Agenda item

Report of the City Treasurer and the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications

5.1     Pete Carpenter, Assistant City Treasurer, informed the committee that the Period 2 Finance Report which had been marked to follow had not been submitted to the committee as originally intended because it had yet to go through the governance process of being reported to the Executive Management Team and the Cabinet.  He expected that this would occur in time for the report to be presented to the committee at its meeting on 14 July.

5.2     Damian Highwood, Strategic Performance Team, introduced the End of Year Performance report that presented detailed performance results for the year April 2015 to March 2016 against the 2015/16 business plans.  The report provided explanations and commentary in respect of outstanding, good and poor performance, including achievement of targets and details of remedial actions being taken where appropriate.

          School Performance for 2015

5.3     The committee welcomed Richard Stanley, Assistant Director (School Standards) Tri-borough Education Service, who had been invited to the meeting to answer questions on a range of key performance indicators relating to school performance.

5.4     Mr Stanley addressed the committee.  He explained that the School Standards Team monitors standards within Westminster Schools.  It also works closely with Westminster headteachers to provide support to schools to help improve standards including training in the areas of leadership and management.  Following the move of many of Westminster’s secondary schools from local authority maintained status to academies the team’s relationship with schools is evolving from one of direct oversight to influencing and challenging.

5.5     Mr Stanley advised the committee that pupil’s performance at Key Stage 2 and GCSE compared favourably in comparison to national and London averages.  While there been a slight decrease in Key Stage 2 results compared to the previous year he indicated that this needed to be viewed against an overall trend of improvement over the last 3 years.  He further advised that other measurements such as the results of Ofsted inspections provide a broader example of school performance.  He highlighted that well over 90% of Westminster schools were considered to be delivering by Ofsted

5.6     The committee noted that the percentage of Westminster’s pupils who achieved at least 5 A*- C grades at GCSE including English and mathematics was 68% against a target of 70%.  Mr Stanley highlighted, as he had for Key Stage 2, that this result compared favourably against the national and London averages.  He explained that the shortfall of the target could, in part,  be attributed to changes to the examination criteria around GCSEs that had been introduced over the last couple of years.  Another explanation was that the target set may have been overambitious.  While the service aims to push schools to continue to improve on performance it had possibly failed to take into consideration the likely impact of changes to the examination criteria.  He explained that due to the different relationship that the Council now has with Westminster schools performance data from schools is often provided late so that the setting of performance targets now has to be estimated.

5.7     The Committee asked whether the GCSE performance results were based on the number of pupils enrolled on to GCSE courses or the number that had taken the exams.  Members commented that in the past there has been reports of pupils being withdrawn from exams where it was clear that they would not achieve a particular standard which would impact on performance results.  Mr Stanley stated that he would expect schools to be challenged on withdrawing students in such circumstances.

5.8     Members asked Mr Stanley whether in his view problems with the Managed Services Programme had indirectly impacted on school performance.  Mr Stanley undertook to look into this.

5.9     Members asked what the local authority should do to help further improve performance in Westminster schools. Mr Stanley advised that being able to attract good quality teachers is important.   Headteachers had raised the ability to recruit and retain teachers as a concern.  The service was looking at what it can do to assist with retention.  It was due to have discussions with the Secondary School Head Teachers Partnership.  It was also looking at the possibility of putting in place some funding to help improve quality including providing leadership training.  He advised that given the impending changes to school funding, schools will in future need to maximise opportunities and examine alternative models which could include joint executive arrangements.

          Westminster in 2036

5.10    The report included details of some initial work that had been undertaken to project what the city might look like in the future and the different demands this will place on the Council.  Mr Highwood informed the committee that this would need to be remodelled in light of the recent vote to leave the EU.  Revised details would be presented to committee following a considered view.

5.11    The Committee noted that the city is expected to be busier than ever with more commuters coming to work in the city every day, putting tremendous pressure on transport and public realm.  It is expected that people will be less likely to drive but will make more use of walking, cycling and taxis.  Members were concerned that many tube and rail lines are already at capacity and that there may not be an ability to meet future demand.  Members asked whether the Council had a specific vision for transport and public realm.  Mr Highwood referred Members to the Mayor of London’s commitment to pedestrianise Oxford Street which if given the go-ahead would entail a major change for above ground transport and public realm in the city.

5.12    The Committee asked in respect of the expected increase in the number of people living in Westminster how much of the assumption is based on immigration versus an increase in the birth rate and people living longer.

5.13    Reflecting further on the implications of the vote to leave the EU, the committee asked for details of funding that the Council receives directly from the EU which is likely to be at risk.  Mr Carpenter informed members that Cross River Partnership is the only service that receives direct funding from the EU.  He advised that the Council would need to examine all its income sources to understand the source of second and tertiary income that might include funding from the EU.  Mr Highwood advised that a Council employment project specifically aimed at helping those with mental health problems into employment was funded by the EU. This funding was likely to end following the outcome of the referendum.

5.14    The Committee enquired whether the Council had developed a contingency plan for the refurbishment of City Hall in the event of a vote to leave the EU.  Members commented that there is a risk that the rental projections of  surplus office accommodation may not materialise which would impact on the Council’s income.  Mr Carpenter advised that although an executive decision to proceed with the project had been granted the Council had yet to take much of this forward.  He commented that given the condition of the building significant refurbishment was required.  He suggested that it was possible that following the decision to leave the EU could result in capital costs for Council schemes being lower than initially expected.

          Five-Year Capital Programme

5.15    The committee noted that the Council is embarking on an ambitious five-year capital programme of £2.08 billion which will help Westminster to maintain its status as a key global centre for business, retail, entertainment and tourism.  The committee was conscious that there was an underspend of £157.568 million (56%) at the end of 2015/16 against the original gross budget of the capital programme of £281.7m.  Members expressed concern about this re-occurring in future years as this would have an impact on the delivery of priorities such as much-needed affordable housing in the city.  The committee asked what measures were in place to reduce slippage in future years and whether the Council had sufficient teams to deliver them.  Mr Carpenter acknowledged the concerns.  He advised that there was greater rigour being applied to the capital programme.  There was a more robust approach to ensure that business plans are in place together with the necessary underlying infrastructure.  Review of capital schemes were undertaken on a quarterly basis. 

          Policy, Performance and Communications

5.16    Members noted that the percentage of residents that feel that they can     influence decisions affecting their local area is currently at the low level of           37%. Members expressed concern over this and commented that plans           needed to be put in place to address this.

5.16    RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

5.17    ACTIONS:

1.       Provide a full breakdown of secondary school performance (in particular, achieving at least 5 A* - C grades at GCSE including English and mathematics). The committee wanted to understand which schools had particular difficulty in meeting the GCSE targets.  (Action for: Richard Stanley, Assistant Director (School Standards) Tri-Borough Education Service)

2.       Provide a breakdown of the number of EU nationals employed in Westminster schools and details of any strategic risks that the committee needs to be aware of arising from a vote to leave the EU. (Action for: Richard Stanley, Assistant Director (School Standards) Tri-Borough Education Service)

3.       The Committee would like an updated demographic analysis with a particular focus on the impact of Brexit (Action for: Ezra Wallace, Head of Corporate Policy and Strategy).

4.       Provide a breakdown of activities and projects that are dependent on EU funding.  Members want to understand which projects and workstreams are at risk. (Action for: Pete Carpenter, Assistant City Treasurer, David Hodgkinson, Assistant City Treasurer).

5.       Provide an appraisal of how Brexit might impact the re-let of surplus accommodation within City Hall (Action for: Guy Slocombe, Director of Property, Investments and Estates, Julia Bourne, City Policy and Strategy Officer).

6.       In the context of the London 2036 analysis provide an appraisal of how the transport system is likely to be able to cope with future demand including Crossrail 2. (Action for: Barry Smith, Head of City Policy and Strategy).

7.       The Committee would like to see details of the risk management strategy in relation to the capital programme. (Action for: Pete Carpenter, Assistant City Treasurer, David Hodgkinson, Assistant City Treasurer).

8.       The Committee would like to see a named sponsor against every capital programme item (Action for: Pete Carpenter, Assistant City Treasurer, David Hodgkinson, Assistant City Treasurer).

9.       What is the Council doing about the low numbers of people who feel they can influence policy and how in specific terms will the Council ensure that people have a say on issues such as tall buildings policy. (Action for Barry Smith, Head of City Policy and Strategy).

10.     The Committee would like statistics on the reliability of the Report It tool on the Council’s website and details of the numbers and response times for issues raised including for abandoned cars.  Members had received complaints that some reported problems had not been followed up or that the tool did not always work.  (Action for: Ben Goward, Tri-Borough Head of Digital Services)