Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest

Agreed.

With regard to minute no.60, Councillor Bramley said that if any councillor has an issue with a constituent it is their duty to take it up and it is the duty of the Council to make sure, if a constituent has been treated unjustly, that the situation is corrected, regardless of the constituent, the councillor, their beliefs or anything else.

Following the last meeting Councillor Bramley said he and the Divisional Director of Legal and Democratic Services had checked with the Members’ PA and she had no record of any communication having been received.  Councillor Bramley said that this matter had not been taken up at all, the Members’ PA had not been contacted and he was not prepared for officers to be criticised.

Councillor Barnbrook responded that the situation has been resolved and the constituent is satisfied with the actions being taken.  The matter is now closed.

Tony Redmond, the Local Government Ombudsman, will present his annual letter for 2006/2007.

Received the Local Government Ombudsman’s Annual Letter 2006/2007, presented by Mr Tony Redmond, the Local Government Ombudsman.

The report commended the Council on a number of issues including the fact that complaints received for Barking and Dagenham were significantly less than the average for the whole of London - 85 compared with the average for London Boroughs of 150.  There had been only one complaint in respect of planning issues which was a very interesting and encouraging figure for the Council because it is well below the London average.

It was pleasing to note that the average response time for first enquiries is 22 days, which is below the Local Government Ombudsman’s own benchmark of 28 days.  Mr Redmond congratulated the authority on this achievement and also commended the relationship between his staff and the Council’s officers, which is very good indeed.  He was also pleased to note that the Council has moved to a ward based complaints co-ordinator approach and has recognised that neighbour dispute issues may require a different approach.

Mr Redmond flagged up two areas of concern relating to premature complaints and complaints about neighbour nuisance, which need to be investigated by the Council.

In conclusion, Mr Redmond highlighted some developments that will impact on the way the Local Government Ombudsman will deal with local authorities in future, namely:

·  There is a new power for the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to service delivery through partnerships;

·  Joint investigations will be carried out with the Health Ombudsman, which will also link to partnership working;

·  They will be investigating service failure;

·  They will be adopting mediation powers – often complaints that come to the Local Government Ombudsman would warrant mediation;

·  From 1 April next year they will be establishing an Access and Advice Centre which will act as a gateway to the Local Government Ombudsman’s services for all complainants and enquirers.  This will mean that hopefully many of the premature complaints currently received will be referred back to the Council immediately.

·  In future The Local Government Ombudsman will be able to publicise local settlements whereas at the moment he is only able to publicise decisions where he has chosen to report publicly.

Members welcomed the report and thanked Mr Redmond for coming to talk to them.

Presentation by Alan Lazell, Head of Skills, Learning and Enterprise.

Received a presentation from Alan Lazell, Head of Skills, Learning and Enterprise, on customer service issues within the four service areas in his division, namely 14-19 year olds, the Adult College, Employment and Skills Development and the Barking and Dagenham Enterprise.

Key points arising from the presentation were:

·  The numbers of qualifications held by residents at Level 2 (GCSE) and Level 3 (A Level) are improving but are very low when compared nationally

·  Low skilled jobs are rapidly disappearing and Thames Gateway jobs are mainly at Level 3+

·  16,700 children live in families claiming key benefits

·  There is an 11% gap between the LBBD employment rate and that nationally.  Equivalent to 11,000 residents.

During the discussion that followed Members raised issues relating to the above in respect of training opportunities, acquiring vocational skills, grants and funding, to which Alan Lazell gave detailed responses and agreed to provide further information to individual Councillors, plus a ward by ward briefing for Members early in the new year.

The Chief Executive confirmed that the Council is actively pursuing the idea of a vocational school and discussions are taking place with the Learning and Skills Council and the LDA.

Agreed to:

(a)  enter into a Partnership Agreement with the London Borough of Havering in respect of the delivery of an NNDR shared service;

(b)  the allocation of appropriate financial resources and the procurement of external support as required, as detailed in the report and accompanying Business Case, and

(c)  authorise the Corporate Director of Customer Services, in consultation with the Divisional Director of Corporate Finance and the Divisional Director of Legal and Democratic Services, to agree the final details of the Partnership Agreement.

Agreed:

(1)  the appointment of Jennifer Spearman and Frank Dignan for the positions of independent members of the Standards Committee with effect from 1 January 2008 for a maximum period of four years;

(2)  the inclusion of a new paragraph 12.5 in Article 8 of the Constitution, defining a four year term for independent members, as detailed in the report;

(3)  the term of office of the existing independent member commencing from 11 October 2006, and as such expiring no later than 10 October 2010.

Agreed to appoint Councillor Evelyn Carpenter to the Barking College Corporation.

(a) Allocation of social housing

Moved by Councillor Robert Bailey and seconded by Councillor Barnbrook:

“I move that Ken Livingstone's proposal to take complete charge over the allocation of social housing, built for key workers and low income earners, and allocate it as he sees fit, disregarding local housing waiting lists and local people would be a disaster for this borough.  Not only would this policy lead to further break ups in families and increased strains on community relations and cohesion but it would ultimately mean the council has less power in the allocation of housing.  At a time of increasing centralisation of powers by Livingstone at the expense of local councils the time is now to say no to his dictatorial tendencies and dictates.  I hope this council will agree in passing this motion against this proposal and I urge this council to fight tooth and nail against any other interventions by Livingstone to take control over how council and social housing is allocated in this borough.”

Councillor Bailey said his reasons for proposing the motion had been prompted by an article in the Evening Standard.

During the debate that followed Councillor Liam Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, said that the Evening Standard is no friend of Ken Livingstone, who did not say that he would take complete control over the allocation of social housing.  To clarify the situation Councillor Smith said that Ken Livingstone had initially asked for up to 25% of the allocation rights but, after representations from Barking and Dagenham and other Labour London Boroughs, he has reduced it to 5%.

Councillor Buckley queried why give anything at all, to which Councillor Smith responded that it is a very complicated and difficult situation but that if nothing was agreed the Government may allow the Mayor of London, whoever that may be, to take over.  At a recent meeting Councillor Smith had been lobbying for loft conversations and extensions in the borough and he said that if the council has to negotiate and compromise with Ken Livingstone to get money for these that must not be ruled out.  He asked Members not to vote for the motion because it is not correct.  Councillor Smith said the Council must get the best deal for its tenants and he asked for Members’ consent to negotiate with Ken Livingstone to do this.

Councillor Fairbrass reiterated that the Evening Standard is not correct and suggested that people should look at the relevant website.

In his final remarks, Councillor Bailey said that Ken Livingstone is a fascist and that he will get elected and then steamroller over all London Councils.

Following the debate the motion was voted on and rejected by a majority.

(b) London Riverside/tidal surges

Moved by Councillor Richard Barnbrook and seconded by Councillor Bailey:

“In the wake of the recent 'near miss' tidal surge along the East Anglian coast, this Council resolves to reject and resist in its present form the proposed London Riverside section of the Thames Gateway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

No questions were received.

Question from Councillor Evelyn Carpenter

“Please would the Executive Member for Resources outline what the Council has done to implement the Government’s requirement set out 3 years ago that Councils find 3% per year efficiency savings.”

  Response from Councillor Graham Bramley

  “We were set a target from the government of £13.4m of efficiency gains up to and including the financial year 2007/08. By the end of 2006/07, we had already achieved £14.2m of efficiency gains – so we hit our target one year early.

Some examples of the main areas of efficiency:

-  We have saved over £1m as a result of the cross borough agency staff contract, as a result of lower rates being negotiated, and tighter monitoring of overall spending on agency staff. We have also made savings in Children’s and Adults social care through reducing the levels of agency staff usage.

-  As a result of ongoing rationalisation of assets, we have earned £2m of interest on the capital receipts we have made on land sales

-  We have made efficiency gains of £0.75m as a result of reducing the number of void Council properties, maximising our income in this area

-  We made savings of £0.5m as a result of the Council restructure in 2006/07.

  These are not cuts, they are efficiencies and we have spent the gains in our services.  For example, as a result of our investment in Children’s Services we have recently won the award for the best corporate parent in the country and investment in social services has resulted in the Inspection Commission awarding us 3 stars.  I am very proud of what this Council has achieved and we will continue to give the people of this borough the best service we can.”

Question from Councillor Lawrence Rustem

 “Following the Channel 4 documentary ‘Last Chance Kids’ which was screened last month 22^nd/25^th October, and focused on Monteagle Primary School.  The programme gave an interesting insight into the levels of education that are being experienced by primary school children within this borough. Would the lead group like to explain to this Labour borough’s primary school children and to their parents why they disgracefully, have been failed so miserably, some children in the school year 2006/07 barely able to read and write, and even worse, some unable to read and write at all.  Shouldn’t this Labour council collectively bow its head in utter and absolute contemptible shame at the way it is betraying this borough’s children?”

  Response from Councillor Jean Alexander

“The only thing that really is disgraceful and miserable is the question – certainly not the record of this Council on primary education. 

The Council has an excellent reputation on educational improvement sustained over more than two decades – and still maintained today.  It is really proud of the way it has worked in partnership with all the schools.

The record is second to none in the country.  In the light of this, this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.