Minutes of Previous Meeting , item 3. PDF 96 KB - Meetings ...

CABINETMeeting held on 23rd November 2010in Council Chamber, Newham Town Hall, East Ham, E6 2RPPresent:CabinetMembersMayoralAdvisersOtherMembers:Apologies:Sir Robin Wales (Chair)Councillors Unmesh Desai, Lester Hudson,Joy Laguda, Quintin Peppiatt and Andrew BaikieCouncillor Paul Brickell, Ian Corbett,Richard Crawford, Clive Furness, Alec Kellaway,Anthony McAlmont, Riaz Ahmed Mirza andNeil WilsonCouncillor Shama Ahmad MBE, Jose Alexander,Freda Bourne, Steve Brayshaw, Leanora Cameron,Nirmal Chadha, Ayesha Chowdhury,David Christie, Bryan Collier, Marie Collier,Jo Corbett, Charity Fiberesima, John Gray,Alan Griffiths, Patricia Holland, Forhad Hussain,Khalil Kazi OBE, Sharaf Mahmood, Ron Manley,Charlene McLean, Patrick Murphy, Farah Nazeer,Firoza Nekiwala, Michael Nicholas, Mukesh Patel,Salim Patel, Terry Paul, Gavin Pearson,Rohima Rahman, Ellie Robinson,D. Paul Sathianesan, Paul Schafer, Kay Scoresby,Lakmini Shah, Pearson Shillingford, Amarjit Singh,Mary Skyers, Ted Sparrowhawk, Rustam Talati,Alan Taylor and Winston VaughanCouncillor Conor McAuley, Akbar Chaudhary,Omana Gangadharan, Kevin Jenkins OBE,Sheila Thomas and Harvinder Singh VirdeeThe meeting commenced at 6.30 p.m. and closed at 8.51 p.m.1. Management of the Business of the Meeting2. Declarations of InterestMinute Item 2 - Comprehensive Spending Review impacts - ProposedStaff Terms and Conditions Review.Personal Interests were declared by the following Members who remainedin the room during discussion of this item:• Councillor Ayesha Chowdhury; Personal; by virtue of being related to aCouncil employee.

• Councillor Bryan Collier; Personal; by virtue of being related to aCouncil employee.• Councillor Marie Collier; Personal; by virtue of being related to aCouncil employee.• Councillor Clive Furness; Personal; by virtue of being related to aCouncil employee.• Councillor John Gray; Personal; by virtue of being a member and officeholderin UNISON• Councillor Alan Griffiths; Personal; by virtue of being an employee of acompany owned by another Council, and as a member of and office -holder in UNISON• Councillor Patrick Murphy; Personal; by virtue of being a member andoffice-holder in GMB.• Councillor Michael Nicholas; Personal; by virtue of being related to aCouncil employee.• Councillor Ted Sparrowhawk; Personal; by virtue of being related to aCouncil employee.• Councillor Alan Taylor; Personal; by virtue of being related to a Councilemployee.• Councillor Ron Manley; Personal; by virtue of being related to a Councilemployee.Minute Item 4 - Securing a Community and Regeneration Legacy ofthe Olympic Stadium.A Personal and prejudicial Interests was declared by the following Memberwho subsequently left the room and took no part in the decision:• Sir Robin Wales; Personal and Prejudicial; by virtue of holding a WestHam United Football Club Season Ticket in the last three years, amember of the Olympic Park Legacy Company, and has declaredreceipt of hospitality from West Ham United Football Club in the last 3years.An Interest was declared by the following Members who subsequently leftthe room and took no part in the decision as their interest was such that amember of the public may perceive their interest as giving rise to aperception of bias:• Councillor Paul Brickell; Personal; by virtue of being a West Ham UnitedFootball Club Season Ticket holder.• Councillor Unmesh Desai; Personal; by virtue of being a West HamUnited Football Club Season Ticket holder.• Councillor Lester Hudson; Personal; by virtue of being a West HamUnited Football Club Season Ticket holder.Personal Interests were declared by the following Members who remainedin the room during discussion of this item:

• Councillor Shama Ahmad, MBE; Personal; by virtue of her address,which is located near to West Ham United Football Club's BoleynGround• Councillor Freda Bourne; Personal; by virtue of her address, which islocated near to the Olympic Stadium site.• Councillor Steve Brayshaw; Personal; by virtue of working for NewhamCollege that may have an interest in the use of the Stadium.• Councillor Bryan Collier; Personal; by virtue of the fact that familymembers lives near to West Ham United Football Club's BoleynGround.• Councillor Marie Collier; Personal; by virtue of the fact that familymembers lives near to West Ham United Football Club's BoleynGround.• Councillor Jo Corbett; Personal; due to her work with Newham 6 th FormCollege that may have an interest in the future use of the Stadium.• Councillor Joy Laguda MBE; Personal; by virtue of the fact that familymembers lives near to West Ham United Football Club's BoleynGround.• Councillor Sharaf Mahmood; Personal; by virtue of his address, which islocated near to West Ham United Football Club's Boleyn Ground.• Councillor Anthony McAlmont; Personal; by virtue of the fact that familymembers lives near to West Ham United Football Club's Boleyn Groundand his employment at Newham College, which may have an interest inthe use of the Stadium.• Councillor Charlene McLean; Personal; by virtue of her address, whichis located near to West Ham United Football Club's Boleyn Ground.• Councillor Riaz Ahmed Mirza; Personal; by virtue of the fact that afamily member is employed by CES Security, which is contracted toprovide security at West Ham United Football Club's Boleyn Ground onmatch days.• Councillor Gavin Pearson; Personal; by virtue of being a TottenhamHotspur Football Club Season Ticket holder.• Councillor Quintin Peppiatt; Personal; by virtue of his appointment toNewham College, an Outside Body which may have an interest in thefuture use of the Stadium.• Councillor Paul Schafer; Personal; by virtue of the fact that familymembers lives near to West Ham United Football Club's BoleynGround, and an interest in Newham Community Recycling, whichrecycles unwanted office furniture disposed of by West Ham UnitedFootball Club.• Councillor Winston Vaughan; Personal; by virtue of attending UELwhich may have an interest in the future use of the Stadium.• Councillor Neil Wilson; Personal; by virtue of his address, which islocated near to West Ham United Football Club's Boleyn Ground3. Comprehensive Spending Review impacts - Proposed Staff Termsand Conditions ReviewThis report set out the potential budget cut impact on Newham of the

Comprehensive Spending Review, possible budget settlement estimatesand the impact that will have on the Council’s finances for 2011/12 andmedium term budget proposals. The final settlement would not be knownuntil December and budget proposals finalised and agreed in February2011. However, in so far as the Council planed to make savings whichmay potentially affect staff and/or their terms and conditions, the reportsought to identify these at an early stage to enable consultation tocommence with the Trade Unions and any recognised staff representativesin good time, in order to enable their views to be properly taken intoaccount prior to any firm decisions being taken.The Newham Executive Board agreed to establish various work streams tolook at what cuts may be required to meet the unprecedented budgetreduction; one of which was to look at staff terms and conditions. Theprincipal vehicle for delivering the necessary budget reductions would bethe Council’s overall Star Chamber process for 2011 – 2013/14. Oncurrent projections the Council was likely to require a total estimated savingof £116 million over 3 years, £19.3m of which it was considered wouldneed to be met from the terms and conditions work stream.The report set the context of the savings in broad terms (in so far as theycould be established at this early stage) and detailed the proposed areasrelated to terms and conditions that were associated with the programme,as well as those that have been explored, but following consideration,abandoned, following a detailed review of the current Newham employmentoffer.This report sets out proposals that are currently under consideration as partof the work on the draft 2011/12 budget following the ComprehensiveSpending Review (CSR). Due to the unexpected front-load of the CSR, ithas been necessary to re-visit the Council's draft proposals for savings.Additional work on the proposals was necessary and the report notavailable for dispatch with the agenda. It is necessary for the Council toformulate its proposals now to enable consultation to commence with thetrade unions before the Head of Paid Service formulates any finalproposals for statutory consultation under Section 188 of the Trade Unionsand Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act.The Mayor said that the Council will have a budget cut of £75m, comparedto Richmond Council which will have a budget cut of only £4m. The scaleof Newham’s situation is extremely bad and the Council needs to stayahead of the situation. The Council’s first priority is to provide services andsupport for residents, and secondly, to protect as many jobs as possible.The proposals are subject to negotiation and alternative suggestions tothose outlined in the report will be considered during the consultationperiod.The Chief Executive, Kim Bromley-Derry introduced the report and saidthat in paragraph 2.27 of the report it states that 900-1200 jobs may be lostthrough the Star Chamber 4 programme. Without agreement to change

staff terms and conditions, an additional 250-400 jobs would be lost.Generally, Members said that it was a sad day to be considering such areport. They blamed Tory policies and the banking crisis that the Councilwas in this position. It was a difficult decision, but they acknowledged thatin order to achieve the level of savings demanded and protect jobs, themajority felt that they had to support changes to staff terms and conditions.If the proposals were delayed, this would impact the amount of savings theCouncil could achieve in the next financial year. In addition, they raised thefollowing points:• the proposals would help to address inconsistencies acrossdepartments to make it fairer• they hoped for good negotiations with the trade unions and thatindustrial action would be avoided• the cost of sickness absence to the Council was too high• lower wage earners would affected more than those on higher wagesand it was necessary that changes were made as fairly as possible• the proposals to change sick pay might mean that officers would attendwork while sick, putting their colleagues at risk• the Council should remain associated with National terms andconditions which are there to protect the most vulnerable• a pay freeze was unfair and would hurt the poorest and lowest paid staff• the Equality Impact Assessment attached as Appendix 5 to the reporthighlights a number of equality concerns, including the number ofproposals which would affect women disproportionately• support for introducing flexible working arrangements which wouldfavour women with childcare responsibilities• if the proposals weren’t agreed, more job losses would occur; it wasnecessary to protect as many jobs as possible• need to be supportive of staff; explain alternative options consideredand deal with it sensitively• the Council’s budget for the coming year was a very difficult one tobalance with a significantly reduced grant from GovernmentThe Mayor said that in order to protect jobs, it was necessary to makechanges to the employees’ terms and conditions. The Council must set abalanced budget for the next financial year. He also said that theproposals would be subject to negotiations with the trade unions and thathe hoped an agreement would be reached.The Mayor stressed that the target saving from terms and conditions wasabsolutely required. He stressed that all savings decisions would bedetermined by what was in residents’ best interests. However, he said that,given these two overriding priorities, if there was any way to minimise joblosses we would support it. He also stressed the importance of supportinglower paid workers. Finally, he expressed the hope that given the above,that the Council would find a way to stay within national terms andconditions.

DecisionThe Mayor in consultation with the Cabinet agreed to note the reportand in so far as the matters affect the draft budget proposal for2011/12 and the medium term budget strategy agreed with theproposed actions and commended the report to Full Council forconsideration.Reasons for the DecisionThe Council must start meaningful consultation with recognised tradeunions as soon it is known that changes affecting staff are proposed. Thisreport sets out the initial proposals to enable that consultation is to start.Because of the budget timetable that consultation needs to commence nowto enable the Chief Executive to have regard to the outcome of theconsultation in time for this to be programmed into the budget proposals fornext year. It is anticipated that over the next three years, the Council willneed to achieve savings of some £116 million. The majority of this gaparises from the forecast loss of grant, but there are also other budgetpressures to be managed relating to housing benefits/temporaryaccommodation, as well as savings planned as part of previous budgetstrategies.A review of where this level of savings may be achieved has identified 5major areas (a) property (b) procurement (c) social care transformation (d)customer access strategy and (e) staff terms and conditions. The keydrivers for identifying the areas for achieving significant savings are tocontinue to deliver residents’ priorities, recognising that our residents arereliant on many of our services and will suffer other impacts as a result ofthe Comprehensive Spending Review which may make our services morecritical, whilst at the same time seeking to mitigate the number of job lossesthrough redundancy.This decision is subject to the call-in process as the report was not available five cleardays before the decision was taken. The call-in period will expire at 5pm on 14 December2010.4. Local Government Act 1972, as Amended by the Local Government(Access to Information) Act 1985 - Exclusion of Press and PublicAgreed to exclude the press and the public from the remainder of themeeting during consideration of the following exempt information:• Securing a Community and Regeneration Legacy of the OlympicStadium5. Securing a Community and Regeneration Legacy of the OlympicStadiumThe Deputy Mayor, Councillor Andrew Baikie, took the Chair as the Mayor

had declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in this item. The Mayorhad delegated authority to the Deputy Mayor to make the decisionsoutlined in the report.The report provided Members with an update on the process following onfrom the Council's submission to the Olympic Park Legacy Company(OPLC) of a Joint Pre Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) by Newham andWest Ham United Football Club (WHUFC), and subsequent confirmationby the OPLC that the bid has moved to the competitive dialogue stage.DecisionThe Deputy Mayor in consultation with Cabinet agreed:1. that subject to the limitations provided for in recommendation 2and 3 below, to delegate authority to the Chief Executive tonegotiate with West Ham United FC, central government and OPLCin respect of the Council's proposals contained in the stadium bid;2. that the delegation to negotiate in recommendation 1 above shallextend to the commercial terms between the parties and the termson which any Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) would be establishedprovided such terms are within the parameters set out in thereport in respect of (i) financial and community benefits to besecured (ii) appropriate protection for the Council, (iii) risk transferand (iv) acceptable commercial terms;3. that the delegation to negotiate as set out in recommendation 1above does not extend to agreeing any final commitment on behalfof the authority which shall be the subject to a further report backto Members with a full business case, financial and legal duediligence reports and details of the proposed terms and conditionsbefore any agreements are signed and any final commitment isgiven;4. that the delegations entered into the negotiations as set out inrecommendations 1-3 above shall extend to negotiations withother bidders and interested parties, where this is permissiblewithin the current process and in the view of the Chief Executivean appropriate step to take;5. that the cost of the technical consultancy resources required tosupport the Chief Executive in relation to the delegation proposedby this report for the next stage should be capped at the level asset out in the report, and to note the expectation that costs wouldbe managed to be under this amount; and6. to recommend to Full Council that the Council should remainstrong in its position with Central Government that the legacy forthe Games should be funded by Central Government. That in the

event that any resources are required from the Council,negotiations in that regard must be kept within the parameters setout in the report, subject to a full business case appraisals, risk,financial and legal due diligence and provided on commercialterms. No binding agreement is to be reached without a furtherreport back to Members.Reasons for the DecisionsThe decisions are made in order:• To clearly set out the Councils position on financial, community andregeneration benefits• Provide Officers with clear parameters for the Council's furtherinvolvement with this process• Manage the expectations of partners in the form and extent of ourcommitments• To build on the momentum gathered by the PQQ submission, and ifappropriate secure preferred bidder status with the OPLCThis decision is subject to the call-in process as the decision was based on exemptinformation. The call-in period will expire at 5pm on 14 December 2010.