy and Resources 13 December 2012
Subject: Public Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Report of: For Information Remembrancer
Summary This report outlines those areas of the Bill most likely to be of interest to this committee, including • Increased ability for shareholders to influence executive pay; • A merger of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to create the Consumer and Markets Authority; • A liberalisation of the rules regarding Primary Authorities (whereby a business operating across council boundaries can form a primary authority partnership with a single local authority in relation to regulatory compliance to cover issues such as environmental health and trading standards legislation, or specific functions such as food safety); • Setting the scope for the ‘green purposes’ of the Green Investment Bank; • Changes to the rules relating to the demolition of heritage buildings. Recommendation • To note the contents of this Report
Main Report
Background
1. A number of disparate proposals are included in the Bill, some of which will be of direct relevance to the City Corporation and others to its business constituency. The Bill builds on the Government’s drive, begun in the Public Bodies Bill, to reduce the number of quangos and follows a Government consultation on the structure of competition regulation.
2. Announcing the consultation, BIS minister Norman Lamb recorded the high regard in which the UK’s competition regime held internationally, but stated the Government’s belief that “there is scope to improve the effectiveness of competition enforcement and streamline processes”.
Page 127 3. Introducing the Bill in the Commons, Business Secretary Vince Cable explained the measures as taking steps to “scrap the unnecessary bureaucracy that is holding back companies, overhaul the competition framework, and boost business and consumer confidence”. Elements of the Bill received support from the Labour benches although the Opposition criticised what Labour veteran Austin Mitchell called “a rag-bag of a Bill… a curate’s egg of a Bill, if we could assume that curates ate pterodactyl eggs that were good in parts but monstrous in others”. Chuka Umunna, Labour’s business lead, attacked the Government’s performance in fostering enterprise, citing the World Bank’s global survey – “when the Government took office, Britain was fourth in the world in terms of the ease of doing business; it is now seventh”. The Bill is currently passing through the House of Lords.
Executive Pay 4. As foreshadowed in the Queen’s Speech, the Bill includes measures designed to strengthen shareholder involvement in setting executive remuneration. The much-trailed moves – robustly supported by Vince Cable - to introduce mandatory and binding shareholder votes on executive remuneration, did not appear in the Bill. Subsequently, at Commons committee stage, there was a significant change in the Government’s approach. New provisions were introduced giving shareholders an opportunity to cast an ‘advisory’ vote on the implementation of a company’s pay policy on directors’ remuneration and restrictions on payments for loss of office and a requirement to publish details of any such payments.
The Competition and Markets Authority 5. The Bill proposes changes to the current arrangements, largely established under the Competition Act 1998 and Enterprise Act 2002, for competition authorities. On matters likely to be of interest to the City’s business constituency, the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission will, from April 2014, be merged to form the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) – a move that garnered cautious support from Labour business lead Chuka Umunna. In their evidence to the Commons Bill committee, organisations such as the CBI and the City of London Law Society gave their support to the creation of the CMA. Adding a note of caution, however, former head of the OFT Sir John Vickers questioned how the merger would affect investigations – “no case that comes to the Competition Commission as a market investigation reference has been initiated by the Competition Commission. It is issued by an entirely separate body: the OFT. That sharp and total separation between initiation and decision has enhanced the robustness of this aspect of our regime, which is unusual by international standards but positive”. Page 128 6. The CMA will take over the competition functions of the OFT and Competition Commission as well as appeal functions regarding specific sectors such as gas and water. In a change from the current remit of the OFT and Competition Commission, the CMA will be given an explicit objective to “promote competition” for the benefit of consumers – the Government asserts that, as with the new financial services regulators, the CMA’s objective has been drafted broadly so as to give the regulator flexibility.
7. The CMA’s interaction with the consumer regulator, the FCA, will be governed by a memorandum of understanding along the lines of the OFT’s existing memorandum with the FSA.
8. The existing regulators have a power to investigate a particular market and a power to examine particular aspects of several markets; the regulators do not, however, have a power to carry out a broad-sweep investigation across elements of markets generally. The Government has cited the consumer cost of switching bank or utility suppliers as an example of where such broad-sweep powers would be useful. The Bill, therefore, proposes a new power to allow the CMA to examine competition issues across markets. The CMA will also acquire a new power to consider public interest issues and provide advice on its findings to ministers.
9. Since being established by the Enterprise Act 2002, the OFT’s powers in relation to the prosecution of cartels – where it is agreed to artificially alter prices, supply levels, or production for the benefit of the cartel’s members – have been criticised. Citing the OFT’s record of bringing only two such cases to trial, securing one conviction, the Government intends to change the cartel offence so as to remove one of the elements often cited as hampering prosecutions - the requirement to prove criminal ‘dishonesty’ on the part of the cartel’s members. The Bill retains the remainder of the requirements to establish an offence namely, that the CMA will have to prove criminal intention regarding the agreement to form a cartel as well as the actual operation of the cartel.
Primary Authorities 10. First introduced in 2009, primary authorities were created to provide businesses operating in a number of local authority areas with a right to form a relationship with a single authority which would become the ‘lead’ authority for that business. Under the scheme, whereby the City is the Primary Authority for Virgin Active and BT, the regulatory advice given to the business by the Primary Authority must be followed by other authorities - this is intended to provide a source of reliable advice to both other authorities considering enforcement against the business and the businesses themselves. The Bill expands the scope for businesses to use the ‘lead’ Page 129 authority arrangement by removing the need for a business to operate in two or more local authority areas – under the Bill, where several small businesses spread across several authority areas share an approach to compliance, for example under a trade association’s guidance, those businesses may apply to join a primary authority arrangement.
Green Investment Bank 11. The bank, which will be partly based in the city, has been established on commercial terms and is intended to stimulate investment in the ‘green economy’. The Bill sets out further details about the scope of the bank’s activity. The bank’s objectives will be to reduce greenhouse emissions, promote efficient use of natural resources, protect the natural environment, enhance biodiversity and environmental sustainability. The bank will be required to report as if it is a quoted company: it will produce company reports, including on directors’ remuneration, in accordance with the rules that usually apply to publicly quoted companies.
Heritage Buildings 12. Under the banner of regulatory reform, the Bill sets out changes to planning in conservation areas – broadly welcomed by Baroness Andrews, chairman of English Heritage, during a debate in the House of Lords. It proposes removing the requirement to obtain separate consent for demolishing unlisted buildings in a conservation area and instead makes it an offence to fail to obtain planning permission for the demolition of unlisted buildings situated in a conservation area. This is consistent with policies in the NPPF, the Core Strategy of the City of London Local Plan and individual Conservation Area Character Summaries.
13. The Bill clarifies the listing regime for structures which are linked to already listed structures. In the past, where structures were linked to a listed property it was not always clear whether the linked structure was intended to be included in the listing. Under the Bill, part of a structure can be formally could be excluded so that it does not form part a listing.
14. Building on proposals made in Labour’s abandoned Heritage Protection Bill, the Bill creates Heritage Partnership Agreements. HPAs would enable owners of estates or complex sites to work with the planning authority and organisations such as English Heritage to provide a mechanism for managing the buildings within the curtilage of the HPA under a scheme of general prior permission. Such a scheme would allow the owners to carry out certain types of small works without the need for separate consents for each item of work.
15. The City’s current experience of Conservation Management Plans is likely to provide useful experience of the operation of a structure similar to that Page 130 expected of HPAs. Conservation Management Plans are agreed between the City and English Heritage alongside any relevant local authorities and interested parties. The City currently operates Plans for the Monument, Bunhill Fields, and the Freemen’s School and Ashstead Park.
16. In relation to HPAs, the City Planning Officer notes that the City currently manages the Barbican and Golden Lane under a scheme similar to the proposed HPAs and has seen generally positive results. It is observed, however, that such agreements should not be entered into lightly as they are resource intensive, involving significant officer and Member time, compliance with complex statutory procedures regarding environmental and sustainability appraisal, funding for public consultation and review over a period of months.
Miscellaneous Matters 17. The Government has introduced elements of post-legislative review into the Bill, for example the CMA will be required to report to Parliament every five years on its investigations and enforcement activity as well as on its information gathering powers.
18. The Bill also introduces a general change to the law permiting ministers, when amending subordinate legislation, to include time-limits on the validity of the subordinate legislation (often called ‘sunset clauses’) and review mechanisms. The sunset or review provisions may be made to apply to the whole or part of the subordinate legislation being amended. Such a move will, according to Cable, “ensure that legislation is fit for purpose and is regularly reviewed”.
Consultation 19. The City Planning Officer and City Surveyor have been consulted in the preparation of this report.
Philip Saunders [email protected] x1201
Page 131 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 132 Agenda Item 19
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 13 December 2012
Subject: Chairman’s visit to New York Public Report of: Director of Economic Development For Information
Summary
This report advises Members of the outcome of the recent visit by your Chairman to New York from 28 to 30 November 2012. The purpose of the visit was to discuss the prospects for international coordination of financial regulatory reform and to gauge views on how the business environment in New York and London has been affected by recent events and international regulatory reform.
This report includes views gathered on regulatory reform developments and on doing business in the UK and Europe, which were the topics that dominated discussions with US-headquartered financial services firms and senior US policymakers.
The principal conclusions were the importance of international input to and engagement on the US financial regulatory reform agenda and that the UK’s position in Europe is seen as crucial to the special relationship between the UK and US.
The visit is being followed up by further discussions with organisations on a number of the issues raised, including on proposed extraterritorial requirements of US financial regulation. The next visit is planned for April 2013.
Recommendation
Members are asked to note the contents of the report.
Page 133 Main Report
Background
1. Members previously approved that your Chairman should visit New York, along with another major US city, twice a year. These visits play an important role in the City of London’s programme of engagement with the US and the ongoing dialogue with US-headquartered financial services firms and senior US policymakers on regulatory and competitiveness issues affecting transatlantic financial markets.
2. Your Chairman visited New York from 28 to 30 November 2012. He was accompanied by his Executive Officer and International Affairs Officer.
3. The programme in New York included meetings with financial services firms, including major City stakeholders, and regulators. Further details of the visit are set out in this report and a list of meetings is attached in the annex.
4. The objectives of the visit were to discuss the prospects for international coordination of financial regulatory reform and gauge views on how the business environment in New York and London has been affected by recent events and international regulatory reform.
Visit report
5. During the meetings, views were gathered from firms and policymakers on the US and European political and economic outlook. Your Chairman heard that the so-called fiscal cliff (the combination of the automatic cuts to discretionary government spending and the expiration of temporary tax cuts that is due to come into effect at the end of this year) is the biggest concern for government and industry in the US. The most commonly held view was that there is likely to be a temporary fix until next year and then action will have to be taken on tax reform (particularly on closing loopholes) and government spending. There appears to be increased political will to solve it and pressure from the business community has increased significantly.
6. While there was little real concern expressed in the US that the UK could seriously consider leaving the EU, your Chairman was told that this would be an extremely important issue for the US government and financial institutions if it became a more likely possibility and a referendum was called. Your Chairman heard that the UK’s position in Europe (as well as access to the European Single Market for US firms) is seen as crucial to the special relationship between the UK and US. Page 134
7. The continuing inability of European leaders to resolve the Eurozone crisis was a source of frustration and surprise. There was bewilderment and uncertainty on the topic of the European Banking Union; while it was understood that it is necessary, many struggled to grasp how it would work in practice and be effective operationally.
8. Your Chairman discussed the progress of financial regulatory reform and prospects for international coordination. He heard concerns expressed by some that the US Treasury will be too preoccupied by dealing with the fiscal cliff to focus on the international coordination of financial regulatory reform and oversee the regulatory agencies’ role in this, particularly if the next Treasury Secretary, who will be appointed in 2013, does not have a background in financial services.
9. Your Chairman spoke with firms about the proposed extraterritorial requirements of certain financial regulatory rules, particularly in the case of swaps market reform by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Volcker rule. He heard that international pressure from governments and regulators has had the most impact on the progress of these proposed extraterritorial requirements, highlighting the importance of foreign governments contributing to the debate on the coordination of international regulatory reform.
10. The statement made by Daniel Tarullo, Federal Reserve Board Governor, during your Chairman’s visit regarding tougher capital and leverage rules for the US operations of foreign banks was extremely worrying for the foreign banks he met. It reflects the continuing trend of subsidiarisation that many financial institutions are facing, which is significantly altering the global financial markets.
11. Your Chairman heard it was unlikely that significant changes to the Dodd Frank Act (which contains the majority of US financial regulatory reform rules) would be made given the result of the recent elections, but implementation will take many more years. There was a real desire expressed to see the US and UK’s regulatory agencies working together, particularly on issues such as resolution authority (which gives US and UK authorities the power to liquidate systemically important firms when they become insolvent). If the UK and US succeed in agreeing an appropriate mechanism for this, it is expected that it will be followed by other jurisdictions.
12. Your Chairman heard that US regulators have become increasingly political and hostile towards the financial services industry, especially under the threat of congressional scrutiny. Changes in key personnel at Page 135 the US regulatory agencies could delay the implementation of regulatory requirements as Congress might use its power to delay or block new appointments.
13. Concern was expressed to your Chairman again at how much business is being pushed into the so-called shadow banking sector due to financial regulatory reform, how difficult this will be to regulate and that, as a consequence, these institutions would not have access to government funding in time of crisis.
14. During the visit, firms briefed your Chairman on the outlook for their UK operations and expressed views on doing business in the UK and Europe. One of the firms explained that they would ideally like to consolidate their European operations in the UK (increasing their head count here) and the only significant obstacle to this is compliance costs under the Financial Services Authority. Excluding their US operations, their current cost of compliance in the UK is higher than the combined cost of compliance in the other one hundred countries in which they operate.
15. Your Chairman heard that London and the UK, on the whole, are viewed very positively, particularly after the success of London 2012, and thanks to the competitive tax rates, good business environment and high quality of living. However London is seen as a very expensive city in which to live and work by many and given that remuneration is falling faster in London than elsewhere, this could, over time, reduce competitiveness.
16. Your Chairman spoke on transatlantic financial regulatory issues at a breakfast roundtable with financial services practitioners and policymakers. This was organised by the think tank, the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation, which run its activities in both London and New York. Your Chairman was also the keynote speaker on a panel discussion at an event organised by UK Trade and Investment/the British Consulate in New York and the trade body the Hedge Fund Association. Your Chairman spoke about the business environment in the UK and Europe, with a focus on regulatory developments and their impact on the investment management industry and the competitiveness of the City.
17. Following up the visit, your Chairman wrote a summary of the discussions in a letter to the Chancellor and EU Commissioner Michel Barnier. An outline of discussions has been reported back to members of the International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG). There will also be follow-up led by the City of London Corporation with individual firms and organisations on mutual areas of interest such as the importance of the wholesale financial markets to the wider economy and the internationalisation of the Renminbi (Chinese currency). Page 136
Conclusion
18. The visit provided insights into the current thinking of US-headquartered financial services firms and senior US policymakers on regulatory and competitiveness issues affecting transatlantic financial markets. Discussions highlighted the continued importance of international input and engagement on US financial regulatory reform. It also provided an opportunity to seek views on the UK’s position in Europe, which your Chairman was told is crucial to the special relationship between the UK and US. As well as being reported back to the Chancellor, findings have been incorporated into the work of the IRSG to help shape its agenda.
19. It is planned that the next visit to the US by your Chairman will be to New York and Washington DC in April 2013 to continue discussions on international regulatory reform and its impact on the City of London.
Financial Implications
20. In May 2009, Members approved a budget for two visits to the US each year by the Chairman at a cost not exceeding £52,000 per annum to be met from the Town Clerk’s existing local risk budgets (including Economic Development and Public Relations).
21. Travel, accommodation, hospitality and incidental expenses for this visit were in accordance with the Business Travel Scheme and cost no more than £15,000.
Community Strategy & Other Significant Implications
22. The visit to the US by the Chairman supported the vision of the 2012 – 16 Corporate Plan: “The City of London Corporation will support and promote the City of London as the world leader in international finance and business services”.
23. Equal opportunities considerations have been taken into account in the preparation of this report and we are content that there are no negative impacts.
Contact: Catherine Breen 020 7332 3968 [email protected]
Page 137 Annex: US visit programme for the Policy Chairman: 28 – 30 November 2012
Meeting with William Dudley, President and CEO, and Terrence Checki, Executive Vice President and Head of the Emerging Markets and International Affairs Group, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Meeting with Cathinka Wahlstrom, Managing Partner for Banking & Managing Director, NY office, Accenture Meeting with Randall D Guynn, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Meeting with David Wong, Managing Director and Global Head of Regulatory Reform, Morgan Stanley Meeting with Patrick Durkin, Managing Director, Government Affairs, Barclays Roundtable breakfast discussion organised by the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation Meeting with Douglas Elliott, Fellow, the Brookings Institution Meeting with Duncan Niederauer, CEO of NYSE Euronext Meeting with Dan Glaser, Group President and COO, Marsh & McLennan Companies Meeting with Oliver Wyman and the New York City Economic Development Corporation Meeting with Danny Lopez, British Consul General, New York Panel discussion and reception with UK Trade and Investment and the Hedge Fund Association Meeting with Richard Brueckner, Chief of Staff, BNY Mellon Meeting with David Nason, Global head of regulatory and compliance, GE Capital Meeting with Blythe Masters, Head of Global Commodities, JP Morgan
Page 138 Agenda Item 20
Committee(s): Policy and Resources Date(s): 13 December 2012 Subject: Report of Economic Development Activity Public September to November 2012 and progress against Business Plan - July to September 2012 Report of: For Information Director of Economic Development
1. The last report to the Policy and Resources Committee covered progress against the Business Plan to June and activity from June to August 2012. This report covers a summary of progress against Business Plan objectives for Quarter 2 (July to September) and highlights of activity between September to November 2012.
A. Highlights and Key Achievements - September to November 2012 In support of EDO Objectives: • Maintaining Col’s role in promoting the City as an agent/enabler of economic growth and in influencing government policy • In partnership with TheCityUK, ensure the success of the International Regulatory Strategy Group(IRSG) European Affairs 2. Members of the International Regulatory Strategy Group met with David Wright, Secretary General of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) in October to discuss IOSCO’s work priorities and regulatory issues of concern. David Wright said that as global markets develop, there will be an increase in market-based financing instruments, while banks have capital constraints and leverage will be reduced. Therefore, global securities markets will play a key role and their development would prove very beneficial . 3. Stakeholders from the City and Paris were brought together for the quarterly meeting of the Anglo-French Committee in September and discussed matters relating to international financial regulation and development of other positions on some issues. Attendees included representatives from the CBI and its French counterpart MEDEF, who agreed to work with the IRSG on the new series of papers on the role of Wholesale Financial Markets in the wider economy . 4. Working with the financial centres of Paris, Madrid, Edinburgh, Frankfurt, Munich, Luxembourg and Stockholm CoL organised a seminar in Brussels with a keynote speech from Commissioner Barnier on the role of financial centres to the wider economy .
Page 139 5. Engaging with EU institutions, Member State Representations and the financial services industry your Chairman hosted the Annual City Reception in Brussels in November attended by approximately 250 guests. The keynote address was given by HE Ambassador Jonathan Brenton, and guest at the high level dinner was Sir Jon Cunliffe, UK Permanent Representative to the EU. This was preceded by the second City Programme anniversary event on the theme ‘ Delivering growth through entrepreneurship and helping SMEs’. Your Chairman delivered the opening remarks and chaired the panel discussion. 6. As part of the EU engagement programme your Chairman visited key organisations in Bulgaria and Romania during September including the Bulgarian Ministry of Finance, National Bank and Stock Exchange. In Romania, meetings were held with the Ministry of Finance, National Bank, National Securities Commission and the Bucharest Stock Exchange. 7. At the Latvia Business Forum held at Guildhall in October Edgars Rinkēvičs, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Latvia, was the keynote speaker on the theme ‘Opportunities for investors in the Baltic Sea Region and investment environment in Latvia’ Your Chairman delivered the opening remarks and participated in the panel discussion. 8. As part of the series of six-monthly Pre-Presidency visits your Chairman and the Lord Mayor visited Dublin in November. Meetings were held with the Minister for Finance, the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Central Bank and representatives from the Irish financial services industry. 9. Engaging with stakeholders in Frankfurt Andre Villeneuve, Chairman of the IRSG, visited in November, accompanied by a cross-sectoral group of senior IRSG members. Meetings were held with the Bundesbank, the German securities regulator, the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA.)
City Affairs 10. The Corporation has published a brochure ‘Tale of two Cities – facilitating small business in and around the Square Mile’. This illustrates the support given to smaller and growing businesses around the City, and signposting the work of other agencies with whom we co-operate. The brochure has already been well-received at events in Westminster and Brussels. 11. Views and intelligence from stakeholders on migration and visa issues continue to be gathered and used in dialogue with politicians and officials. There are encouraging signs that government acknowledges the concerns of financial and professional services firms over access to the international
Page 140 pool of talented people. This is in addition to the perceived conflict between the concept of the UK being “open for business” and barriers to entry in the short or longer term. 12. Regulation, trust and ethics have continued to be a key theme. EDO (with Mansion House) has been involved in the City Corporation’s work on the restoration of trust in financial services and in following up submissions made to the Tyrie Commission on Banking Standards. 13. Delegates from a number of overseas posts and from specialised and regional teams took part in a successful financial services industry briefing course and networking reception for Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) staff in late November. They were briefed on aspects of financial and professional services business, the operation of the capital markets, issues around the location of business in the UK, the support offered by the City Corporation and TheCityUK, and connections between “visible” trade, including major projects, the maritime sector and the City’s offering.
International Affairs 14. The biannual meeting of the City of London Advisory Council for India was held in London in September. The Council agreed to continue the City of London’s focus on the areas of the development of India’s corporate debt market, infrastructure financing, insurance investment, and financial sector skills including senior level visits to the UK by officials and regulators. During the Council’s visit, a roundtable discussion on the trading of emerging markets currencies in London was held with several City practitioners. This will be used to inform discussions with the Indian authorities and a forthcoming Special Interest Paper. Meanwhile, Council members were panellists at an event attended by more than 90 UK firms in which they shared their views on the Indian business environment and economic reform. This was also covered in the Indian business press. 15. Work has continued on the City of London initiative on London as a centre for renminbi (RMB) business . This included discussion with members of the Association of Corporate Treasurers on their use of RMB products and services, the development of a bi-monthly City of London RMB newsletter sent to over 500 contacts, and a meeting of the Steering Committee, chaired by your Chairman. Resource packs on RMB products and services in London have been developed and an update to the report ‘London: a centre for renminbi business’ has been commissioned for publication in January 2013. 16. The City Corporation, the British Embassy in Beijing and the People's Bank of China hosted the 'China UK Offshore RMB Market Symposium ' in Beijing to discuss capital flows, payments systems and the development of
Page 141 the offshore RMB market. The discussion was attended by members of the CoL RMB initiative, and the Lord Mayor gave the closing remarks. 17. The City Office in Mumbai held a roundtable discussion on improving the tax and regulatory framework for UK-India investments during the Lord Mayor’s visit. The discussion was then used to inform a paper authored by PwC India. 18. Policy support was provided and a senior level business delegation recruited to accompany the Lord Mayoral overseas business visits to China, Hong Kong and Vietnam; India; Mexico, Colombia, Argentina and Brazil. 19. Your Chairman visited New York in November to meet with US- headquartered financial services firms, senior policymakers and regulators. Issues discussed included the position of the UK in Europe, the impact of international regulatory reform and the consequences of the recent US elections. 20. Your Chairman held a number of meetings and roundtable discussions with foreign (particularly Chinese and Indian) firms on issues around regulatory requirements and migration rules, and the detrimental impact they are having on their UK business operations. Your Chairman also raised these issues in meetings with the relevant government stakeholders. 21. TheCityUK held its Annual General Meeting in October followed by its Annual Dinner at the Mansion House. At the AGM, Gerry Grimstone succeeded Stuart Popham as TheCityUK’s chairman. The Deputy Prime Minister was guest of honour at the dinner, which was attended by more than 200 senior industry professionals. 22. Continuing its programme of regional events, TheCityUK held a‘Fairness in Finance’ event in Leeds in September, while a similar event took place in Edinburgh in November along with a seminar attended by Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore MP. 23. A co-operation agreement was signed by TheCityUK with the Moroccan Financial Board to assist with the development of securities and derivative markets. This adds to the growing list of overseas financial centres TheCityUK is working closely with, including Moscow, Dubai and Toronto. 24. TheCityUK has continued its regular programme of ‘Policymaker Engagement’, holding events under the Chatham House rule that enable members to meet key figures from the areas of politics and regulation. Guest speakers have included Simon Galpin, Director-General, Invest Hong Kong; Hugo Swire MP; George Boomgarden, German Ambassador to UK; Tim Hitchens, the UK’s Ambassador Designate to Japan; Tim Yeo MP; Jim O’Neill, Goldman Sachs; Simon Fraser, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Emma Reynolds MP, Shadow Minister
Page 142 for Europe; Kay Swinburne MEP; Michael O’Neill, UK Ambassador to Qatar; Lord Heseltine and Andrea Leadsom MP.
Research published 25. EU banking union - operational issues and design considerations by Anita Millar and commissioned on behalf of the IRSG. This practitioner policy paper published in October explored the EU Commission’s proposals for a Eurozone banking union. It examined the identifiable components of banking union at this stage, as outlined by the Commission’s proposals and provides an initial discussion of operational issues for EU financial markets. 26. Characteristics of SMEs and social enterprises around Tech City by Experian. This research report was published in November and explored the characteristics of SMEs and social enterprises in the Tech City area. It looked at the profile of businesses across the most recent three years to observe if, and how, the business population is changing. 27. London’s Airport Connectivity by York Aviation. Two partner publications were produced in November looking at the importance of an aviation hub for London and an analysis of London’s connectivity to emerging markets. 28. The International Trading of Emerging Market Currencies by LSE Enterprise. This report published in November, examined the pattern of usage across four emerging market currencies: the Russian ruble, the Indian rupee, the Chinese renminbi and the Brazilian real. 29. London’s Finances and Revenues by Oxford Economics. This report from November examined the role that London has played in public finances and analysed revenue streams. This has also helped to inform the London Finance Commission. 30. The Social and Economic Impact of the City’s Arts and Culture Offer by BOP Consulting. This analysis, produced in November, looked at the economic benefits of art and cultural organisations. It also examined their wider social impact and outreach work and how they improve the City’s offer as a place to work, live and visit.
In support of EDO Objectives to: • Enhance the City Corporation’s role and profile in encouraging entrepreneurship, and in developing social enterprise policy; • Work with City partners to realise the economic and social potential of our neighbouring areas, and enhance CoL profile.
Partnerships 31. 106 school leavers from neighbouring boroughs were placed into paid placements across 17 City businesses through the City Business
Page 143 Traineeship scheme this year. At an awards ceremony hosted by Swiss Re in October, the Lord Mayor presented the Employer of the Year award to R J Kiln, and the Employer Newcomer of the Year award to QBE European Operations. 32. Following your Committee’s approval in October, the City Corporation has become a sponsor of the New Entrepreneurs Foundation , a body supporting new graduates into entrepreneurship 33. The Angels in the City programme staged a second event in November for ten early stage businesses from neighbouring boroughs to pitch to around 100 potential investors from City businesses who have attended awareness-raising and capacity building sessions through the programme. Known investments made through the programme to date exceed £1m. 34. We have re-launched the Cheapside Employment Project working with the Cheapside Initiative and Job Centre Plus. This will connect retail and hospitality businesses in the Cheapside area with job brokerages in neighbouring boroughs to help local residents into jobs. The project will start with the peak Christmas period.
Corporate Responsibility 35. Eight companies received awards for outstanding corporate community engagement programmes , including two Small to Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs), at the Lord Mayor’s Dragon Awards held at Mansion House in October. 36. In September City Action hosted a workshop for 15 local social enterprises where business members (Grange Hotels, Telereal Trillium and Simply Business) facilitated sessions on supplying to businesses, marketing and business modelling. In November, City Action delivered a social enterprise community tour to Tower Hamlets in which City businesses found out about volunteering opportunities at City Gateway, St Hilda’s East Community Centre and Positive East. 37. The Employee Volunteering Programme ran a seminar for staff on developing skills and evidencing core behaviours through volunteering as part of the CoL Learning and Development Week. Winners of the Learning and Development award ‘recognising skills development through volunteering’ were Edie Fassnidge from Economic Development and Ben Ballard from Mansion House who were both awarded a £500 charity donation in recognition of their volunteering and skills development. More information on the awards can be found on the intranet. 38. Research on ‘addressing the gaps in employee volunteering’ uncovered some of the trends in business’ community involvement and highlighted where community needs are not being met. The main findings included a
Page 144 lack of support for boroughs in South London and very little support for middle aged and older populations as well as programmes around health, mental health and disability. There is also a challenge in finding volunteers willing to support the infrastructure of charities. Social Investment 39. Your Chairman hosted more than 300 delegates at a Big Society Capital and City of London event in September on ‘Harnessing Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets to address Social Issues’. The Rt. Hon. Oliver Letwin MP, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and Nick Hurd MP, Minister for Civil Society also shared their vision for London as a global hub for Social Investment. 40. The evening also saw the launch of the City of London Corporation Social Investment Fund (CoLCSIF). This is a £20million fund which will help to build a thriving social investment market by making both direct and indirect investments . The fund has a principal focus on London- benefit but is also interested in opportunities across the UK and internationally. The CoLCSIF has been specifically designated to make social investments with a positive financial return. The first investment made (of $500,000) is to Oxfam’s Small Enterprise Impact Investing Fund. 41. Work continues by our Social Investment Adviser with Cabinet Office, Treasury and other agencies in the social investment field, to help develop a conducive regulatory, tax and legal framework to increase investment into the social sector .
Central London Forward Central London Forward (CLF) has followed up with the Secretary of State for Health on key concerns about the impact on central London authorities of the draft Department of Health formula for the devolution of funding to local authorities . This relates to the new public health responsibilities for local authorities commencing in April 2013. A response received in September addressed many of our concerns, and consideration will be given to a CLF representative when the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) membership is reviewed. 42. Westminster City Council has obtained the agreement of CLF authorities and the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham to contribute £2,000 per borough towards the cost of identifying and modelling alternative datasets . LG Futures have subsequently been commissioned to undertake further work and modelling on behalf of the authorities to influence the development of the ACRA formula.
Page 145 43. The CLF strategy on tackling youth unemployment was approved by the board which includes short, medium and longer term action plans, and a possible bid to the Employer Ownership of Skills Pilot (EOSP). 44. Detailed work has proceeded on an employability initiative aimed specifically at the City and neighbouring boroughs. This would offer the potential to act as a catalyst for London’s employment and skills system. Heart of the City 45. In October, the Heart of the City’s board elected a Harvey McGrath as Chairman of Heart of the City . This follows Sir Gerald Acher’s retirement after a maximum term of service. Harvey McGrath, formerly Chairman of Prudential and Man Group, will become Chairman in December 2012. 46. Heart of the City has received pro-bono support from Nomura to refresh its brand . Accenture seconded a consultant for four months to Heart of the City to design a sustainable engagement programme for Heart of the City’s 400 alumni businesses . 47. An annual analysis of Heart of the City’s 2010 and 2011 Newcomer businesses has shown that they have provided almost £6 million in charitable donations (cash, in-kind and volunteering) over the last 12 months. On this basis, for every £1 invested in the Newcomers programme, £12 is given by Newcomers to charitable causes. Nearly half of Newcomers developed formal volunteering programmes. A total of 47,114 volunteering hours (or 16 years) was given to 183 community groups. Newcomers also offered 177 work experience places to socially excluded groups.
B. Emerging Issues 48. The UK’s relationship with the EU remains a major area of work for the European Affairs team, notably the potential impact on the single market of the proposed banking union. 49. Research is currently underway on The Total Tax Take Contribution of UK Financial Services . This annual report will update the calculations for the tax contribution to public finances from the financial services sector in the UK, and is due to be produced in December by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). 50. Other research areas currently being scoped include Tax Breaks for Social Investment, SME supply chains and office stock in the City of London. 51. Our Square Mile Jobs programme, jointly funded by the European Social Fund, is currently out for tender. The project aims to improve job brokerage and employment support provided in the neighbouring boroughs for jobs in the City . Delivery should commence in early 2013.
Page 146 52. In support of female entrepreneurship, we have agreed to support two new initiatives . Firstly, a targeted course in ‘coding’ (computer programming) is being provided for potential applicants to the Entrepreneur First graduate entrepreneurship of which the City Corporation is a core sponsor. Secondly, we are also supporting a series of networking lunches to bring together potential enterprise co-founders, run by FoundersFit. 53. In light of recent developments on City Deals and related local growth mechanisms, the CLF board is considering whether there is potential for a City Deal or other joint growth ‘ask’ to Government and the Mayor for (Central) London. A small working group has pursued the issue with the Mayor to secure endorsement for an ‘ask’ to Government prior to the autumn statement in December.
C. Learning and Development 54. Overall value for money was achieved with relatively little external spend. The spend on learning and development (L&D) for the six month period April to September 2012 was £1,570 against a budgeted figure of £3000. A total of 31 days were spent. The Ashridge programme and internal improvement projects were used for development of leadership and change management skills. Various IT and internal development courses, including internet site development, enabled staff to work more effectively with clients and colleagues, and improved communications with stakeholders. Miscellaneous conferences enabled staff to remain aware of current relevant external developments and projects.
D. Budget 55. EDO expenditure is on track for the 2012/13 financial year . At the end of Quarter 2 of the 2012/13 financial year, the EDO local risk budget stands at £4,270,000 which comprises the original budget of £4,216,000 plus an agreed budget of £54,000 for items carried forward from 2011/12. Expenditure is on track for the year with actual spend at 39% of the total and committed spend at 54%. As many projects are committed and/or paid quarterly in arrears, this level of actual and committed spend is as expected.
Page 147 Annex A EDO Progress Against Business Plan to Quarter 2 (July to September 2012) Objective 1. Maintain CoL's role in promoting the City as an agent/enabler of economic growth and in influencing government policy. Action Due Resp Status Comments on Progress (by exception) Date Q
1 Q2 Q3 Q4 On-going work on regulation, taxation, availability of skills, On- 1.1 JF G G and infrastructure. going 1.2 Undertake a balanced programme of tailored, value- added research for the City through explicit engagement across CoL and with influential partners, including On- LD G G TheCityUK, IRSG, and HMG. Implement appropriate going recommendations from Research Review (On-going.)
Page 148 1.3 Deliver the City of London Programme for future EU On track. City Programme for the Czech business leaders including the 10th Anniversary events Mar- Republic was successfully delivered. YF G G and continue building the Alumni and Fellowship network. 13
Milestone: 10th Anniversary events delivered. Nov- YF G G 12 Milestone: Review future direction of the Programme. Mar- YF G G 13 1.4 Enhance dialogue and closer engagement in the key Very good levels of engagement secured in markets of India, China and the US. On- China, India and USA, whilst seeking to EG/CB G G going increase direct engagement in other major financial centres. Develop increasingly focussed support for senior elected On- P 1.5 Members to influence overseas financial services policy G G going Sissons and business decisions. 1.6 In conjunction with London and Partners, deliver a major Achieved. inward investment event held during the Olympics period involving attendance of at least 20 overseas-based Aug- P G G decision makers. Milestone: Inward investment leads 12 Sissons followed up.
Annex A EDO Progress Against Business Plan to Quarter 2 (July to September 2012)
Objective 2: In partnership with TheCityUK, ensure the success of the International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG) To engage in a timely fashion in the EU regulatory debate to ensure as far as possible that the City is not unduly Mar- P 2.1 affected by inappropriate EU rules flowing from the crisis G G 13 Sizeland (via IRSG Programme delivered to standard and schedule). Deliver regular programme of meetings with Commission A roundtable was held with the Cypriot Mar- 2.2 officials, Council members, MEPs and political staff in the MV G G Presidency team in Brussels and attended by 13 European Parliament. City stakeholders. The Chairman of the IRSG and the Chairman of P&R held separate visits to Brussels to see Sustained and phased contact building by Chairman P&R Mar- high level contacts. The Chairman of P&R also 2.3 and Chairman of IRSG (Brussels, key EU capitals, US & MV/PS G G 13 had a successful visit to Romania and Bulgaria
Page 149 Switzerland) and through regular Brussels events. as part of a wider EU engagement strategy with smaller Member States. Research papers on the Financial Transaction Use Research on issues to drive the approach of relevant Tax (FTT) and banking union were used to Mar- 2.4 EU member states towards UK financial services MV G G support lobbying EU counterparts. Wholesale 13 industry. Financial Markets (WFM) papers developed in joint working with the CBI were well received. Ensure that CoL's leadership role in the IRSG is well Mar- 2.5 publicised and acknowledged. JI/MV G G 13
Objective 3: Enhance the City Corporation's role and profile in encouraging entrepreneurship, and in developing social enterprise policy 3.1 Define a new relationship with Innovation Warehouse Achieved. (business incubators.) Milestone: Sustainable Mar- LS G G management structure and governance arrangements set 13 down. Milestone: Overall increase in occupation achieved. Mar- LS G G 13 3.2 Increase Business Angel investment from among City Mar- LS (DP) G G constituents into the Tech City cluster. 13 Annex A EDO Progress Against Business Plan to Quarter 2 (July to September 2012) Milestone : 45 Tech City related start-ups/ SMEs Mar- On track. LS (DP) G G receiving investment. 13 Milestone: 125 new business angels recruited. On track. A number of City businesses have Mar- LS (DP) G G shown interest in promoting the programme to 13 staff including Deutsche Bank, ING and UBS.
3.3 Supporting innovation in e.g. through rate relief policy Jul- LS G G change, and encouraging female entrepreneurship. 12 Milestone: Monitoring the implementation and impact of Jun- LS G G recent changes approved to rate relief policy. 12 Milestone: Next steps agreed. Jul- LS G G 12 Develop volunteering for Social Enterprises supported A total of 67 volunteers have been placed through LAA-funded City Action programme. Target to Mar- Page 150 3.4 LS (SH) G G place 100 volunteers placed in social enterprises. 13 3.5 Social Enterprise financing (social investment) agenda The Big Society Capital (BSC) event has been developed further in conjunction with relevant partners held and the fund has been launched. including follow up to Social Investment research On- LS (SH) G G implemented (e.g. EDO input to programme of City going Bridge Trust (CBT) Masterclasses, conference sponsorships etc.) Milestone: Host Big Society Capital (BSC) launch at May- Completed LS (SH) G G Guildhall. 12 Milestone: CoL/CBT input to social investment and BSC development (including new initiative developed with next Lord Mayor and CBT on City as the centre for social LS (SH) G G investment and philanthropy.)
Annex A EDO Progress Against Business Plan to Quarter 2 (July to September 2012) Objective 4: Work with City partners to realise the economic and social potential of our neighbouring areas, and enhance CoL profile 4.1 Maximise involvement of City businesses in a) our SME support programme supporting City fringe SMEs, and b) Mar- our training, employment and aspiration-raising LS (DP) G G 13 programmes, and improve links between delivery partners. 4.2 Lead on Big Society (now known as Supporting Society) agenda for CoL, in conjunction with other key Mar- LS departments with six-monthly updates produced. G G 13 (DP/SH) Develop new initiatives (see also 3.5) and increase communications. Pursue opportunities to leverage external funding into our On track. A part EU-funded projects approved regeneration and corporate responsibility programmes to Mar- LS earlier this year, which had to be retendered, is
Page 151 4.3 G G maintain levels of activity. 13 (DP/SH) out to tender with a new provider due to be appointed before Christmas. 4.4 Our work becomes one of the key strands of CoL's Communications Plan. Messages are used in relevant Mar- LS G G communications, and the profile of our work is maintained 13 (DP/SH) or increased. Develop messaging with PRO. 4.5 The future of Central London Forward and its leadership Jul- Achieved. LS G be secured and underway. 12 Milestone: Support staff in place and seamless transition Oct- LS Achieved. G G achieved 12 Objective 5: Manage corporate change and develop ways of working in order to maximise potential benefits and efficiency for City of London and its staff Implement change programme in respect of EDO for 5.1 Intranet, Internet and Information Management, CRM and Mar-13 SMT G G PP2P projects. Continue to encourage ideas for efficiencies and Team 5.2 innovation from staff. Mar-13 Leader G G s Implement revised induction process for new staff. Team Implemented. 5.3 Dec-13 Leader G G s Annex A EDO Progress Against Business Plan to Quarter 2 (July to September 2012) 5.4 Follow up to CoL's Investors in People action plan including further development of evaluation. Mar-13 AH/KC G G
Develop action plan and practices working towards 5.5 obligations in the Equality Framework. Mar-13 KC G G R (ed) Off target with unresolved issues
A (mber) Off track but with actions in hand to improve
G (reen) On track/to plan
Page 152 Annex B EDO Top Level Indicators to Quarter 2 (July to September 2012) Q2 Cum Year Q2 Cum Year Financial /Business Outcomes Client/Customer Act 12/13 Target Act 12/13 Target Number of government and business decisions SRS E % calls answered in 20 secs (5 ED02 influenced 16 33 ED17 rings) 95% 95% 95%
Number of City and City fringes residents engaged ED07 in learning opportunities 1495 1952 3000
Number of City & City fringes residents helped into ED51 jobs 39 55 60 Number of SMEs in City and City fringes provided ED52 with business support 188 266 400
Number of new City employers recruited to support ED11 CSR programmes. Includes City Action and Heart 3 49 57 of The City programmes
Page 153 % Committed spend against budget for year 53% 100%
Comment: Comment:
Q2 Cum Year Q2 Cum Year Innovation & Change People Act 12/13 Target Act 12/13 Target % Invoices paid in 30 days Sickness level - average working days Top ED14 99% 100% 98% ED13 1.32 1.43 lost/person quartile Comment: Comment: Current cum is 0.63 average working days lost per person excluding medical certificated sickness leave.
On target Off target - less than 10% Off target more than 10%
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 154 Agenda Item 21
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 13 December 2012 Subject: Policy Initiatives Fund/Committee Contingency Report of: Public Chamberlain For Information
Summary
1. The purpose of the Policy Initiatives Fund is to allow the Committee to respond swiftly and effectively with funding for projects and initiatives identified during the year which support the City Corporation’s overall aims and objectives.
2. The attached schedule lists the projects and activities which have received funding for 2012/13. Whilst the schedule shows expenditure to be incurred in this financial year, some projects have been given multi-year financial support (please see the “Notes” column).
3. It should be noted that the individual initiatives referred to have been the subject of previous reports approved by this Committee. It should also be noted that the 2012/13 Fund has now been fully committed and that requests for supporting initiatives for the remainder of this year are being met from the Committee’s contingency. A schedule of allocations from the contingency is also attached.
Recommendation 4. That the contents of the schedules are noted.
Contact: Ray Green 020 7332 1332 [email protected]
Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 156 POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - POLICY INITIATIVES FUND 2012/13 ALLOCATIONS FROM FUND STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 30/11/12 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £
Events 12/05/11 London Councils' London Summit - the City is to host the annual DPR 12,700 8,575 4,125 3 year funding - £3,700 originally allocated from conference for 3 years 2011/12 , deferred to 2012/13. £9,000 in 2013/14
03/05/12 Milton Friedman: 100th Anniversary - the City Corporation to support an DPR 12,000 9,699 2,301 event organised by the Centre of Policy Studies commemorating the 100th anniversary of Milton Friedman
03/05/12 Business Engagement Activity: Summer 2012 - hosting and engaging TC 120,000 0 120,000 with key visiting dignitaries during the summer
03/05/12 Thames Diamond Jubilee River Pageant - arrangements for security and DPR 36,000 36,000 0 other logistical issues for viewing by in excess of one thousand City
Page 157 Corporation guests of the Pageant from Tower Bridge
07/06/12 City of London Corporation to host Alternative Investment Management DPR 10,000 7,700 2,300 Association (AIMA) Annual Conference in September 2012
06/09/12 City of London Corporation supporting the Centre for European Reform's DPR 15,000 0 15,000 (CER) major conference: "Europe's future in an age of austerity" in November 2012
Promoting the City 16/12/10 Institute for Public Policy Research and Reform - renewal of Corporate DPR 15,000 15,000 0 3 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 membership of two think tanks 16/12/10 Cheapside Retail Initiative - continued support to the Cheapside initiative CS 49,000 30,209 18,791 3 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 to enable it to move forward as a business and retailer focussed partnership, funding to cover employee costs 19/01/11 European Financial Forum and Foreign Policy Centre - corporate DPR 13,100 13,125 (25) 3 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 partnerships renewal
08/12/11 Whitehall & Industry Group: Corporate Membership - continued DPR 8,000 3,950 4,050 2 year funding - £4,000 originally allocated from membership of the Whitehall Industry Group 2011/12, deferred to 2012/13. Final payment in 2012/13 ALLOCATIONS FROM FUND STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 30/11/12 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £ 26/01/12 Editorial Intelligence (EI) - Proposed sponsorship of two activities hosted DPR 15,000 15,000 0 2 year funding - final payment in 2012/13 by EI, a media analysis and networking organisation
31/10/11 EU Funding for Environmental Enhancement Schemes - support a CPO/DBE 63,700 0 63,700 €73,000 (approximately £63,700) payable in project to secure matched capital funding for climate change mitigation 2012/13 and 2013/14 with 50% to be reimbursed measures, training and knowledge exchange with project partners.
22/03/12 Chatham House - Renewal of Corporate Membership DPR 12,500 12,500 0 2 year funding - £12,500 in 2013/14
08/12/11 The Developing City Exhibition 2012 - a public architecture exhibition CS 15,000 15,000 0 called The Developing City, which forms part of the London Festival of Architecture in 2012 05/07/12 City of London Programme - Support for an event to mark the 10th DED 20,000 4,125 15,875 Funds for a high-level event on 5 November 2012 Programme Anniversary to coincide with the City Office in Brussels annual reception Page 158 05/07/12 New London Architecture - proposal for continued City of London CS 16,700 16,666 34 3 year funding - £16,700 in 2013/14 & 2014/15 support as a principal sponsor 05/07/12 Additional Events and Topical Issues - continuation of the contact DPR 69,000 3,600 65,400 programme through appropriate events, the publication of Topical Issues Papers and to improve the quality of the venue for the fringe events
05/07/12 Sponsorship of Migration Matters Trust - the City Corporation to support DPR 5,000 0 5,000 2 year funding - £5,000 in 2013/14 the MMT Communities 17/12/09 The Mayor’s Thames Festival - support for an education project known DED 10,000 10,000 0 3 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 as The Rivers of the World
16/12/10 Financial Literacy Project by London Citizens - continue the Money DED 15,000 15,000 0 2 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 Mentors peer mentoring programme in schools, up to 50% of the actual cost of the schools programme
10/03/11 Teach First - funding for an enhanced Higher Education Access DED/DPR 18,000 16,047 1,953 2 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 Programme (HEAP) to support City and City Fringe Students 21/07/11 Business Angel Investment Initiative - to increase the number of people DED 29,900 14,142 15,758 2 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 working in the City to support the needs of small to medium-sized enterprises in the Tech City area ALLOCATIONS FROM FUND STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 30/11/12 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £ 23/12/12 Social Investment - request for a dedicated resource - to recruit a DED/CGO 50,000 42,135 7,865 Jointly funded by Policy and Resources and the dedicated specialist, to help accelerate to the Social Investment agenda in City Bridge Trust London 18/11/10 The Challenge of Excellence: Developing Young Entrepreneurs of the DPR 13,000 12,921 79 Originally allocated from 2011/12, deferred to Future - to develop young entrepreneurs in five state schools in the City's 2012/13 neighbouring boroughs
03/05/12 British Business Angels Association - the sponsorship of the BBAA DED 10,000 10,000 0 annual awards dinner
Research 10/11/11 Proposed Polling of City Stakeholders - to carry out surveys of the City DPR 135,000 0 135,000 of London Corporation's key audiences, namely City workers, City residents, City businesses and senior City executives 16/06/11 Future health care needs of City workers and residents - research to DED/DCCS 38,000 38,000 0 Originally allocated from 2011/12, deferred to Page 159 analyse changes to primary care requirements 2012/13 06/09/12 Core funding for the Centre for London, a politically independent think DPR 20,000 20,000 0 tank, to help expand its activities and assist it to become independent of Demos. Also to allow the Centre to invest in a website, develop and strengthen relations with trusts and foundations and commission short opinion-led papers to help to raise their profile
06/09/12 Core funding for New City Network, an independent think tank, helping DPR 20,000 20,000 0 to establish an organisation that has the potential to play a crucial role in the development of financial services policy and strengthening the City's overall relationship with Westminster Attracting and Retaining International Organisations 22/04/10 Innovation Warehouse - assistance with accommodation and a "friend- DED 93,100 93,150 (50) 3 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 raising" event 17/04/08 International Valuation Standards Council - assistance with DED/CS 50,800 0 50,800 Originally allocated from 2011/12, deferred to accommodation 2012/13 New Area of Work 17/06/10 Support for Team 2012 - funding hospitality of 3 events to support Team TC 8,000 0 8,000 Originally allocated from 2011/12, deferred to 2012 2012/13 ALLOCATIONS FROM FUND STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 30/11/12 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £ 21/07/11 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta - administrative costs of DPR 10,000 10,000 0 4 Year funding - £10k in 2013/14 and 2014/15 Anniversary Committee, to carry out work to mark the anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015
03/05/12 Hoardings for Crossrail Works Site - to meet the cost of designing the DPR/MBC 15,000 15,000 0 hoardings at Moorgate and Lindsey Street
1,043,500 507,544 535,956 BALANCE REMAINING 0 TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET 1,043,500
ANALYSIS OF TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET ORIGINAL PROVISION 750,000 APPROVED BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2011/12 280,000 TRANSFER FROM CONTINGENCY 13,500
Page 160 TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET 1,043,500
NOTES: (i) The Committee date records the actual approval meeting; in some instances approval is given for multi-year support for a project but the financial details in this table only show the expenditure due in the current year (2012/13). It should be noted that actual payments sometimes are made towards the end of a financial year. (ii) As reported to the September Committee, subsequent requests for supporting initiatives in 2012/13 are being met from the Committee's contingency
KEY TO RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:- MBC Managing Director Barbican Centre DPR Director of Public Relations CGO Chief Grants Officer DED Director of Economic Development CPO City CPOPlanning Officer City Planning Officer DBE Director of the Built Environment TC Town Clerk CS City Surveyor DCCS Director of Community & Childrens Services CHRIS BILSLAND CHAMBERLAIN POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - CONTINGENCIES 2012/13 ALLOCATIONS FROM CONTINGENCY STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 30/11/12 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £
20/04/11 City of London Advertising - continuation of placing advertisements in DPR 45,300 29,030 16,270 CityAM to promote services provided by CoL
10/03/11 Tickets for 2012 Olympic Games - to purchase up to 100 tickets for TC 20,000 0 20,000 Originally allocated from 2011/12, deferred to specified events at the 2012 Games 2012/13
16/12/10 London 2012 Ticket Purchase - City expressing interest in Think London TC 10,000 0 10,000 Originally allocated from 2011/12, deferred to to purchase tickets during the 2012 Games 2012/13
13/01/11 The Honourable The Irish Society - COL's contribution towards the TC 15,000 740 14,260 Originally allocated from 2011/12, deferred to Society's legal cost in obtaining the Supplemental Charter plus providing 2012/13 specialist advice and support where appropriate
Page 161 16/06/11 Funding of Olympic Activities - to fund COL's 2012 promotional TC 185,000 184,539 461 Total of £250k allocated over 2011/12 and activities in the run up to the Olympic & Paralympic Games 2012/13
19/01/11 Registration of City's Freehold Titles - to fund Land Registrar Officer's SOL/CS 50,000 19,303 30,697 2 Year funding - final payment in 2012/13 post working 4 days per week
16/06/11 Big Society Capital - contribution towards premises in the City and the TC 91,000 65,557 25,443 launch event at Guildhall 04/10/12 New Entrepreneurs Foundation (NEF) - sponsorship of NEF, a not-for- DED 20,000 20,000 0 3 Year funding: 2013/14 & 2014/15 to be met profit organisation focussing on equipping young entrepreneurs to run from Policy Initiatives Fund scalable businesses 04/10/12 Institute for Government - sponsorship of a programme on Government DPR 25,000 25,000 0 and Business - to increase mutual understanding and interchange between government and business 04/10/12 Demos and Centreforum - Renewal of Corporate Membership - City DPR 17,000 17,000 0 2 Year funding: 2013/14 to be met from PIF Corporation to remain a corporate partner of the two think tanks
04/10/12 Centre of Study for Financial Innovation - COL's contribution towards DED 10,000 0 10,000 assisting with the CSFI's move from the West End
08/11/12 City of London Ward Elections 2013 - additional advertising to TC 60,000 0 60,000 encourage an increase in participation in the ward elections ALLOCATIONS FROM CONTINGENCY STATUS OF BALANCE ACTUAL COMMITTEE RESP PAID BALANCE DATE DESCRIPTION OFFICER ALLOCATION TO 30/11/12 TO BE SPENT NOTES £ £ £ 08/11/12 Young Foundation: core funding - sponsorship of an organisation that DED/DPR 20,000 0 20,000 2 Year funding: 2013/14 to be met from PIF undertakes research to identify and understand social needs
08/11/12 New Local Government Network - renewed Corporate Partnership DPR 15,000 0 15,000 2 Year funding: 2013/14 to be met from PIF
583,300 361,169 222,131 BALANCE REMAINING 445,200 TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET 1,028,500
ANALYSIS OF TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET BASE BUDGET 800,000 TRANSFER TO POLICY INITIATIVE FUND (13,500)
Page 162 APPROVED BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2011/12 242,000 TOTAL APPROVED BUDGET 1,028,500
NOTES: (i) The Committee date records the actual approval meeting; in some instances approval is given for multi-year support for a project but the financial details in this table only show the expenditure due in the current year (2012/13). It should be noted that actual payments sometimes are made towards the end of a financial year. (ii) As reported to the September Committee, subsequent requests for supporting initiatives in 2012/13 are being met from the Committee's contingency
KEY TO RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:- MBC Managing Director Barbican Centre DPR Director of Public Relations CGO Chief Grants Officer DED Director of Economic Development CPO City CPOPlanning Officer City Planning Officer DBE Director of the Built Environment TC Town Clerk CS City Surveyor DCCS Director of Community & Childrens Services CHRIS BILSLAND CHAMBERLAIN POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - COMMITTEE CONTINGENCY
2012/2013 £
COMMITTEE CONTINGENCY - Balance remaining prior to this meeting 445,200
Less possible maximum allocations from this meeting *
Reform and IPPR: corporate membership renewals and sponsorship 35,000 of IPPR research project
Financial support of the Mile End Group 20,000
Host AIMA Policy and Regulatory Forum 2013 12,000
Cheapside Initiative 5,000
72,000
Balance 373,200
* The Policy Initiatives Fund 2012/13 is fully committed, therefore requests for supporting initiatives in 2012/13 are now being met from the Committee's contingency.
Chris Bilsland Chamberlain
Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 164 Agenda Item 25 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 165 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 180 Agenda Item 26 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 182 Agenda Item 27 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 183 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 188 Agenda Item 29 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 189 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 208 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 209 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 214 Agenda Item 30 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 215 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 220 Agenda Item 31 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 221 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 230 Agenda Item 32 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 231 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 238