Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

None.

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act 2011, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), some other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting. If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they must urgently complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required in general to disclose any relevant DPIs, ORIs or NRIs at the meeting –

•         Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the room unless granted a dispensation.

•         Where the matter directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.

•         Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to or affects their or a relevant person’s financial interest or wellbeing, whether they can participate in any discussion or vote on the matter or stay in the room depends on the detailed rules in paragraphs 7 of Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure of interests orally at the meeting and they will also be recorded in the minutes.

Cllr King stated he had a non-registrable interest in relation to one of the issues arising under Item 9 of Part B of the Agenda and would be leaving the room whilst that issue is discussed and voted upon.

The Part A minutes of the meeting held on 21^st November 2024 were moved and agreed as an accurate record.

The Part B minutes of the meeting held on 21^st November were also moved and agreed under this item as an accurate record, due to the brevity of their content.

Gillian Bevan, Head of Human Resources - Business Partnering, introduced the report. The decision for consideration was now the responsibility of ADC i.e., the functions of considering and recommending a pay policy statement to Council. The proposed changes reflected the new decision-making requirements within the Constitution.

Paragraph 4.1 stated that the Committee was responsible for all staffing matters, and that Appendix 2 showed the track changes to the market supplement policy and procedures that related to the Committee’s delegated decision to the Chief Executive (CE) regarding the levels of market supplement and introduced a special occupational scarcity allowance.

The amendment removed a cap on market supplements, with Gillian noting that benchmarking via London Councils had shown that Croydon was the only Council with an arbitrary cap (set at 20% of salary) on market supplements - with 16 Councils having confirmed that they had no cap and set supplements based on the competitive market rate.

It was explained that market supplements recommending 20% or more would need agreement by the Chief People Officer in consultation and agreement with the Corporate Management Team. It was noted that Market Supplements and Special Occupational Scarcity Allowances at Director and Corporate Director level would still be considered for agreement at ADC.

The default period between supplement reviews would increase from 12 months to 2 years (and could be agreed further to 3 years if objectively justified), but business cases would be more robust and including equalities impact assessments.

Cllr Cummings questioned why the pay bandings are not simply revised to reflect the market - rather than the Council constantly using supplements and allowances. The Council would ideally just go to market at the right salary to attract the desired quality of candidate – importantly without creating uncertainty in the contractual pay.

Gillian Bevan, said the Council’s Job Evaluation scheme didn’t have the flexibility, and a future project would involve reviewing the scheme and the Council’s pay structure, with the aim to reduce the reliance on supplements and allowances.

Cllr Cummings raised the risk of removing the cap and asked what would stop high rates being agreed. Gillian stated any increase above 20% would be going to CMT and require collective approval (agreement by the Chief People Office in Consultation with CMT). Supplements and allowances related to Director and Corp Director posts would still go to ADC for approval.

Cllr King raised that the Pay Policy to Full Council was usually presented as part of Budget Council. Gillian considered it was timely to proceed to Full Council now to provide more flexibility in recruitment and retention, acknowledging it should have been considered earlier, but was being brought now due to pending organisational changes in the New Year which may require the revised and new provision.

In response to further questions from Cllr King and Cllr Young, Katherine Kerswell, Chief Executive, further explained that a decision was required partly due to organisational efficiency (fewer reviews) but that also the Council was looking to start and progress restructures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76/24

Katherine Kerswell, Chief Executive, introduced the item and explained it was the culmination of actions and decisions taken by Officers and Members that led to the situation the Council experienced in Autumn 2020 – the governance failures and loss of public money. A subsequent series of reports in the public interest (RIPIs), a non-statutory rapid review, an independent report the Council commissioned from PriceWaterHouse into the Brick by Brick company, had all led to the commissioning of the ‘Penn Report’. One of the Terms of Reference in the Penn Report was that if any recommendations needed to be progressed in formal proceedings, that would follow. This report related to the outcome of one such recommendations and action.

Overseen by ADC the Council had gone through very formal processes and managed the risk and processes carefully. The Council has gone through disciplinary processes, an external tribunal process, and also considered various detailed reports to find out what truly happened. The approach also ensured the process was being conducted in the most efficient and effective way possible. The work had been progressed as part of the Croydon Renewal Programme and the Executive Mayor’s Business Plan.

It was noted that ADC had previously received a report on accountability in the public sector, most particularly in local government, and challenges of holding officers and elected members to account for their decisions. The report had conveyed the apparent absence of an accountability framework in local government – which previously existed including a Surcharge Scheme and the Audit Commission.

It was further detailed that an option left to the ADC had been to pursue the offence of misconduct in public office and make a referral of the evidence to the Police. It was acknowledged that it was very difficult to secure a successful prosecution – due to the ‘very high bar’ of evidence required. The Committee’s decisions were however considered reasonable due to the matter having considerable public interest.

It was explained that upon receiving the referral, the Met Police considered if alternative offences - such as false accounting or fraud - could be considered in addition to the offence of misconduct in public office (as an offence of misconduct in public office was challenging to prosecute).

The Special Enquiry Team then focused on the offence of misconduct in public office – undertaking a review of provided reports and evidence, meetings with Council officers and making further requests for information. The Met Special Enquiries team also reviewed the case with the Crown Prosecution Service.

A letter received by the Council, which was an appendix to the report, stated that the Met Police had determined that they would take no further action at this stage

Officers explained that the nature of the decision for the committee was to receive the outcome of this inquiry by the Metropolitan Police, reflect upon the work of ADC and the Council over the past four years in regard to a very serious set of circumstances and a very significant amount of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77/24

The Chair stated the background to the item was largely similar to the previous item and the substance of the update on the recovery of the settlement payment to the former Chief Executive and assessment of legal issues was contained in the Part B report.

Katherine suggested that the approach for the Committee’s consideration of the item was to note the Part A update report and then consider the legal position and next steps under Part B.  

The Committee resolved to Agree the following recommendation: - 

To Consider the update and assessment of the legal position and comment on the next steps in Part B of the meeting.

The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting or a particular item:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs 1 (information relating to any individual) and 5 (information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) as indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

The Chair moved the motion as stated on the agenda, which was seconded and agreed by the Committee:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs 1 (information relating to any individual) and 5 (information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) as indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

IMPORTANT: The Chair stated that the outcomes of the Part B discussions for item 9 and 10 would be announced at the end of the meeting in Part A when the live broadcast of the meeting would resume.

The agreed recommendations were read out by the Chair when the Committee returned to PART A and resumed the live broadcast:

To approve the Part B Minutes of the Committee, 21^st November 2024.

Agreed – as part of Item 3, as detailed.

Considered Under Part B

Note: the below recommendations were read out by the Chair when the Committee resumed in Part A.

The Committee resolved to Agree the following amended recommendations to those in the report:- 

2.1.1 Authorise the Chief Executive to write to the Metropolitan Police expressing the Council’s disappointment with the outcome, as well as the disappointment that residents of Croydon who continue to suffer the consequences of the financial mismanagement and governance failures of the past will feel, and comment generally on the inadequacies of the criminal law to hold to account elected officials and officers  responsible for what happened at Croydon. The Chief Executive is also authorised to extend the Council’s gratitude to the Police for the thorough assessment conducted.

2.1.2 Agree that no further legal action be taken in light of the outcome of the Metropolitan Police referral for the reasons set out in the report.

2.1.3 Agree to publish the Kroll report on the 10^th December 2024 because there is an overriding public interest imperative in the interests of transparency, improved public understanding and accountability to publish to do so (as detailed in Exempt Appendix 2).

Considered Under Part B

Note: the below recommendations were read out by the Chair when the Committee resumed in Part A.

The Committee resolved to Agree to:- 

2.1 Take no further legal action in regard to the settlement payment to the former chief executive, notwithstanding the public interest in holding the former chief executive to account for her actions and inactions, because it is not cost effective to do so and would not achieve a best value outcome in all the circumstances including the costs, complexities and litigation risks as detailed in the report.