London Councils

Minutes of the meeting of the Leaders’ Committee held on 8 July 2008

Cllr Merrick Cockell chaired the meeting

Present:

BARKING AND DAGENHAMCllr Liam Smith

BARNETCllr Matthew Offord

BEXLEYCllr Teresa O’Neill

BRENTCllr Bob Wharton

BROMLEYCllr S. L. Carr

CAMDENCllr Keith Moffitt

CROYDONCllr Mike Fisher

EALINGCllr Jason Stacey

ENFIELDCllr Mike Rye

GREENWICHCllr Chris Roberts

HACKNEYMayor Jules Pipe

HAMMERSMITH & FULHAMCllr Alex Karmel

HARINGEYCllr George Meehan

HARROWCllr David Ashton

HAVERINGCllr Michael White

HILLINGDONCllr Douglas Mills

HOUNSLOWCllr Peter Thompson

ISLINGTONCllr James Kempton

KENSINGTON & CHELSEACllr Merrick Cockell

KINGSTONCllr Derek Osbourne

LAMBETHCllr Jackie Meldrum

LEWISHAMMayor Sir Steve Bullock

MERTONCllr Samantha George

NEWHAMCllr Pat Murphy

REDBRIDGECllr Alan Weinberg

RICHMOND UPON THAMESCllr Stephen Knight

SOUTHWARKCllr Nick Stanton

SUTTONCllr Lyn Gleeson

TOWER HAMLETSCllr Lutfur Rahman

WALTHAMFORESTCllr Clyde Loakes

WANDSWORTHCllr Maurice Heaster

WESTMINSTERCllr Colin Barrow

CITY OF LONDONMr Stuart Fraser

LFEPA-

MPA-

Ex officio (under the provisions of Standing Order 2.2):

HOUSINGCllr Jamie Carswell

Ex officio (under the provisions of Standing Order 2.3):

TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENTCllr Irwin van Colle

Apologies:

BARNETCllr Mike Freer

BRENTCllr Paul Lorber

HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAMCllr Steve Greenhalgh

HILLINGDONCllr Ray Puddifoot

LAMBETHCllr Steve Reed

MERTONCllr David Williams

NEWHAMMayor Sir Robin Wales

RICHMONDCllr Serge Lourie

SUTTONCllr Sean Brennan

WANSDWORTHCllr Edward Lister

EQUALITIESCllr Anjana Patel

TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENTCllr Daniel Moylan

LFEPACllr Brian Coleman

Officers of London Councils were in attendance.

  1. Declarations of interest

None were made.

  1. Minutes of the meeting of Leaders’ Committee on 10 June 2008

Cllr Derek Osbourne (Liberal Democrat, Kingston) argued that the minutes of item 11 FreedomPass apportionment failed to reflect adequately the level of agreement expressed at the meeting for the proposal for any change in apportionment of costs to be damped by thirds. Leaders’ Committee agreed to change the last sentence in the second last paragraph of the minutes from:

...there was some possibility of achieving an agreement based on damping by thirds without recourse to arbitration. A number of members felt that there was the prospect of reaching an agreement on this basis.

to:

...there was some possibility of achieving an agreement based on damping by thirds without recourse to arbitration. There was substantial support for the prospect of reaching an agreement on this basis.

With that change Leaders’ Committee agreed the minutes of its meeting of 10 June.

  1. NHS London and Future PCT Arrangements

Ms Ruth Carnall CBE, Chief Executive of NHS London, gave a presentation saying that NHS London had made a lot of progress over the past few years particularly on financial performance and reduction of waiting times, but .was still not doing well enough in a number of areas. Following on from the Healthcare for London strategy, NHS London had been examining future commissioning arrangements. PCT Chief Executives were generating options for future commissioning plans and were required to report them to NHS London by 23 July 2008

Mr Roger Hampson, Chief Executive of the London Borough of Redbridge also spoke as a member of on behalf of the Chief Executives London Committee (CELC) NHS London Liaison Group.

The Chairman responded by saying that the message that London Councils had given to Ms Carnall was that clarity was all important and that any attempt to change the co-terminosity of boroughs and PCTs against the wishes of boroughs would be ill-advised. He went on to say that there was an openness to discuss how to strengthen commissioning arrangements and an acceptance some support functions could be shared. Overall, however, the importance of the local connection between boroughs and PCTs should not be under estimated.

A number of comments were then made from the floor:

Cllr Clyde Loakes (Labour, WalthamForest) pointed out that he had just signed his Local Area Agreement which defined his borough’s partnership with the PCT and this link was vital. It’s borough had been put in a sub-region without any coherence and his borough was being asked to comment on options over the summer when many were away.

Cllr Derek Osbourne (Liberal Democrat, Kingston) asked how could better engagement be achieved? In Kingston eleven options had already been reduced down to one or two and he would have preferred to have been involved much earlier in the process with the Health Service. He would also have liked to have explored other models, such as joint commissioning with local authorities to tap into the expertise in boroughs.

Cllr Chris Roberts (Labour, Greenwich) questioned how personalisation of health services could work if there was not co-terminosity with social services departments. He felt that there had been too much change in NHS London and that the organisation should have been given a chance to settle down.He was concerned that the role of PCTs in directly providing services seemed to be being questioned and he could not understand the rationale for such a distinction.

Cllr Colin Barrow (Conservative, Westminster) argued that the relationship with people and the local authority should remain unchanged whatever happened at a higher level and offered Westminster as a model.

Cllr George Meehan (Labour, Haringey) pointed out that there had been no proper discussion in Haringey about proposals for which there was a deadline in two weeks’ time. The approach seemed to have been to convince chief executives and hope leaders fell into line.

Cllr Jason Stacey (Conservative, Ealing) argued that the mood was different from the previous visit by Ruth Carnall to Leaders’ Committee because there was a feeling that the process was moving ahead without the proper involvement of politicians.

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock pointed out that boroughs had developed a commissioning and delivery process that appeared to be running contrary to that of NHS London.

Ms Ruth Carnall responded saying that she:

  • acknowledged the problems that had existed with commissioning and would look at options to make boroughs more involved.
  • agreed that there was a need to put right some weaknesses without reorganisation, if possible.
  • argued that at a national and local level, commissioners were obliged to look at a range of potential providersand the Department of Health were about to create arrangements whereby individuals who felt competition had been unfairly handled could make a complaint.
  • was trying to open up opportunities for shared commissioning.
  • was concerned not to lose or start the momentum behind putting in place changes to improve health care in London.
  • did not have a blueprint that she was trying to impose, if a local authority had a solution then they should put it forward.
  • Felt that stroke services in London needed to be improved and this could not be delivered at a local level
  • would welcome the continuation of this dialogue both with similar groups of Leaders and the Committee as a whole.

At this point Ms Carnall left the meeting.

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock (Labour, Lewisham) argued that:

  • matters were moving more quickly in the NHS than London Councils monthly cycle.
  • it cannot be assumed that London MPs shared boroughs’ views on co-terminosity and that MPs felt that the NHS as ‘theirs’ as a national service governed by Parliament.

Cllr Derek Osbourne (Liberal Democrat, Kingston) saw the argument for smaller meetings at local and sub-regional levels with PCTs. He felt that the arguments about create scale and more work across borders as being different to the argument about co-terminosity. He also wanted the meeting of the Health and Adult Services forum that had been cancelled to go ahead.

The Chairman replied saying that the reinstatement of the meeting of the Health and Adult services forum would be looked at. He went on to say that any timescale that imposed a deadline of the end of July for proper boroughs engagement with NHS London proposals would not be acceptable.

Leaders’ Committee agreed to:

  • note the proposed next steps in discussion with NHS London on future PCT commissioning arrangements and
  • to receive a further report on the outcome of borough discussions with NHS London and PCTs in September 2008.
  1. Social Housing Mobility in London

The Chairman began by pointing out that his, the Conservative, group would seek to note rather than approve the report.

Cllr Jamie Carswell (Labour, Housing) responded by saying that, if one group wished for more time to consider the proposals then clearly this had to be respected but any delay would only weaken the position in relation to the new Mayor, the Government and the HCA. The Labour group would have been concerned over the disproportionate strain placed on certain boroughs by the unequal distribution of strategic sites.

Cllr Mike Rye (Conservative, Enfield) commented that one point that all boroughs could agree on was their unhappiness that the Mayor would seek to include non-strategic sites.

The Chairman concluded by saying that this was not a matter that Mayor Johnson wished to ignore but, like the Government, he wanted the agreement between boroughs. In voting to note the report, he wished to make clear he expected work to continue to clarify political leaders’ views and that another paper would come back after the summer break.

Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the report.

  1. Member Roles, Structures and Ways of Working

The Chief Executive introduced the report saying it proposed changes which flow from previous reports, discussions and analysis of the responses to the Member Roles, Structures and Ways of Working consultation issued after the Leaders’ Committee of 1 April. In particular, it responded to points made at the Executive meeting on 23 June.

Cllr Stephen Knight (Liberal Democrat, Richmond) referred to recommendation 8 Portfolio holders to choose how they structure engagement with London local government including elected members leading on relevant policy areas and asked whether this would apply to the Local Government Finance portfolio.

The Chairman replied that the Local Government Finance was dealt with at Leaders’ Committee which acted as a source of guidance and challenge to him in his capacity of the Local Government Finance portfolio-holder, he would give consideration to some other form of engagement if there was felt to be a need for it and he would be interested to hear views.

Cllr Nick Stanton (Liberal Democrat, Southwark) expressed his disappointment that the report did not make any proposals for scrutiny.

The Chairman replied by saying that the LondonScrutiny Network had always been keen to maintain it’s independence , but within that London Councils had offered support to the Network in certain ways.

Cllr Derek Osbourne (Liberal Democrat, Kingston) referred to the lack of any mention of his party’s proposal that there would be one key campaign per year and expressed his concern about Equalities issues, the tone of paragraph 11 London Councils should make available meeting rooms and general facilities for other member networks but will, during 2008/09 look to reduce full servicing support for such networks. Discussion with the Equalities Forum will take place as to the inter-relationship with work on ‘Be a Councillor’ to identify ways in which some of this work can best be taken forwardsuggested that Equalities work was only to do with the ‘Be a Councillor’ campaign, not more generally.

The Chairman responded by saying that there was no intention to downplay the importance of Equalities but paragraph 11 referred to the support that some bodies had been receiving that would be wound down and the Chief Executive pointed out that the subject of major campaigns would need to be addressed through the Business Plan process.

Leaders’ Committee agreed:

  1. to structure the agenda ofLeaders’ Committee in a way that was conducive to the setting of the strategic direction for London Councils’ work in a proactive way. The outline specimen agenda attached as anappendix to the report was an indication of this approach.
  1. that the Executivewould have delegated to it:
  • an active role in giving effect to the policy direction already agreed by Leaders’ Committee;
  • brokering a London Councils’ position on strategic issues for submission to Leaders’ Committee; and
  • agreement of routine consultation responses.

in addition to its present role in relation to budget, internal management and staffing issues and the consideration, in advance, of matters going to Leaders’ Committee.

  1. portfolio-holders wouldproducewritten reportsto Leaders’ Committeeand to the Executive on a staggered basis. The Chairman would meet each portfolio-holder on a direct one-to-one basis at least once a year.
  1. there would be no meeting of Leaders’ Committee in April.
  1. each party would be funded for an awaydayeach year.
  1. there would bea more structured approach to engagement with national political parties including the better engagement with London MPs
  1. portfolio-holders who are members of the Executive may, in consultation with the Chairman of London Councils, accede to requests from party groups for one elected member per group, who was not a member of the Committee or Executive, to attend a Leaders’ Committee or Executive meeting for a particular item and be able to speak.
  1. portfolio holders to choose how they structure engagement with London local government including elected members leading on relevant policy areas This could take the form of:
  2. a continuation of three forum meetings a year;
  3. an annual event possibly involving the relevant professional groupings in that subject area;
  4. virtual groupings;
  5. task and finish activities;
  6. some combination of the above consistent with the overall resources available.
  1. portfolio-holders plans for engagement during 2008/09wouldbe agreed by the Executive in September. It was expected that all portfolio-holders wouldput forward arrangements that feature either engagement with a full forum and/or forum office-holders, or some other small representative group of members.
  1. the range of portfolios agreed at Leaders’ Committee in September 2006 wereto continue with the following changes
  • the Culture, Tourism and London 2012 portfolio is absorbed into the Chairman’s responsibilities but that he was able to nominate a member to support him in this
  • Planning was separated from economic development
  1. London Councils would make available meeting rooms and general facilities for other member networks but would, during 2008/09 look to reduce full servicing support for such networks. Discussion with the Equalities Forum would take place as to the inter-relationship with work on ‘Be a Councillor’ to identify ways in which some of this work can best be taken forward.

Following Leaders’ Committee’s agreement to paragraph 10 the party groups put forward the following portfolio-holders:

Subject area / Portfolio-holder
Local Government Finance / Cllr Merrick Cockell(Conservative)
Health and Adult Services / Cllr Mike Freer (Conservative)
Housing / Cllr Jamie Carswell (Labour)
Children and Young People / Cllr James Kempton (Liberal Democrat)
Culture, Tourism and London 2012 / Cllr Merrick Cockell(Conservative)
Crime and Public Protection / Cllr Jason Stacey (Conservative)
Economic Development / Mr Stuart Fraser (Independent, City)
Planning / Cllr Chris Roberts (Labour)
Sustainability / Cllr Sean Brannan (Liberal Democrat)
Improvement / Cllr Michael White (Conservative)
Greater London Employment Forum / Cllr Angela Harvey (Conservative)
Transport & Environment Committee / Cllr Daniel Moylan(Conservative)
  1. Public Affairs Update

Cllr Derek Osbourne (Liberal Democrat, Kingston) pointed out that primary school places were becoming a major issue with far more families presenting children than had up to now and further work on this should be considered..

Leader’s Committee agreed tonote action already taken and to approve the further planned actions in relation to:

  • Local Government Finance
  • Children and Young People
  • Crime and Public Protection
  • Culture, Tourism and 2012
  • Health and Adult Services
  • Housing
  • Improvement
  • Planning and Economic Development
  • Sustainability
  • Transport and Environment
  • London Local Authorities Bills
  1. Local Government Finance Update

Leader’s Committee agreed the four Revenue Grant Distribution work themes set out in the first section of the report.:

  • The Area Cost Adjustment
  • Younger Adults’ Personal Social Services
  • Population
  • The four block model.
  1. Minutes and Summaries

Leader’s Committee agreed to note the minutes and summaries of the:

  • Culture, Tourism and 2012 Forum, 4 February 2008
  • Housing Forum Executive, 6 February 2008
  • Economic Development Forum, 5 March 2008
  • Greater London Provincial Council (Joint meeting), 15 March 2008
  • Audit Committee, 2 June 2008

Action Points

Item / Action / Progress
1 / NHS London and Future PCT Arrangements (item 3)
A further report on the outcome of borough discussion and work by CELC on setting the terms of the discussion to go to Leaders’ Committee in September 2008. / PPA
2 / Social Housing Mobility in London (item 4)
Work to continue clarifying political leaders’ views and that another paper would come back after the summer break / PPA / In hand, Leaders’ Committee will receive a report in September 2008.
3 / Member Roles, Structures and Ways of Working (item 5)
  • structure the agenda of Leaders’ Committee in a way that was conducive to the setting of the strategic direction for London Councils’ work in a proactive way. The outline specimen agenda attached as an appendix to the report was an indication of this approach
  • the Executivewould have delegated to it:
  • an active role in giving effect to the policy direction already agreed by Leaders’ Committee
  • brokering a London Councils’ position on strategic issues for submission to Leaders’ Committee; and
  • agreement of routine consultation responses.
in addition to its present role in relation to budget, internal management and staffing issues and the consideration, in advance, of matters going to Leaders’ Committee.