Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Room C1, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Angus Taylor, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4333 E-mail: angus.taylor@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies for absence was received from
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PERSONAL INTERESTS PDF 56 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.
Minutes: No declarations of disclosable personal interests were made.
However Councillors declared interests as follows:
Rev. James Olanipekun declared an interest in agenda item 5.2. (Mayor in Cabinet Decision Called In: Mayor's Mainstream Grants Programme 2012-15). The declaration was on the basis that he was the Vice-Chair of Poplar Harca and was a Trustee of LBTH street pastors.
Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed declared an interest in agenda item 5.2 (Mayor in Cabinet Decision Called In: Mayor's Mainstream Grants Programme 2012-15). The declaration was on the basis that he was a board member of Poplar Harca.
Councillor Rachael Saunders declared an interest in agenda item 5.2 (Mayor in Cabinet Decision Called In: Mayor's Mainstream Grants Programme 2012-15).The declaration was on the basis that she was a board member of the Bromley –by- Bow Centre.
Nozrul Mustafa declared an interest in agenda item 5.2 (Mayor in Cabinet Decision Called In: Mayor's Mainstream Grants Programme 2012-15). The declaration was on the basis that he was an Executive Member of a Collective of Bangladeshi Schools in the Borough |
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 94 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 2nd October 2012. Minutes: The Chair Moved and it was:-
RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 2nd October 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
The Chair referred to the information requested regarding electoral fraud. (Item 3 of the minutes). David Galpin (Head of Legal Services, Community) reported that he had since circulated the information to the Chair and it was agreed that the information be passed on to Sarah Barr (Senior Strategy Policy and Performance Officer, Chief Executives’) for circulation to the Committee.
Action by
Sarah Barr (Senior Strategy Policy and Performance Officer, Chief Executives’)
|
|
REQUESTS TO SUBMIT PETITIONS To receive any petitions (to be notified at the meeting). Minutes: No requests were received. |
|
UNRESTRICTED REPORTS 'CALLED IN' Two decisions of the Mayor in Cabinet (3rd October 2012) in respect of unrestricted reports on the agenda were ‘called in’. |
|
Mayor in Cabinet Decision Called In: Review of Tower Hamlets Art Work PDF 103 KB To consider the Call in relating to the decision of the Mayor in Cabinet (3rd October 2012) in respect of the Review of Tower Hamlets Art Work. (Time allocated – 45 minutes)
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed Councillor David Snowdon in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution and also Councillor Rania Khan, Cabinet Member for Culture and Heather Bonfield, Interim Service Head, Culture, Learning & Leisure who were in attendance to respond to the call-in.
Councillor Snowdon presented the reasons for the call-in outlining his concerns. He stressed the significance of the sculpture. He alongside Councillor Archer had visited the sculpture. It was now time for residents of the Borough to benefit from it.
Crucially, Cllr Snowdon argued that the Mayor had failed to consider all of the options and the organisations that could host the work. He referred to a letter received from the Museum of London Docklands detailing how they could host the work safely and securely. They currently hosted other key art works and have the arrangements in place to store the sculpture. Like many galleries and museums, they are in a position to secure insurance, underwritten by the Government, through a scheme administrated by the Arts Council. This was not just about the financial benefits but about the cultural benefits to residents from returning the work to the Borough. A lack of consideration was given to this.
The Committee heard from the Director of Museum of London, Sharon Ament. She confirmed that they were prepared to host the work and had received many offers of support from other key groups. i.e. to transport, install and help maintain it. She had written to the Mayor with this proposal in October 2012. The Musuem would host it on a long-term loan basis, rather than transfer of ownership. The museum is free to access and they would have a programme of community engagement and education in relation to the works. There had been mush discussion and support for the proposal on social forums
Councillor Snowdon also queried the legality of the sale, whether the necessary legal documentation was in place to sell the work. Jill Bell, Service Head Legal, confirmed that it was.
The Committee heard from Councillor Joshua Peck. He reported that, in addition to the Museum of London Docklands offer, other institutions such as Queen Mary University of London had offered to host the work. A quote obtained from their insurers showed it could be insured for £2,000 a year, indicating it was possible to insure the work for a reasonable price. Other institutions that have made offers to host the work or support its return to the borough were Christchurch Spitalfields, Morpeth School, Art Fund and Whitechapel Gallery. Furthermore 1200 people have signed a petition in support of its retention
Councillor Rania Khan and Heather Bonfield responded and their points were summarised as follows:
Councillor Rania Khan stated that the Cabinet appreciated that the sculpture was a great piece of art. She drew attention to the budget cuts and the absence of the sculpture from the Borough for 15 years with little attention. Over half the people surveyed ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Mayor in Cabinet Decision Called In: Mayor's Mainstream Grants Programme 2012-15 PDF 90 KB To consider the Call in relating to the decision of the Mayor in Cabinet (3rd October 2012) in respect of Mainstream Grants Programme 2012-15. (Time allocated – 45 minutes)
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair welcomed Councillor John Peck in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution and also Councillor Alibor Choudhury, Cabinet Member for Resources to respond to the call-in.
In his presentation to the Committee, Councillor Peck assisted by Councillor John Pierce outlined the reasons for the call-in and the concerns. Councillor Peck explained his concerns related to the process, the impact on organisations doing critical work in the borough, the nature of the new organisations receiving funding and the geographical balance of organisations recommended to receive funding.
In terms of process, there no evidence that an Equalities Impact Assessment had been undertaken, which risked the Council being exposed to judicial review. He was concerned that the officer recommendations had been significantly changed by the Executive, and that this part of the process was not transparent. He also expressed concern that the process was still being progressed, rather than being paused, as should happen when a decision is subject to a Call-in. This breached the Council’s Constitution.
There had also been complaints from organisations about long delays and that the process kept changing.
A key concern was the significant cuts in funding to social welfare advice agencies. In some cases, organisations may have to close down as they would no longer be viable. The Council should be supporting such groups in this current economic climate and in light of the welfare benefits cuts. Cutting these services at a time when they are most needed would impact upon some of the most vulnerable people in the borough.
Councillor Peck also raised concerns about the organisations receiving funding for the first time, or significant increases in funding. He suspected they had strong links to the Mayor and his political network. Finally, he argued that the geographical spread of funding across the borough was not balanced, or linked to the level of deprivation in the borough and was therefore unfair. The areas in the south and east of the Borough would suffer the most from the welfare cuts as they were the most impoverished as showed at the recent seminar. How does the proposals relate to this need?
The process had raised serious questions in the community regarding why some very experienced groups were loosing major funding and new ones were having major increases in grant.
Councillor Peck requested that the officers original recommendations, made to the Corporate Grants Programme Board (CGPB) be published; that the Equalities Impact Assessment be published; That all decisions be reviewed to looked at equity and geography; and that the money in the social welfare advice services budget be allocated to advice groups with a good track record in this area.
Councillor Alibor Choudhury responded to these points. He stressed that no decisions have yet been made and the Mayor and Cabinet wanted to consult the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as part of the ongoing process. He underlined that the Executive fully supported the voluntary sector; that the Council had received 100 more applications ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION Nil items. Minutes: There were no reports for consideration. |
|
VERBAL UPDATES FROM SCRUTINY LEADS (Time allocated – 5 minutes each) Minutes: The Committee received verbal updates from scrutiny leads on current work.
Councillor Islam, Scrutiny Lead Development and Renewal, reported on progress with his work on co regulation and accountability of regulated housing providers. He reported that a first meeting of his working group had been arranged for 21st November 2012 and would comprise 3 Members. They would be meeting to undertake such initial tasks as scoping the review.
Councillor Saunders, Scrutiny Lead Adults Health and Wellbeing reported on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel. The Panel would be looking at Community Assets in St Paul’s way. They would also be looking at the transfer of public health from the NHS to local Councils. It was planned to hold two evidence sessions on this and a case study to ascertain peoples views and how the plans could improve outcomes.
In the absence of Councillor Whitelock, Sarah Barr (Senior Strategy Policy and Performance Officer, Chief Executives’) reported on the work of the Councillors Portfolio (Children, Schools and Families). The working group would be looking at post 16 attainment. The latest results had yet to be issued and the Children’s Schools and Families Directorate would be reviewing these. The working group would therefore commence its review in January 2013 so that it could take into account their findings.
Councillor Archer , Scrutiny Lead Chief Executives, reported on his review of the role of the Chief Executive in a Mayoral system. He reported on a meeting with the Interim Chief Executive recently held to look at the Chief Executive’s role and the Executive arrangements. The review was progressing well.
The Chair, Councillor Jackson, reported on the Youth unemployment review. The review was to start this month (November 2012). One of the main aims was to look at the issues from the young persons view point.
The Chair also briefly mentioned future reviews. A key topic that could be looked at was the issue of bad debts. She invited Members to give some thought to this suggestion.
RESOLVED:
That the verbal updates be noted.
|
|
PRE-DECISION SCRUTINY OF UNRESTRICTED CABINET PAPERS To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet. (Time allocated – 30 minutes). Minutes: No pre-decision questions submitted to Mayor in Cabinet [7 November 2012].
|
|
ANY OTHER UNRESTRICTED BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT To consider any other unrestricted business that the Chair considers to be urgent. Minutes: The Chair referred to a late request made by Councillor Eaton regarding the vacant post of Scrutiny Lead (Communities, Localities and Culture).
It was noted that the position had yet to be filled and that Councillor Fozol Miah had been approached to fulfil this role. However there was some uncertainty whether Councillor Miah was still a Member of the Committee.
The Committee were therefore asked to consider whether they should appoint a Member to fulfil this position at this meeting.
Councillor Eaton emphasized the need for the position to be filed. She reported on the significant issues within the Portfolio of late and that it was an area of great importance to the Council and residents alike. It was important that the role was appointed to as quickly as possible so that the Member could pursue this work. She expressed a willingness to take up the position.
The Committee requested that they be given more time to consider this appointment. It was therefore agreed that the nominations be sought from the Committee and an appointment be made via e-mail save holding up the process to the next meeting. It was agreed that the appointment would be confirmed at the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
It was also requested and agreed that the membership of the Overview Scrutiny Committee be clarified and that the Committee’s rights to information in view of the 2012 Executive procedural rules be clarified. Members considered that it would be helpful to have an explanatory note on this.
RESOLVED:
That nominations for the position of Scrutiny Lead (Communities, Localities and Culture) be sought from the Committee and appointed to via e-mail and the appointment be formally confirmed at a future meeting of the Committee.
That the membership of the Overview Scrutiny Committee be clarified and that the Committee’s rights to information in view of the 2012 Executive procedural rules be clarified and an explanatory note be provided on this
ACTION:
Sarah Barr, (Senior Strategy Policy and Performance Officer, Chief Executives’)
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC In view of the contents of the remaining items on the agenda the Committee is recommended to adopt the following motion:
“That, under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contains information defined as Exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972.”
EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL SECTION (Pink Papers)
The exempt committee papers in the agenda will contain information, which is commercially, legally or personally sensitive and should not be divulged to third parties. If you do not wish to retain these papers after the meeting, please hand them to the Committee Officer present. Minutes: Nil items
|