At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 27th March 2012 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Hounslow Civic Centre,

Lampton Road, Hounslow Present: The Mayor, Councillor Amrit Mann (in the Chair) The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Ajmer Grewal Councillors: Mindu Bains, Alan Barber, Felicity Barwood, Lily Bath, Rajinder Bath,

Colin Botterill, Mark Bowen, Tom Bruce, Ruth Cadbury, John Chatt, Melvin Collins, John Cooper, Steve Curran, Linda Davies, Samantha Davies, Theo Dennison, Ajmer Dhillon, Gopal Dhillon, Poonam Dhillon, Colin Ellar, Jason Ellar, Brad Fisher, Pamela Fisher, Darshan Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Sachin Gupta, Matthew Harmer, Barbara Harris, Sam Hearn, David Hughes, Elizabeth Hughes, Gillian Hutchison, Paul Jabbal, Kamaljit Kaur, Gurmail Lal, Paul Lynch, Liz Mammatt, Ed Mayne, Gerald McGregor, Andrew Morgan-Watts, Shantanu Rajawat, Sheila O'Reilly, Robert Oulds, Barbara Reid, Sue Sampson, Sohan Sangha, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Balvir Sond, Rebecca Stewart, Peter Thompson, John Todd, Beverley Williams and Allan Wilson

1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Carey, Mohinder Gill, Adrian Lee and Peta Vaught. Apologies for late arrival were received from Councillors Colin Botterill and Shantanu Rajawat. There were no other apologies. There were no declarations of interest. 2. Announcements Councillor Steve Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and Housing, announced his pleasure at the news that in the last year, there had been a 62% increase in the number of young apprentices employed in Hounslow. This had resulted in the Borough reaching a similar level to its neighbouring authorities and showed a marked increase. He noted that the Council itself was a significant employer of young apprentices and he commended this situation to Members. With the agreement of the Mayor, Councillor Mark Bowen announced that Councillor Brad Fisher had recently saved the life of an elderly resident who had suffered a heart attack by administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) following the advice given on a recent

series of television advertisements. Councillor Bowen described Councillor Fisher as a “local hero”. Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause. Councillor Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader of the Council, advised Members that there had recently been some news stories suggesting that there were to be new proposals to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport and that BAA (British Airports Authority Ltd) were trying to pressure the three main political parties into reversing their current opposition to this. She stressed the unanimous Council position that the Borough wished to see a successful and better airport but not one which was bigger. She noted that the lives of residents were already blighted by the noise of aircraft and that any increase in air traffic was unacceptable. She also pointed out that alternative airports could be used more effectively, as many other airports in the South East of the country were operating at less than 40% of their capacity. She expressed her wish for the continuation of local cross party support in opposition to any proposals to increase air traffic at Heathrow Airport. Councillor Lily Bath, Cabinet Member for Children Youth and Families, expressed her pleasure that two young care leavers in Hounslow, named Zara and Rebecca, had been selected from over 600 young people to take part in a visit to South America as part of the “Journey of a Lifetime” initiative, organised by a charity supporting disadvantaged children. The trip would not be a simple “sight seeing” holiday but was designed to help visitors experience life in other countries as well as learn new skills and develop their confidence. She then introduced Zara, who was in attendance at the meeting, and explained that having completed her A level exams in June of 2011, she now wished to become a nurse in the army. However, Councillor Bath advised that she still needed to raise £650 to help finance the trip. She concluded by wishing both Zara and Rebecca well. Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause. Councillor Andrew Morgan-Watts asked Councillor Lily Bath to invite both Zara and Rebecca to return to the Council after their trips to tell Members of their experiences. The Mayor advised that he intended to consider the items on the agenda in the following order: items 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and then all remaining items in order. Members concurred with the proposal. The Mayor then noted that Members had sent Councillor Peta Vaught their best wishes at the last meeting, following her prolonged period of ill health. However, he advised that Councillor Vaught was sadly not yet well enough to resume her Council duties, and that the six months period since her last attendance at a formal meeting of the Authority (the point at which she would no longer be a Councillor unless the Council agreed to extend) would expire before the next ordinary meeting of the Council which was scheduled for June. The outlook for Councillor Vaught was positive, and it was hoped that she would be able to pick up her Council responsibilities before that meeting. However, in case this proved not to be possible, he asked the Council to agree that it extend the expiry period by another six months, which would take it to November 2012. The Council agreed to this proposal. The Mayor then wished everyone a happy Baisakhi, which was the Sikh New Year Festival which was scheduled to fall on 13th April 2012.

The Mayor then drew attention to a document which he had personally authorised be circulated to Members of the Council highlighting the imminent execution in India of Mr Balwant Singh Rajoana which was scheduled for 31st March 2012. The Mayor advised that Mr Singh had been involved in the assassination of the Punjab state's Chief Minister, Mr Beant Singh in 1995. If carried out, the execution would be the first in India since 2004. The Mayor advised that he was wearing a turban at the meeting to show his opposition to the use of capital punishment in general and to show solidarity with the people of the Punjab, most of whom opposed the execution.

The Mayor then expressed his dissatisfaction with the way that the death of Mr Trayvon Martin, a seventeen year old Black resident of Miami in the United States of America, who had been recently shot dead by a man who, at the time of the meeting, was yet to be arrested or charged for the death. He advised that he had written to the Speaker of the American House of Representatives and to the Governor of Florida seeking an enquiry with a view to ensuring that those responsible faced the appropriate legal sanctions.

The Mayor then concluded by noting that this was to be the last full meeting of the Council at which he would be Mayor and then inviting all Members to a reception after its conclusion.

There were no more announcements.

3. Minutes Members noted the proposed amendment to the minutes which was included in the tabled paper which had been circulated to those present. In addition, Councillor Gillian Hutchison asked that she be recorded as having abstained on the vote on the fourth bullet point in the resolution for agenda item 5, Housing Revenue Account Budget 2012/13, 3 Year Housing Capital Programme 2012/13-2013/14 (page 4 of the minutes) and Councillor Mark Bowen asked that the resolutions on agenda item 6, 2012/13 Council Budget Report, be described as a majority decision. Councillor Paul Lynch commented on bullet point four on page 7 of the minutes relating to agenda item 6, 2012/13 Council Budget Report; he remarked that the Specialist Service Team in the Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning Department had been working with other Boroughs very successfully on procurement of places and had made great savings in doing so. He therefore encouraged the Cabinet to use this as a model to achieve savings elsewhere in the Council. Councillor Gurmail Lal, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, undertook to respond to Councillor Liz Mammatt with clarification of the status of community halls, further to her question at the last Council meeting detailed on page 11 of the minutes. ACTION BY: Councillor Gurmail Lal It was then RESOLVED –

That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 27th March 2012, having been confirmed as a correct record, be signed by the Mayor, subject to the amendments detailed below:

• Page 2: “being to” to be amended to “being able to”

• Page 4: The paragraph reading "Councillor Mark Bowen noted that the Council appointed five Councillors to the board of Hounslow Homes of which two were Conservative Members. He therefore advised that the Conservative Group would be supporting the recommendations as it recognised the difficulties being faced both by the Council and the company. However, he confirmed that he shared the concerns detailed by Councillor McGregor about reductions in standards and the likely long term problems of the proposals which he considered needed to be addressed in an active way." to be replaced by "Councillor Mark Bowen noted that the Council appointed five Councillors to the board of Hounslow Homes of whom two were Conservative Members. He therefore advised, whilst the obligations his two colleagues had to the Board were acknowledged, that the Conservative Group would be supporting the recommendations as it recognised the difficulties being faced both by the Council and the company. However, he did express concerns about the current relationship between the Council and Hounslow Homes."

• Page 4: “forecasted” to be amended to “forecast” and Councillor Gillian Hutchison to be recorded as having abstained on the vote on the fourth bullet point in the resolution for agenda item 5, Housing Revenue Account Budget 2012/13, 3 Year Housing Capital Programme 2012/13-2013/14

• Page 5: The word “and” to be included after “Conservative Group”

• Page 6: “on top the” to be amended to read “on top of the” and the third bullet point to be amended to commence “the savings package was to be commended…”

• Page 8: The paragraph reading "The Mayor allowed Councillor Mark Bowen a point of clarification; Councillor Bowen advised that the proposal to reduce the Council Tax made by the Labour Group when in opposition was to have been funded not by spending money from the reserves but by a reduction in the proposed growth proposals and so Councillor Mayne’s suggestion of hypocrisy was ill founded." to be amended to read "Councillor Mayne accepted a further intervention from Councillor Bowen; Councillor Bowen asked Councillor Mayne whether he accepted that the proposal to reduce the Council Tax made by the Labour Group when in opposition was to have been funded not by spending money from the reserves but by a reduction in the proposed growth proposals without specifying which growth item should be removed?"

• Pages 13-14: The resolutions on agenda item 6, 2012/13 Council Budget Report, be described as a majority decision.

TO NOTE: All 4. Petitions The Mayor drew attention to the tabled report on petitions detailing those which had recently been received by the Council. He noted that there were no new petitions to be presented to him, nor any for consideration by the full Council.

It was then RESOLVED – That the petitions that had been forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority for consideration be noted. 5. Progress Report On Council Pledges Members considered a report Councillor Jagdish Sharma, Leader of the Council, who proposed the report and made the following comments:

• The pledges had been adopted after the municipal elections in May 2010 and reflected the Administration’s priorities for improving the Borough.

• The report detailed the progress made so far and showed that good work had been done in achieving them, but in many areas there was still much to be done.

• He reminded that the economic circumstances facing the Council were very challenging and that the budget had to be reduced by another £25 million before the end of the Council term.

Councillor Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader, seconded the recommendations. The Mayor then invited debate on the report and the following comments were made:

• Councillor Mark Bowen stated that neither he nor residents liked broken promises such as those illustrated in the report. He considered that the original wording of Pledge One suggested that 100 police officers were to be placed in each of the five areas of the Council but that subsequent changes to the wording had altered the meaning to 100 uniformed Council officers being introduced across the Borough, a much less impressive prospect than 500 new police officers across Hounslow. He also considered that a 24 hour telephone voicemail service could not genuinely be described as providing a “Grimebusters 24 hour response”, which was Pledge Four. He questioned the reference to “slight reductions” in littering on page 30 of the report as it gave no details of what the reductions were being compared against and he was certain it was not the legacy of the last Administration. The report made no reference to the pledge to reduce Council Tax and his standing criticisms of the lack of development of shared services with other organisations remained unanswered. He also deplored the lack of advances made by the fourth workstream (page 31 of the report) looking at innovation through technology which had delivered little as ICT improved and so left the Council going backwards relative to others: this was illustrated by a recent edition of Hounslow Matters magazine which included a list of “useful Council telephone numbers” instead of contact email addresses and so would lead to an increase in exchanges between residents and officers that lead to no outcome.

• Councillor Ed Mayne stated that Pledge One related to crime reduction and criticised the Government for its recent budget which adversely affected pensioners and for its seeming change of view on the development of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. He noted too that despite cuts from the Home Office in relation to the Community Safety Partnership budget, the report illustrated the many successes achieved by cross

agency work carried out by the Partnership. In addition, the Council was giving community safety training to officers who would also report suspicious matters. He was proud of the additional special police constables brought to the Borough by the Council, and supported by the Mayor of London who had helped to fund it, which showed London Wide cross party support for the initiative, and he called on the Conservative Group also to support the work done in this area. The Administration wished to see improved visibility of special police constables. He also commended the improvements in cross departmental and cross agency working that had been introduced since 2010 with weekly meetings taking place to support information exchange and assistance.

• Councillor Liz Mammatt welcomed the increase in police officers including the ten additional police officers detailed on page 25 of the agenda papers, but noted that this was not what had been promised, and was due to match funding arrangements created in 1996 under the last Conservative Government. On Pledge Two, relating to increasing school places, she regretted attempts by the last Labour Administration to try to close primary schools in the west of the Borough as lacking foresight, given the current need for increases. She concluded by noting that 136 affordable homes had been completed during nine months leaving the annual total of 366 short by 250 and she asked for reassurance that the target would be met. She also asked to be provided with a breakdown on how the figures were derived.

• Councillor Steve Curran thanked Judith Pettersen, the Director of Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning, and her colleagues for ensuring there were sufficient school places for the Borough. He observed that the recent cap on housing benefits introduced by the Government was likely to force poorer residents from central London to outer Boroughs such as Hounslow and so increase pressure on services including driving up demand for school places. He concluded by undertaking to respond to Councillor Mammatt’s request for information.

ACTION BY: Councillor Steve Curran/Director of Community Services

• Councillor Paul Lynch responded to Councillor Mayne’s call for the Conservative Group to support the recommendations by observing that the report was a “triumph of presentation over reality” which attempted to hide failures in meeting the pledges. He confirmed that Conservative Councillors would be voting against it not because they did not want increased police numbers or an improved cleaning service but because they did and he did not think it possible to congratulate the Administration on meeting the pledges because they had not done so.

• Councillor Gillian Hutchison noted that of the sixty Hounslow Homes officers detailed on page 25 of the agenda papers, only the wardens worked after 6.00pm and they had been in place prior to the municipal election in May 2010. She also questioned why Councillor Curran had stated on a website that he thought the 250 affordable homes would be bad to purchase.

• Councillor Colin Ellar clarified the situation in relation to Councillor Mammatt’s comments about schools in the west of the Borough and noted that at the time of the last Labour Administration, there were in excess of 900 spare school places: these had to be paid for, and school head teachers objected to being under capacity as it meant reduced funding for them. Consequently, the Council had a financial duty to consider reducing the number of places: however, following consultation on the issue, there had

been strong public reluctance and so the proposals had not been pursued, except in those localities that supported the idea. He observed that much of the increased demand for places now had stemmed from immigration following the expansion of the European Community and so could not easily have been foreseen. He also observed that the Conservative/Independent Administration of 2006-10 had not dealt with the issue of expanding school places properly.

• Councillor Brad Fisher noted that the late Alan Keen MP had criticised the Council for failing to clean streets properly under the last Administration, and then commented that the current situation was no better, and public discontent on this had been illustrated by the stream of complaints to the local newspaper, which had culminated in a campaign for residents to clean streets themselves. He considered this an indictment of the current Administration which was failing on basic services.

• Councillor Ruth Cadbury reminded Members of the immense challenge created by the pledges including the creation of 1000 new local homes which would become increasing hard to achieve as time progressed due to significant Government cuts to the capital allocations for this project. This in turn reduced the number of jobs in construction and this fed into the overall economically bleak outlook for the future. The Council also had the smallest economic development team in London, but the officers, who were dedicated to helping created opportunities for employment within the Borough, had achieved great results and she applauded their efforts as “magnificent”. Some of the successes had been winning financial bids from the European Social Fund and the London Mayor’s Outer London Fund to create work, as well as 84 new jobs being created as part of the Hounslow Town Centre developments.

• Councillor Corinna Smart noted that in May 2010, there was an evident problem with litter on Hounslow Streets and a survey had rated the Council as the worst in the country for this service. The new Administration had then prevented cuts to the Street Cleansing Team and the new 24 hours Grimebusters service had been implemented. There was still a great deal to do to make further improvements, and this was made harder by the context of four years of economic cuts in Borough funding but the Council was moving in the correct direction.

• Councillor Peter Thompson observed that it was easy for Councillors to forget the history of the past, however, there had been significant joint working with the police under the last Administration with the Community Safety Team and police officers regularly attending the Civic Centre and the Council increasing funding in this area from £39000 to £250000, one of the benefits of the then Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) savings. He noted too that the Council had been advised by the then Borough Commander not to pay for any more additional police officers as they could be deployed to problems outside the Borough, and so instead there had been an increase in Community Safety Co-ordinators, with one for each of the twenty wards of the Borough. He stated that he had so far not seen any newly uniformed Hounslow Homes officers, or street cleaners, nor the pocket sized information guide, detailed on page 26 of the agenda papers, and assumed that therefore neither had most residents. Whereas the increased Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) introduced by the last Administration, and paid for by PIP savings, was still working well to protect residents. He also clarified that the last Administration had worked with the last Labour Government on providing new primary school places, and had been irritated when the promised Government funding to support the process had not been forthcoming. Nor had the last Administration cut street cleansing - and the anti-graffiti team had been

doubled in size. He acknowledged that there were some good things being done and the report illustrated this; however, there was still a lot more that could be done, and some things which were failing as illustrated by the number of public complaints about litter. Nor was it appropriate to suggest that the last Administration was not attempting to improve things in these areas as well, and he regretted suggestions to the contrary being propagated by some Members.

• Councillor Theo Dennison clarified that the Labour Group were not stating that the last Administration had done nothing, but that it had not done enough to help residents in the areas highlighted in the pledges. The national survey on litter which identified Hounslow as the worst for dealing with it was evidence of this. Nor did criticism from Councillor Bowen on encouraging telephone use stand up to scrutiny when compared to the lack of ways of reporting litter in the past. He then went on to confirm that the pledge to cut Council tax would be honoured when it could be afforded and this illustrated the current Administration’s serious approach to the management of the Council over the long term.

At this point, Councillor Ed Mayne asked to make a point of personal clarification in accordance with paragraph 12.14 of the constitution. The Mayor declined the request. There being no more debate, the Mayor invited Councillor Sharma to sum up the debate. Councillor Sharma agreed to do this but first stated that he disagreed with the Mayor’s ruling on Councillor Mayne’s request. He then commenced summing up, but the Mayor instructed him briefly to sit. The Mayor clarified that he was unhappy with Councillor Sharma’s comment on his ruling and clarified that, as Mayor, it was his decision on how to rule on requests under the constitution. He then again invited Councillor Sharma to sum up the debate on the report. Councillor Sharma summed up and made the following comments:

• He regretted that the Conservative Group was not prepared to accept the progress of the last two years despite the facts in the report.

• He commended his Cabinet colleagues for their hard work in making the progress towards meeting the pledges.

• The public were telling the Council that things were improving.

• He considered that Councillor Bowen had misunderstood the pledge on uniformed officers, and that in addition, Members from across the Council should congratulate Councillor Steve Curran, as Cabinet Member for Education and Housing, for the excellent exam results achieved by pupils in Hounslow schools, which was just one example of the successful work being done to meet the pledges to make life better for all residents.

• He accepted that there was more to do, including working with partners, but that overall the progress was good and he commended the report to the Council.

The Mayor then put the recommendations to the vote and it was RESOLVED –

• That the Council re-affirm its support for the five pledges;

• That the progress achieved to date be noted; and

• That the Cabinet be invited to bring forward further proposals to implement the pledges.

ACTION BY: Cabinet Members/Chief Officers This was a majority decision. The Mayor then formally advised all Members of the Council that according to the Constitution, the final decision on requests for rulings on the Constitution, lay with the Mayor and even if Members did not like the decision, they were obliged to accept it. He confirmed that if the Mayor instructed a Member to sit down for any reason, he expected acquiescence with the demand. He concluded by stating that he did not wish to see any recurrence of the incident which had recently taken place. 6. Business Plan 2012/2013 The Mayor clarified that pages 35-39 of the agenda papers were a duplication and so should be disregarded as pages 40-46 superseded them. Members then considered a report Councillor Jagdish Sharma, Leader of the Council who proposed the report and made the following comments:

• At its meeting on 29th November 2011, the Council had approved the Corporate Plan for 2011/12-2014/1 which presented the Council’s pledges and priorities with each of the Council themes, along with the medium term progress measures and targets.

• The proposed Business Plan for 2012/13 was a supporting document for the Corporate Plan, and showed how the medium term targets against each theme and pledge in the Corporate Plan were to be tackled in the short term, through specific targets and milestones for the year ahead.

• The report also contained the 2012/13 Service and Financial Planning timetable.

• Overall the documents supported the Council’s strategies and reflected work both alone and in partnership to meet this

Councillor Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader, seconded the recommendations. The Mayor then invited debate on the report and the following comments were made:

• Councillor Mark Bowen advised that as there was significant overlap with the last report, the Conservative Group would be voting against the recommendations. He welcomed the information on page 46 of the report but regretted that there was much more it could have included and the lack of tangible targets. He then reiterated the savings to the Council of encouraging a shift in the channels of communication away from face to face meetings or telephone usage to email channels and e-forms which reduced costs and increased efficiency; he hoped that this was a way forward that could be developed with consensus from across the Council. He acknowledged that not all residents had access to online facilities, but the moves he proposed also freed up remaining alternatives from everyday use and so became easier for those residents who still relied upon them.

• Councillor Liz Mammatt referred to item BPM30 (page 41) and the need for additional school places, and asked why the report made no mention of working with and encouraging new free schools as a way of resolving the problem. She also noted that despite targets for increasing employment opportunities in Hounslow, the local Chamber of Commerce had made a plea for more contracts to be given to local businesses. On BPI76 (page 45), she noted that the target for social care budgets being provided to adult residents with social care needs was 53% and asked if the target was realistic given that only 43% had been achieved by the third quarter of the year.

• Councillor Steve Curran confirmed that the Council was looking to work with any free schools in the Borough and that he, in his capacity as the relevant Cabinet Member, had already met the new free school in Hounslow twice. However, the Borough had a surplus of secondary school places but too few primary school ones, hence the need for “bulge classes” as a short term solution. He confirmed that he had also met with the head teachers of local academies which showed that the Council was happy to work with all providers of education for the benefit of residents.

• Councillor Barbara Reid clarified that, whilst the Conservatives would be voting against the report in general, there were areas of support - and the proposal on page 37 relating to Heathrow Airport was one such area. She clarified also that further to the announcement made by Councillor Cadbury during item two of the agenda, Announcement, on the new moves to expand Heathrow Airport, there would continue to be cross party unanimity on opposition to such proposals. She observed that Councllor Mayne had seemingly tried to drive a wedge between the two parties on this matter during the debate on the previous item but that despite this, the Conservatives intended to continue to work with Labour colleagues on this matter, and clarified that both the Borough MPs had issued press releases confirming their opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Mary Macleod MP had also raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Transport, who had confirmed the Government’s position that there would be no third runway during the life of this Parliament.

• Councillor Gurmail Lal commended the report and applauded its avoidance of burdening it with trivial or detailed indicators allowing it to be compact and precise. He supported the business plan as a yearly update on progress to meeting the longer term aims detailed in the corporate plan. He also clarified a point raised by Councillor Mammatt on social care needs that the key aim was to keep older people out of care and indicators BPI74 (a) and (b) reflected this.

Councillor Lal accepted an intervention from Councillor John Todd who asked why the target of providing adult residents with social care needs with a personal budget was only 60%. In response, Councillor Lal stated that this was a challenging target and led by the Council’s drive to allow choice for those who wished to stay independent. Given the context of significant budgetary cuts, this was an impressive target.

• Councillor Gerald McGregor raised a matter of concern on the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) on the highways (BPM58, page 43). A similar selling of assets to the company, Mapeley, which purchased the property portfolios of the department of Inland Revenue, HM Customs & Excise and Valuation Office Agency (since merged into HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)) had resulted problems for HMRC when Mapeley moved to Bermuda to pay reduced Corporation Tax. He was therefore

concerned that the Council had no control to avoid a similar situation occurring on the Highways PFI and the benefit being given to companies over which the Council had no sway.

Councillor McGregor accepted an intervention from Councillor Lal who asked if he had confidence in the statement by Mr George Osborne, MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he intended to crack down on tax avoidance. In response, Councillor McGregor advised that he did. However, it was important to ensure that the correct people got the benefit from PFI arrangements and he noted that no French company had engaged with a British construction company on a similar agreement since 1996.

• Councillor Ruth Cadbury questioned the relevance of Councillor McGregor’s comment as the Council had carried out due diligence when selecting the winning contractor for its PFI arrangements. She then expressed her agreement with the point raised by Councillor Mammatt about trying to increase the use of local companies and was pleased to state that the new Head of Procurement had been formerly employed by the police who were public sector leaders in using local companies for the provision of services which gave him significant experience. She concluded by regretting the Government’s cuts in support for helping overcome drugs and alcohol dependency but stated that the Council was doing what it could to fill the shortfall of funding in this area which had resulted.

There being no more comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Sharma to sum up the debate. Councillor Sharma did so and thanked Members and officers for their work in developing the business plan, before commending it to the Council. It was then RESOLVED – That the content of the Business Plan 2012/13 be noted and endorsed. This was a majority decision. 7. Street Trading Review - Hounslow Town Centre (ENV160) Members considered a report by Councillor Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader, who introduced the item and made the following comments:

• The item had been discussed and supported by the Cabinet but as street trading was a Council function, it was being presented to Members for agreement at the Council meeting.

• The Mayor’s Outer London Fund was helpful in supporting the Council’s development and improvement of its leading town centre, in Hounslow.

• The report proposed a designated market which would help co-ordinate stalls.

• There were several updates since the report had been written which were as follows: o (paragraph 2.1 of the report refers) The Cabinet had adopted the new Hounslow

Town Centre Master Pan on 7th February 2012.

o (paragraph 2.5 of the report refers) The Cabinet had agreed to the publication of a draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Town Centre on 7th February and public consultation on this document was currently under way

o (paragraph 5.3 of the report refers) The preferred bidder for the Highway Maintenance PFI had been selected by the Cabinet on 6th March 2012 and was Vinci Ringway.

Councillor Gurmail Lal then seconded the recommendations. The Mayor then invited debate on the report and the following comments were made:

• Councillor Brad Fisher confirmed that the Conservative Group would be supporting the recommendations but he questioned the ability of the Council to enforce the proposals as there were no dedicated officers employed by the Council to carry out this function and so Trading Standards officers had been asked to do so on top of their usual duties.

• Councillor Samantha Davies expressed her support for the recommendations as it would help overcome the lack of co-ordination of street trading arrangements and visible “shop front sprawl” but she too had concerns over the effectiveness of enforcement of new regulations.

• Councillor Tom Bruce, Chair of the Licensing Committee, thanked Councillor Cadbury for bringing the report to Council and he endorsed it as a way of improving the current arrangements.

There being no more debate, the Mayor invited Councillor Cadbury to sum up. In so doing, she made the following comments:

• She thanked Councillors Fisher, Davies and Bruce for their support.

• She acknowledged that there were problems in enforcing the new regulations as well as preventing unlicensed trading but that a joined up holistic approach was being developed to resolve these problems based on the idea of community based officers identifying problems on the ground and specialist officers carrying out the appropriate enforcement.

The Mayor then put the recommendations to the vote and it was RESOLVED –

• That the workplan in respect of street trading in Hounslow High Street as outlined in Sections 3 and 4 be noted;

• That the suggested use for new high quality marquees that will be purchased with allocated Outer London Fund funding be agreed; and

• That following the work carried out by the Space Makers Agency, a recommendation be made to the Licensing Committee to review and strengthen the existing Street Trading Policy to aid the successful development of a designated market area in Hounslow High Street

ACTION BY: Director of Environment

8. Delegation To Chief Officer In Consultation With Lead Member Of Decision To Implement A Controlled Drinking Zone Following Consultation Members considered a report by Councillor Ed Mayne, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Regulatory Services It was proposed by Councillor Ed Mayne, seconded by Councillor Pritam Grewal and RESOLVED –

• That, subject to recommendations 1.2 and 1.3 below, Borough Council delegates all decision making in respect of the implementation of Controlled Drinking Zones (“CDZ”) in the Borough to the Area Committee for the area in which the proposed CDZ is to operate. If the proposed CDZ area straddles more than one Area Committee area, the Borough Council retains responsibility for the decision;

• That following the relevant Area Committee’s ‘in principle’ decision being made, statutory consultation taking place and provided no objections are raised, authority to make an Order implementing a CDZ at any location in the Borough be delegated to the Director of Community Services or such other Chief Officer who may subsequently hold responsibility for CDZs in the Borough;

• That, where objections are raised following the relevant Area Committee’s or Borough Council’s ‘in principle’ decision being made and statutory consultation taking place, the relevant Area Committee (or Borough Council in the case of a CDZ straddling more than one Area Committee area) will retain responsibility for determining whether or not to make an Order implementing the CDZ; and

• That, subject to the above being agreed, the Constitution (including the Scheme of Delegation in Part 12 of the Constitution) to be amended to reflect these various delegations.

ACTION BY: Director of Community Services/Assistant Director, Corporate Governance/Head of Democratic Services 9. Section 94 Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 Pleasure Boat and Boatman Licensing - Local Government Members considered a report by Councillor Tom Bruce, Chairman of the Licensing Committee, who introduced the item and made the following comments:

• The proposals had been unanimously agreed by the Licensing Committee

• He thanked both officers and Members for their work in developing the recommendations, and in particular, Councillor Elizabeth Hughes who had helped immensely with a detailed amendment when it was being discussed.

The report was seconded by Councillor Elizabeth Hughes who noted that the proposals arose from a health and safety matter, were cost neutral and affected only one site in the Borough. Following an invitation from the Mayor to discuss the report, Councillor Liz Mammatt confirmed that the Conservative Group would be supporting the proposals which had arisen

out of tragic circumstances, and it was hoped the new arrangements would help prevent this for the future. She was also grateful that Members’ input had been included in the recommendations. Councillor Bruce then summed up and thanked Councillor Mammatt for her comments and support. It was then RESOLVED – Members agreed the recommendations of the Licensing Committee to do the following:

• Revise the Council’s Constitution by incorporating the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 (“the Act”) into the list of statutes in the Annex to Part D of the Scheme of Delegation;

• Delegate the initial licensing of pleasure boats/vessels and pleasure boatmen as a function of the Licensing Committee and agree that for all subsequent licence renewals are to be delegated to the Director of Environment;

• Delegate decisions as to revocation or suspension of licences to Licensing Committee except in the case of urgency in which case the decision shall be made by the Director of Environment;

• Approve the terms and conditions for the licensing of pleasure boats/vessels and pleasure boatmen as set out in Appendix 1and delegate authority to Licensing Committee to make any changes or amendments to these terms and conditions as may from time to time be required;

• Set the period of licences as one year; and

• Agree the annual fees as set out in Appendix 2 for any licence granted under s.94 of the Act.

ACTION BY: Director of Environment 10. Pay Statement Members considered a report by Councillor Steve Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and Housing, who introduced the item and explained that the report was a requirement of the Localism Act 2011 and had been produced as a separate item in its own right for reasons of transparency. The report was seconded by Councillor Ed Mayne. Following an invitation from the Mayor to discuss the report, Councillor Mark Bowen advised that the Conservative Group welcomed and supported the report. He then recalled the words of Mortimer Duke, a character from the film “Trading Places”, who had commented on the pay levels of staff he employed. He concluded by welcoming successes in cross party working as illustrated by the findings of the Hutton Review on Fair Pay in the Public Sector. Councillor Curran declined the opportunity to sum up and so it was then

RESOLVED – That the pay statement, attached at appendix A of the report, be approved. ACTION BY: Chief Executive 11. Calendar of Formal Committee Dates 2012-2013 Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services. The report was proposed by Councillor Sharma and seconded by Councillor Cadbury. The Mayor then put the recommendations to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the schedule of formal committee and Council meeting dates for the municipal year 2012/13 as detailed in the appendix to the report be agreed. ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All 12. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies Members considered a report of the Head of Democratic Services There being no nominations, it was RESOLVED – That the report be noted. 13. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements Members considered a report of the Head of Democratic Services It was then RESOLVED – That the report be noted. Questions from Members

14. Councillor Shantanu Rajawat to ask Councillor Lily Bath, Cabinet Member for Children Youth and Families Councillor Shantanu Rajawat asked Councillor Lily Bath, Cabinet Member for Children Youth and Families, the following question: “Could the cabinet Member for children young people and families comment on recent information received about the reduction in youth justice grant?” In response, Councillor Bath stated that this was a grant provided by the Government to help stop reoffending by youths. She was disappointed that the Government had now reduced this grant by 22%, meaning that Boroughs would have to bid for it from the Mayor of London’s office in future. A quarter of the people in the criminal justice system were young people and so help to stop reoffending by this group was beneficial. She regretted that the cut in the grant coupled with the likely increase in crime resulting from higher levels of unemployment would result in an increasing failure to protect the public from harm over time. She concluded by saying that London Councils were lobbying to see the cuts reversed. Councillor Rajawat declined the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. 15. Councillor Brad Fisher to ask Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Environment Councillor Brad Fisher asked Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Environment, the following question: “Indicator NI 195 (BPI 51 (a),(b) & (D)) has recently highlighted that Hounslow is one of London's worst performing Boroughs when it comes to reducing the levels of litter, detritus and fly posting. Will the Lead Member state what has gone wrong in these areas over the past year and what does she intend to do improve matters over the next few months?” In response, Councillor Smart acknowledged that Borough performance in this area was below the London average but action was being taken, including legal action being pursued against a fly-poster which would act as a deterrent to others. On the matter of litter and its removal, some problems had been exacerbated by staff sickness in the Street Cleansing Team. However, she welcomed the campaign by the local newspaper as it helped educate people on the antisocial nature of littering. She confirmed she was taking the matter seriously, and had asked for an action plan for improvements in the public realm. Councillor Fisher then asked a supplementary question, noting that leaving chewing gum on pavements and spitting were of concern and asked if there was scope to issue on the spot fines for these actions. He also asked if the Council had plans to prosecute fly tippers as there had been 13000 incidents of it in 2010/11 but no court action. In response, Councillor Smart thanked Councillor Fisher for his helpful suggestions and undertook to take them forward for consideration as part of the wider approach being developed to resolve these problems.

16. Councillor John Todd to ask Councillor Steve Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and Housing Councillor John Todd asked Councillor Steve Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and Housing, the following question: “The Benchmark for turning around void properties is 30 days. In November 2011, it was actually 74 days. There was a loss of related rent, as at December, of £891,000. At The Housing and Environment Scrutiny Panel on the 16th January 2012, Cllr Curran, Lead Member for Housing, amongst other things, mentioned that to address this ongoing problem he had commissioned the Assistant Director Housing Strategy and Strategy and Services to produce 'an Action plan to improve performance by 31st January 2012. Please provide a copy of this plan and advise Members of the latest Void performance and the current total loss of related rental income for 2011/12?” In response, Councillor Curran thanked Councillor Todd for his input in this area and stated that he admired him for his effective working in scrutiny. He confirmed that he did have a copy of the plan and he was happy to provide Councillor Todd with a copy. ACTION BY: Councillor Steve Curran/Director of Community Services Councillor Curran continued that the timescale of 74 days in 2011 to bring a void property back to usage having reduced to 70 in 2012 was not good nearly enough. The matter had been raised with HFTRA (Hounslow Federation of Tenants and Residents Association), the public and with Councillors and, as a consequence, an action plan had been developed and was being implemented. The loss of related rental income for 2011/12 was £1.3 million, which included lost sheltered unit income, as the properties were not up to standard. He considered that this was not acceptable. Councillor Todd then asked a supplementary question. He noted that the voids data impacted unfairly on Hounslow Homes’ performance and he asked if it was necessary for both Hounslow Homes and the Council to be allocating properties. In response, Councillor Curran stated that the Council was reviewing the allocations policy but there was no easy solution to the problem; a report would be presented to the Cabinet to consider but he was of the view that a holistic approach was necessary and he hoped to work with colleagues from all parties to come to a solution that resolved the problem to the benefit of the Council and residents. 17. Councillor Mark Bowen to ask Councillor Jagdish Sharma, Leader of the Council Councillor Mark Bowen asked Councillor Jagdish Sharma, Leader of the Council the following question: “In March 2009, Councillor Peter Thompson (then Leader of Hounslow Council) and Councillor Barbara Reid (then Lead Member for the Environment) were criticised for attending MIPIM by the Hounslow Labour Group. At the time the Labour leader Councillor Sharma said:

“The Conservative Party nationally preach prudence and spending restraints – but at home it’s a completely different story. At a time when residents are tightening their belts, I am sure that there are better things to spend Council tax money on. Just the registration fee costs well over £1000 for each person there. Add flights, hotels and food and the cost will be horrendous.” The Labour Deputy Leader, Councillor Cadbury, attended this year. In view of what he said in 2009, could Councillor Sharma confirm that he approved of the same expenditure this year that he called horrendous in 2009?” In response, Councillor Sharma said that Councillor Cadbury had attended the MIPIM conference between 6th - 8th March to promote the Council’s town centre masterplan and to investigate other opportunities to regenerate the town centre and seek investment for other parts of the Borough. He considered that the criticism of the trip to MIPIM in 2009 was appropriate as there was no need to spend Council money when the Council had little appetite for regeneration in the Borough, whereas now there were clear benefits to the Council and its plans and so attending was justified. He noted that the previous Administration had cut the Economic Development Team in size so that it was the smallest in London, nor had it plans to utilise better Council buildings across the Borough, whereas the current Administration had aspirations for the Borough and it was appropriate to seek investment to support this. Councillor Mark Bowen then asked a supplementary question: He considered Councillor Sharma’s response to be “staggering hypocrisy” and asked if he would approve a similar request to attend the conference next year. In response, Councillor Sharma said he would think about it next year if there was such an request. There were no more Council questions. Motions 18. Proposed by Councillor Barbara Reid and Seconded by Councillor Mark Bowen The Mayor drew Members’ attention to the tabled document circulated to those present which detailed a proposed amendment to the motion. The Mayor then invited Councillor Reid to introduce the motion and in doing so, she stated that she was doing so on the comments she had made to introduce it at the last meeting when it had not been possible to complete discussion on the item due to lack of time. Her supporting comments were as follows:

• In 2008, Mr Ken Livingstone’s eight year term as Mayor of London concluded and with it the sustained period of above inflation travel fare increases and GLA precept rises.

• Mr Boris Johnson then won the Mayoralty and the resulting change had been of great benefit to London as a whole.

• He had frozen GLA precept for three years and then produced a cut for the 2012/13 financial year which was to be welcomed by all Londoners.

• There had been much needed investment in public transport particularly in the underground and Cross-Rail.

• Many trees had been planted in London’s streets and £4 million had been awarded to Hounslow as part of the Mayor’s Outer London Fund.

• He had also saved more trees by cancelling the daily Londoner free newspaper that had been introduced by his predecessor.

• The introduction of the “Boris Bikes” (the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme) had been a great benefit to residents.

• In addition, Mr Johnson had increased the number of special constables on the streets which had seen a reduction in crime statistics in the London area.

• By contrast, Mr Livingstone had now proposed a reduction in public transport fares but not identified how this would be paid for.

. Councillor Mark Bowen then seconded the motion. The Mayor then invited Councillor Jason Ellar to propose the amendment to the motion. In doing so, he made the following comments:

• The Conservatives had recently criticised the Labour Group for a motion which the former had described as “little more than an extended advertisement for a mayoral candidate” and it was his view that this charge could be levelled at the motion being discussed.

• There were only two political parties in the Council Chamber and no Members of the public still present, so it was unlikely that the motion would result in anyone changing their minds politically on who they might support at the Mayoral Election in May.

• He also acknowledged that the amendment would have a similar lack of effect on those present.

• However, it was his view that there was nothing contentious in the proposed amendment and that it was appropriate to thank all sources of funding, including the Mayor of London, for them.

• He commended the amendment as making the motion less politically partisan. The motion was seconded by Councillor Ed Mayne. The Mayor asked Councillor Reid if she would accept the proposed amendment. Councillor Reid confirmed that she did not want to do so, and so the Mayor invited debate on the proposed amendment, and the following comments were made:

• Councillor Barbara Reid commented that it was the overtly political Labour motion that had inspired her to produce the motion on the agenda at this meeting. She suggested that there was a lack of courage on behalf of Labour Members properly to debate the issues raised, and that they did not want people reminded how Mr Livingstone, when Mayor of London in the past, had increased the GLA precept element of the Council tax, increased fares for public transport above the rate of inflation despite promises not to do so, had overseen an increase in crime in London and developed an unhealthy relationship with the Government of Venezuela. By contrast, she considered that Mr Johnson had reduced the GLA precept, had invested in transport and trees, provided significant funding for outer London Boroughs including Hounslow, introduced the “Boris Bikes” bicycle hire scheme and increased special constables across the capital.

She concluded by stating that Mr Livingstone had not clarified how he would fund his proposed cut in transport fares.

• Councillor Ed Mayne observed that many of Mr Johnson’s successful policies had been initiated by Mr Livingstone such as the expansion of the Oyster Travelcard arrangements, and the development of the Housing Plan. He asked how Mr Johnson was going to fund the expansion of the Freedom Pass arrangements that were proposed. He declared the original motion to be irresponsible and that the facts contained within it were from Mr Johnson’s own website and so unverified. He argued that under Mr Johnson, there were fewer police officers on streets and the number of sergeants in safer neighbourhood teams had reduced by 150, with five fewer in Hounslow itself.

• Councillor Theo Dennison agreed with Councillor Mark Bowen’s earlier comment that politics worked most effectively when there was cross party consensus, but he observed this was not possible on the choice between Mssrs Livingstone and Johnson. He noted that the Conservative Group had rejected the priorities of the Council and the work on the pledges as they had not yet been met, and contrasted that to the as yet unfulfilled pledges made by Mr Johnson, such as personally taking responsibility for police in London, whereas he had appointed Mr Kit Malthouse to do so instead. He had similarly failed to reduce knife crime in the capital and had reduced the effectiveness of safer neighbourhood teams. He concluded by stating that residents had a clear choice between the two main candidates for the Mayor and the would make their own decision on whom to select.

• Councillor Sachin Gupta noted that whilst robberies were reducing in some parts of London they were increasing in Hounslow, and asked how the Mayor of London could justify that.

• Councillor Gerald McGregor suggested that Mr Livingstone was likely to lose the Mayoral election and that Mr Johnson would win because he had a proven track record on producing results in outer London Boroughs.

In accordance with the constitution, Councillor Jagdish Sharma proposed that the question be now put and this was widely supported. Councillor Reid very briefly summed up the debate on the proposed amendment, and it was RESOLVED – That the proposed amendment be agreed. This was a majority decision. The Mayor therefore clarified that the motion which originally read:

“Hounslow Council would like to recognise the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, for his outstanding work on behalf of local residents over the past 4 years. At a time when residents are going through one of the toughest times in recent memory, the Mayor's support of £4,826,249 in funding for Brentford High Street and Hounslow High Street, has been vital in supporting local businesses and safeguarding jobs. Three

consecutive years of freezes in the Mayoral Council tax and a cut this year has saved £445 for 89,674 households in Hounslow, reducing the burden on local taxpayers. We also welcome the Mayor's steadfast support for the Freedom Pass, which he has extended to 24-hour operation, and his focus on cutting crime. His plan is seeing 1,000 more police officers across London, including 73 more Special Constables and 3,730 more patrols annually on Hounslow's streets. As a result, crime has been cut by 5.9% in Hounslow, with robberies down 20.2%, youth violence down 20.5% and bus crime cut by 23.6%. This Council therefore resolves to continue fighting for these outcomes for the good of the people of our Borough.”

was now amended to read:

“Hounslow Council is always grateful for any sources of funding, especially in the face of these unprecedented financial cutbacks. We support the extension of the Freedom Pass, and action to cut crime; including 100 uniformed officers in the Borough, and CCTV in crime hotspots This Council therefore resolves to continue fighting for these outcomes for the good of the people of our Borough”

The Mayor then invited debate on the motion as amended, but on finding that there was no request to do so from any Member, then put the motion as amended to the vote, and it was RESOLVED – That Hounslow Council is always grateful for any sources of funding, especially in the face of these unprecedented financial cutbacks. We support the extension of the Freedom Pass, and action to cut crime; including 100 uniformed officers in the Borough, and CCTV in crime hotspots This Council therefore resolves to continue fighting for these outcomes for the good of the people of our Borough. This was a majority decision. 19. Proposed by Councillor Gurmail Lal and Seconded by Councillor Sue Sampson The Mayor noted that there was insufficient time for the motion to be debated. The motion read:

“This Council wishes to express to Government its concern with many aspects of the Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament.

The Council notes the extensive opposition from professional bodies representing doctors, nurses and allied healthcare staff. Their support in delivering these or any future health reforms would be crucial and the absence of that support is the cause of great disquiet. The introduction of a top down structural re-organisation of the NHS, explicitly ruled out by the Coalition Agreement, at a time that both Health and Social Care organisations are committed to working more collaboratively to support integrated care for the patient/service user and when the NHS is facing its greatest ever financial challenge is a dangerous distraction. The introduction of the free-market into the NHS, enforced by competition requirements will undermine both the need for greater clinical co-operation and finding common solutions across health and social care to the enormous financial and demographic challenges. Many of the changes proposed, such as clinical-led commissioning, can be achieved without the Bill. Although it has been and continues to be amended, the Bill would still cause grave damage to the NHS. For these reasons Hounslow Council is asking for the Bill to be withdrawn.”

20. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent There were no such matters. 21. Date of Next Meeting The Mayor advised Members that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled for 15th May 2012 and would commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber. This would be the annual meeting of the Council. 22. Exclusion of Press and Public It was RESOLVED – That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known. 23. Compulsory Purchase Order, 18 Wellesley Road, Chiswick (CS363)

Members considered a report by Councillor Steve Curran, Cabinet Member for Education and Housing. It was proposed, seconded and then unanimously RESOLVED – That the recommendations detailed in the report be agreed. ACTION BY: Director of Community Services 24. Any Other Items Which The Mayor Considers Urgent And Are Exempt From Publication There were no such items. The meeting ended at 10.00 pm. Mayor

MINUTES END