Agenda and minutes

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 25 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded.)

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 25, written notice of an appeal must be received by the Chief Democratic Services Officer at least 24 hours before the meeting.)

The Chair welcomed Members to this Call-In meeting of the Board, those Members who were substituting for absent colleagues and, in particular, Councillor Wadsworth, who was attending his first meeting after replacing Councillor R Procter on the Board.

To declare any personal / prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct.

The following personal declarations of interest were made:-

-  Councillor G Hyde – Agenda item 7 (Minute No. 59 refers) – The Future of Council Housing - In his capacity as a Director of Leeds East North East Homes ALMO.

-  Councillor R Grahame – Agenda item 7 (Minute No. 59 refers) – The Future of Council Housing - In his capacity as a Director of Leeds East North East Homes ALMO.

-  Councillor A Lowe – Agenda item 7 (Minute No. 59 refers) – The Future of Council Housing - In her capacity as a Director of Leeds West North West Homes ALMO.

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes.

Apologies for absence from the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors P Ewens, A Barker (substitute R Pryke), G Driver (substitute A Lowe), J Marjoram (substitute D Schofield) and L Mulherin (substitute P Grahame).

To receive and consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report regarding the procedural aspects of the Call -  In process.

Members were advised that the options available to the Board in respect of this particular called-in decision of the Executive Board were:-

Option 1 – Release the decision for implementation.  Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board could decide to release it for implementation.  If this option was chosen, the decision would be released for immediate implementation and the decision could not be called-in again.

Option 2 – Recommend that the decision be reconsidered.  Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board may decide to recommend to the decision maker that the decision be reconsidered.  In the case of an Executive Board decision – which in this case it was – the report would be presented to the next available meeting.  The Executive Board would reconsider its decision and would publish the outcome within the minutes of the meeting.  The decision could not be called-in again, regardless of whether or not it varied from the original decision.

In response to Members’ queries, the Principal Scrutiny Adviser advised the Board:-

·  that it could make recommendations to the decision taker, in this case the Executive Board, but that the decision taker was not bound to accept the Board’s recommendations;

·  that any Board Members or substitutes arriving late would not be allowed to vote on the matter, as they would not have heard all the evidence presented to the Board.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

In accordance with Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules, to review the attached decision of the Executive Board taken on 3^rd November 2010 in relation to the attached report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods entitled ‘The Future of Council Housing’.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report, together with background papers, relating to a requested review of the decisions made by the Executive Board at its meeting held on 3^rd November 2010 in respect of the appended report of the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods entitled ‘The Future of Council Housing’.

The decisions had been called-in for review by Councillors J L Carter, P Harrand, G Latty, M Lobley and M Robinson on the following grounds:-

·  Proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome).

·  Clarity of aims and desired outcomes.

·  An explanation of the options considered and details of the reasons for the decision.

·  Concerns in relation to the changes around FRS17, and the creation of a Shared Service Centre.

Present at the meeting to provide evidence and to respond to Members’ queries and comments were:-

-  Councillor J L Carter.

-  Councillor P Gruen, Executive Member (Neighbourhoods and Housing).

-  Neil Evans, Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods.

-  John Statham, Strategic Landlord Manager, Environment and Neighbourhoods.

-  Richard Ellis, Head of Finance, Environment and Neighbourhoods.

-  Doug Meeson, Chief Officer, Financial Management.

In brief summary, the main concerns raised by Councillor J L Carter were:-

·  that the proposed arrangements in respect of the Council assuming FRS17 pension liability in respect of the ALMOs exposed the Council to, in his opinion, a substantial future risk and liability at a time when the future of Council housing in general, and the ALMO model in particular, was subject to review and speculation;

·  concerns regarding why the ALMO cash balances were proposed to be returned to the Council and, if this was regarded as necessary, why they were ring-fenced to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and not being returned to the General Rate Fund;

·  concerns about the present lack of clarity regarding the composition of the proposed Strategic Governance Board and the possibility that such a proposal would concentrate too much power in the hands of very few Members and officers, calling into question the need for the continued existence of the ALMOs;

·  concerns regarding the proposed creation of a joint ALMO Shared Services Centre, and a possible lack of responsiveness to local issues and needs.

In response, in brief summary, Councillor P Gruen and the officers made the following comments:-

·  That the decision in respect of the Council assuming FRS17 pension liabilities in respect of ALMO staff was in accordance with a previous decision taken by the Executive Board in November 2000 with regard to providing guarantees for pension admission arrangements.  It was also consistent with similar decisions previously taken in respect of Education Leeds, the Leeds Grand Theatre and the Craft and Design Centre, and also in line with similar decisions taken by other local authorities.  It was, in practice, a default guarantee and there was no reason to suspect that the ALMOs were in danger of defaulting on their obligations, especially given the nature and closeness of their relationship with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

In accordance with Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules, to consider the Board’s formal conclusions and recommendation(s) arising from the consideration of the called-in decision.

RESOLVED –

a)  That the called-in decision be released for implementation.

b)  That a Working Group be established to work with the officers and the Executive Member (Neighbourhoods and Housing) in defining the proposals contained in the above decision, prior to a further report back to the Executive Board in March 2011.