Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Khan  and Roger Melling.

Cllr Egan substituted for Cllr Khan and provided prior notification in accordance with Committee Standing order 52 and 53.

The Chair will consider the admission of any of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 19 or 23 below).

There were no items of urgent business received.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Cllr Jenks declared a personal interest as a member of the Haringey pension Scheme and also as a volunteer with the Citizens Advice Bureau and as a friend of Cooperscroft owned by TLC, which were both admitted bodies of the Pension Fund. There was further personal declaration of interests from Councillor Whyte as  a member of the Council’s Pension Scheme.

To consider any requests in accordance with Part 4, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s  Constitution.

The Committee received  a deputation from Sean Fox (Employee side representative) on: Agenda item 10) Shared Regulatory Service.

Details of his comments and representations are recorded under the relevant minute below.

To consider and agree  the Corporate Committee minutes of the meetings held on :

27    September 2011

24 October 2011

24 November 2011

19 December 2011

 Council Employee Joint Consultative Committee minutes:

25 July 2011

The minutes of the Corporate Committee held on: 27 September 2011 , 24 October 2011, 24 November 2011 and 19 December 2011 were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

 The minutes of the Employee Joint Consultative Committee held on the 25 July 2012 were received by the Committee.

To receive the quarterly Pension Fund update to 30^th  September 2011.

The Committee considered a quarterly update on the performance of the Pension Fund for the date ending the 30 September 2011 and were asked to consider relevant pension fund issues.   Since the last quarterly update, ING Real Estate had been the subject of  a takeover  by  CBRE Global Investors  but the Pension Fund’s property portfolio was expected to  remain in its current form.

In response to a question about the underperformance of investments against benchmarks, it was envisaged that the new passive management strategy, being sought for agreement by members of the Committee in the later agenda item, would address this underperformance and provide more certainty on the return expected from investments.

RESOLVED

That the information provided on Pension Fund activity in the quarter to 30^th September be noted.

Following on from the previous Committee decision to appoint the passive fund managers, this report considers the next steps and decisions required to implement the new strategy.

Following on from the Committee’s previous decision to appoint passive fund managers they were provided with details of the next steps and decisions required to implement the new investment strategy. The Pensions Working group had met on the 03 January to consider the proposals in advance and had provided comments and considerations to officers. 

RESOLVED

1. That the bond and equity assets of the Pension Fund be transferred from Capital International and Fidelity to the passive managers in line with their existing asset allocation, with the formal adoption of the new benchmark for performance measurement purposes taking effect from 1^st April 2012.

2. That an active rebalancing policy using on-going advice from Aon Hewitt on a quarterly basis be adopted by the Committee.

3. That the monitoring parameters set out in table 1 in section 13.4 as the levels at which formal reviews of asset allocation are triggered be adopted.

The Committee will consider a  report on the Council’s treasury management activities and performance in the third quarter of 2011/12.

The Committee were asked to note that the Council was now only investing in the Debt Management Office and triple A rated money market funds.

RESOLVED

That the Treasury management activity undertaken during the third quarter of 2011/12 and the performance achieved be noted.

To consider the proposed Treasury  Management Strategy  Statement and Prudential Indicators  for 2012/13 to 2014/15  prior to Overview and Scrutiny Committee consideration  and prior to  presentation at  full  Council where final approval will be sought.

The Corporate Committee were asked to consider the proposed Treasury Management strategy statement and prudential indicators for 2012/13 to 2014/15 prior to them being scrutinised by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and presented to full Council for final approval. The Council was responsible for its treasury decisions and activity. The report advised that no treasury management activity is without risk. The successful identification, monitoring and control of risk were integral elements of treasury management activities and include Credit and Counter party Risk, Liquidity Risk, Interest rate Risk, Refinancing Risk and Legal and Regulatory Risk. The strategy took into account the impact of the Council’s proposed Revenue Budget and capital programme on all figures contained in it and on the proposed Prudential indicators and also took into account the outlook for interest rates.

The Assistant Director for Finance referred to the list of counterparty financial institutions which the Council can lend to and that meet with the proposed criteria for investment, set out in Annex 5 .Since the compilation of the report, Deutsche Bank AG, ING Bank NV and Rabobank had been upgraded meaning they could now move to the main list of banks meeting the criteria for lending.  It was agreed that the remaining counterparty financial institutions currently not meeting the lending criteria be removed completely from the document.

The Assistant Director for Finance further highlighted two changes to the Council’s lending list of counterparties for investments which was the addition of Canadian and Australian banks with London offices, a minimum long term rating of A+ and on the basis these countries retain a AAA sovereign rating from all ratings agencies. He had consulted the Cabinet Member for Finance and the Opposition Spokesperson for Finance about the criteria for the lending list and provided reasons for including banks from these countries.

The Committee considered this information with the proposed Treasury Management Strategy and made the following observations:

• Paragraph 4.4, in the policy, advised that there were no current plans for additional HRA capital expenditure funded through borrowing in the coming three financial years and comment was made on the need to make this statement at this stage. The Committee noted that this was open to change according to the Council’s position. 

• Paragraph 5.1.7 explained how the monitoring of large concentrations of maturing fixed rate debt would be achieved with limits in place to control exposure to volatility in interest rates when refinancing is required.  The limits proposed were set out at table 11 and a member queried the high percentage range between the lower and upper limits to be used as this was at odds with the statement above and brought into question how control to exposure could be achieved. It was explained that wide limits were required to provide enough flexibility given the refinancing required in 2012/13. It was agreed that the wording be reviewed and amended further to better reflect this intention and that the limits in the table be reviewed again to ensure they balance control with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To receive the report on proposals for a shared Regulatory Service between LB Waltham Forest (WF) and LB Haringey (LBH) following consultation with the staff affected and the Trade Unions.  Report to follow

The Committee considered a staffing report on the sharing of Regulatory services between the London Borough of Haringey and the London Borough of Waltham Forest.  The proposed staffing changes were put forward following a period of staff and trade union consultation. The Committee noted that the operational teams  would be kept in each local authority  with management posts being shared. 

 Members raised a range of issues in relation to the   costs, savings and monitoring arrangements for taking forward the shared Regulatory service.  A cost benefit analysis had been completed when deciding to take forward the shared Regulatory service with Waltham Forest and this information would be provided to members of the Committee after the meeting to address concerns raised.

The function of monitoring how shared services were performing lay with the  Cabinet as the policy decision maker on shared services. Although, the Corporate committee had agreed at their meeting in July that it was prudent  to receive a regular update reports  on the progress of services to be shared with Waltham Forest as they would be making employment related decisions and  this should also be kept in mind.

 The Employee Side, representative Sean Fox, was asked to provide comments on the report and  provided details of the shared arrangements  which  needed  to be scrutinised carefully  when taking the staffing decisions on  sharing  Regulatory services with  the London Borough of Waltham Forest

Responses to the  points raised by the Employee side  were :

• There was a further meeting on the employment protocols between the two boroughs in February where the practicalities of the employment arrangements would be further discussed and an update report would follow to the March Corporate Committee meeting. 
• Legal advice would be sought to   ensure that there was a fair and accepted way proposed for dealing with vacancies in the shared service.  
• The majority of the job descriptions had been assessed under single status and these did not have an impact on the ring fence arrangements. 
• The issues relating to equal pay would be addressed in the update report on the employment protocols.

 RESOLVED

1. That the staffing arrangements  relating to the establishment of the joint Regulatory Service between LBH and WF as set out in the report at appendix 2 be agreed.

2. In coming to the resolution, in the recommendation above, Members took into account the outcome of the consultation with the Trades Unions outlined in the appendices and gave regard to the Authorities public sector duties including the consideration of the attached Equalities Impact assessment.

3. That the timetable for the implementation of the Joint Regulatory Service between London Borough of Haringey and the London Borough of Waltham Forest  set out in appendix 6 be noted.

To advise the Committee of the work undertaken during the third quarter by the Internal Audit Service in completing the 2011/12 annual audit plan and reports issued for outstanding 2010/11 audits, together with the responsive and housing benefit fraud investigation work, and to provide details of the work undertaken by Council’s Human Resources business unit in supporting disciplinary action taken across all departments by respective Council Officers.

The Committee received information on the internal audits completed in the third quarter of the current financial year together with information on the Council’s fraud investigation work, housing benefit fraud investigations, and progress on the Council’s disciplinary actions. Particular good news for the  Committee to note  were the Council gaining £4k from a Proceeds of Crime Act prosecution and a significant decrease in the number of  days taken to resolve staff disciplinary cases in comparison to the last 4 quarters. The external audit into personalisation and recommendations arising from this had been followed up by internal audit and progress against the action plan was attached at the last appendix for Members to consider and comment on.

 The following responses  and actions were provided  to  Member comments:

• Money obtained from successful prosecution cases under the Proceeds of Crime Act would be reinvested in this area of fraud work and used to take forward further cases.  The Committee noted that when assessing business cases, for taking forward fraud investigations, consideration would be given to how resources could be managed to enable good cases to be compiled as this would lead to more successful outcomes.

• Concern was expressed at the number of priority actions attached to six schools audited for probity in this quarter.  Deloitte and Touche would complete a follow up exercise on the actions assigned to the related schools at the end of the financial year. However, the Committee also wanted a better understanding of the scale of the issues, what services these priority actions related to and whether it was localised to specific schools or part of wider problem in the report back.

RESOLVED

1. That the audit coverage and counter fraud work completed during the third quarter, 2011/12 be noted.

2. That the management responses received for those audit recommendations not fully implemented be noted.  That the manager’s actions taken during the third quarter to address the outstanding recommendations be deemed appropriate.

To consider the External auditor’s assessment of the progress made by the Council towards “Putting People First” (ensuring 30% of all eligible social care users or carers have a personal budget).

The Committee considered a report by the external auditor, Grant Thornton, about their  assessment of the progress made by the Council towards “Putting People First” (ensuring 30% of all eligible social care users or carers have a personal budget).

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

 To receive the Annual Audit Letter for 2010/11 from the Council’s external auditors , Grant Thornton, and to note the issues raised and actions being taken.

The Committee considered the Annual Audit Letter from the Council’s external auditors Grant Thornton.  This letter was part of a formal external audit process and provided an independent assessment of the Council’s position in meeting its strategic objectives.

Under the new IFRS arrangements £42.8m of debt for Alexandra Palace was listed as a receivable in the Council accounts. A member of the Committee queried why this debt had not been listed in this way before.  It was explained that the requirements of IFRS meant that Alexandra Palace accounts were now consolidated (grouped) with the Council’s and as such this meant that equal and opposite sums were included in both sets of accounts. It was agreed that the Corporate Committee members be reminded of the status of the debt and the associated previous Council decision.

RESOLVED

That the Annual Audit letter for 2010/11 and the Council’s response be noted.

Grant Thornton, the Council’s external auditors, will present an  audit plan for the 2011/12 financial year.

The Committee considered the audit work   proposed to be undertaken by   Grant Thornton, the council’s external auditors,   in relation to the Council’s 2011/12 accounts.  The Committee noted that there was a 10% reduction in their fees for this financial year.

 RESOLVED

The Committee received the Annual Audit Plan for 2011/12.

Grant Thornton, external auditors, will present the findings of their grant certification  work for 2010/11.

Grant paying bodies require external certification of claims for grant or subsidy and returns of financial information. Grant Thornton performs this certification work for the Council.  The Committee noted that Grant Thornton had certified 11 claims and returns for the Council amounting to £391m for 2010/11. In particular the committee were asked to note the Council’s arrangements for preparing for the DWP claim relating to housing and council tax benefit claims was much improved. This had resulted in a lesser fee in comparison to the previous year where there was additional work completed on the claim to the DWP.

Improved quality controls as well as changed working practices and processes in the Local Taxation and Benefits team had seen the council mitigate against the potential loss of £1m in subsidy for the 2009/10 financial year. This good work was recognised by Grant Thornton as continuing in the report on the 2010/11 claim.

 RESOLVED

That the report be noted

To consider Grant Thornton’s Audit Progress report for January 2012.

The Committee received the progress report from the external Auditor, Grant Thornton’s on their work for the Council.  They would begin planning their audit work on the Council’s accounts for 2011/12 in February. The Committee also noted that they would be publishing a report on Corporate Governance in Local Government in March 2012.

The Committee will be asked to agree a policy for handling workplace learning experience arrangements.

The report was withdrawn and would be  considered by the Committee at their next meeting in March.

To inform the Corporate Committee of  Non Executive delegated decisions and significant actions taken by Directors.

RESOLVED

That delegated decisions and significant actions taken by Directors since September 2011 be noted.

None

The following items are likely to be subject of a motion to exclude the press and public from the meeting as it contains exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972; Para 3 - information relating to the business or financial affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

The following  part of the minutes are exempt as they contain information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972; Para 3 - information relating to the business or financial affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information.

To consider the exempt minutes of the  Corporate Committee held on:

27 September 2011

24 October 2011

Special Committee:

01 December 2011

02 December 2011

The exempt minutes of the Corporate Committee held on 27 September and 24^th October 2011 were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting.  The Committee received the minutes of the Special Committee held on 01 and 02^nd of December 2011.

Following on from the  previous Committee decision to appoint the passive fund managers , this report contains exempt information relating to  the next steps and decisions required to implement the new  investment strategy.

Following on from the Committee’s previous decision to appoint passive fund managers  they were provided with details of the next steps and decisions required to implement the new investment strategy .This exempt part of the report contained information from Aon Hewitt, the Council’s investment consultants ,  about:  how the funds would  be split between the 2 passive investment managers chosen by the Corporate  Committee in October 2011, the policy for rebalancing investments when needed, when to move to new benchmark and passive managers, information on transition costs, information about the flexibility for movement between asset classes and  the parameters  that would  be set  around the benchmarks.

RESOLVED

That the Equity and Bond assets of the fund  be initially distributed between legal and General Investment management and  BlackRock Investment management as set out in table 1 in section 7.3

None