Agenda and minutes
PDF 149 KBVenue: Room 102, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA. View directions
Contact: Tom Thorn
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: 1.1 Apologies had been received from Cllr Rathbone, who was attending a Ward Forum. |
|
|
Election of Chair and Vice Chair Minutes: 2.1 The Scrutiny Officer called for nominations for Chair. Cllr Etti proposed Cllr Patrick and Cllr Ozsen seconded. There were no other nominations and the vote was carried unanimously.
2.2 Taking the Chair, Cllr Patrick called for nominations for Vice Chair, and nominated Cllr Etti. Cllr Ozsen seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations and the vote was carried unanimously.
|
|
|
Urgent Items / Order of Business Minutes: 3.1 There were no urgent items and the order of business was as laid out. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: 4.1 Interests were declared as below. These were in relation to agenda item 5:
· Cllr McMahon declared he was a Board Member of Lordship South TMO · Cllr Patrick declared she was a Board Member of Clapton Park TMO · Cllrs McMahon and Patrick declared they were Council leaseholders
|
|
|
Housing Services support of resident engagement - DISCUSSION ITEM Additional documents: Minutes: 5.1 Guests in attendance for this item were:
· Cllr Clayeon McKenzie, Cabinet Member for Housing Services · Gilbert Stowe, Divisional Head of Tenant and Leasehold Services
5.2 The Chair welcomed the guests. Asked to give an overview of the paper which was available in the agenda packs, the Divisional Head of Tenant and Leasehold Services made the following substantive points:
· The paper provided an overview of the activities of the Resident Participation Team; one of 6 teams within his service.
· The resident engagement function had been reviewed by Hackney Homes in 2016, and again by the Council in 2017 following the return of Housing Services back into the Council.
· Some of the 2017 changes were delivered in recognition that the function would be operating within a different governance structure; it would no longer be reporting activities to a Board, for example.
· The review had also seen the Resident Liaison Group (the forum providing resident involvement at the most strategic level) and the Resident Scrutiny Panel (a body carrying out reviews of services and making recommendations for change) maintained, but with their formats changed to better involve a wider cross section of the community. Post the review, the service also intended to deliver a wider range of engagement activities.
· What the review did not do was to deliver significant change in staffing structure to support the changes. Up to this point, the new arrangements had been supported with interim measures, where staff with quite generic job descriptions had been allocated to various functions within the service, according to demand. This approach had led to a concern that each function was not always receiving the specialist required.
· This was the context behind a review of the structure of the team, which was currently underway. The final section of the paper set out the aims which the newly structured service would have. These had been partly informed by discussions with a number of Members around where there was room for improvement.
· He would welcome further input during this item around how the service was delivered. This would help complement plans to consult with staff and residents on a set of proposals. Consultation would include discussions with some of those who were involved with engagement mechanisms already in place, and also with some of those who were not. This was within an intention to explore how the service could secure greater levels of participation.
5.3 The Chair thanked the Divisional Head of Tenant and Leasehold Services. She said she was keen to explore the support that his service provided to Tenant and Resident Associations (TRAs), and other formal engagement forums. She knew that TRAs were struggling; in her Ward one had collapsed and another had come close to doing so. She suggested that this was partly due to the busy lives which residents led (often juggling work, caring and other responsibilities). Contributing to the management of a TRA alongside this was very difficult.
5.4 She was aware of research suggesting that falls in active ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
|
Prevent Programme Update - DISCUSSION ITEM Additional documents: Minutes: 6.1 The Chair welcomed Tracey Thomas, Prevent Coordinator for Hackney. She asked that she summarise the paper which was available in the agenda packs.
6.2 The Prevent Coordinator made the following substantive points:
· Prevent was one of the four strands of the Government’s counter terrorism strategy. The Prevent strand operated within the non-criminal space, and was focused on preventing vulnerable people getting involved in terrorism and or becoming radicalised.
· Hackney was designated by the Home Office as a Prevent priority area due to being identified as being at significantly higher risk than the majority of local authority areas (this was partly due to its location in the east of London).
· This status translated into the Home Office funding three posts operating locally on Prevent; her own, a Prevent Support Officer, and a Prevent Education Officer. The person filling the latter role had recently left. Recruitment into the vacant post had been successful, with the replacement due to start in September. The Council also received additional resources to deliver a local Prevent Programme, and a range of projects. Funding secured for the delivery of projects had been at its highest level yet in 2018/19.
· The Council had a statutory safeguarding duty around protecting people from grooming, exploitation or harm. The statutory Prevent Guidance operated within this wider context, and highlighted 6 key areas which local authorities had to adhere to in order to meet the Prevent duty.
· Two of these were around having a risk assessment and Prevent Action Plan, overseen at the appropriate level. Hackney’s Statutory Officers Group performed this oversight role.
· A key aspect of Prevent was partnership working; both with agencies and communities. Hackney was clear around the need for Prevent to be delivered in a community-led way. She worked with a number of individuals who were not necessarily supporters of Prevent, but who could provide challenge and advice to help ensure that projects were shaped appropriately. This included liaising between the Home Office and the community where the Home Office was encouraging a particular project but where the community was significantly against it. In these cases the Prevent Coordinator built an evidence base around the community concerns on the proposed project, which could be used to reason not going ahead with it on a Hackney level.
· She worked to ensure that the projects delivered in Hackney were informed and designed around the local context. There was an issue in the borough around gang activity and gang affiliation. A range of relevant projects had been delivered in this area. This included the commissioning of Mentivation – which worked with Hackney’s Integrated Gangs Unit – to deliver sessions to raise awareness among young people around both gang activity and radicalisation.
· Another key aspect was the delivery of training in Prevent Safeguarding, to staff in schools and other educational settings. Training was also available to other partner organisations and Council departments.
· Another involved identifying and providing support to agencies and other organisations which supported children and vulnerable individuals.
· The final ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
Remit and recent work of the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission - ITEM TO NOTE Additional documents:
Minutes: 7.1 The papers in support of this item were noted. |
|
|
Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission- 2019/20 Work Programme - DISCUSSION ITEM Additional documents:
Minutes: 8.1 The Chair advised this item had been scheduled for Members to discuss its areas for focus for the year.
8.2 For its substantive review, she wished to propose the Commission explored a range of areas around housing management. Within this – and in broad terms – she suggested that Members sought to identify good practice, among both Councils and Registered Housing Providers.
8.3 She was aware that the Regulator for Social Housing set 4 consumer standards which both Councils and Registered Providers of Social Housing were required to meet. These included aspects around tenant involvement and empowerment, keeping homes safe and in a good state of repair, lettings homes in fair and transparent ways (including through co-operation with local authorities’ duties around meeting housing needs and homelessness duties), helping promote social, environmental and economic well-being in areas where they own homes, and working with others to tackle anti-social behaviour.
8.4 She felt that a range of themed items around these standards could help explore approaches which had had success. In addition to Councils and Registered Providers, this would include substantial discussions with tenants and leaseholders.
8.5 Members were supportive of this proposal. The Chair thanked Members and said she would speak to the Scrutiny Officer and others to take this forward.
8.6 She also hoped the Commission could give over the majority of its meeting in January to considering the Hackney Carnival.
8.7 From discussions with the relevant Cabinet Member and also from her own experience of regularly attending, she knew that the Carnival now constituted a major event, in a London wide context. This was partly reflected in the announcement that this year’s event would follow a new route and arrangement, in order that it could cater for the high visitor numbers predicted.
8.8 She felt the Commission could add value by exploring the learning from the newly formatted event for 2019, the costs of holding it, the social benefits of the Carnival for Hackney’s residents, and any advantages and disadvantages of the Council delivering the event directly.
8.9 She suggested that organisations supporting participation in the event and the arts generally should also be invited to hear about their work to aid participation and involvement from the community.
8.10 Holding the item in January would allow Officers and Cabinet Member to report back to the Commission on a review which was planned for after the event, on the 8th September. The Cabinet Member had been very positive about this as a value adding item for Scrutiny. As an additional point, the Chair advised that she had asked that Commission Members be formally invited to the judging bus for the event, as this would enable them to hold discussions with a range of stakeholders who would be represented.
8.11 A Member felt this suggestion to be a very good one, including the aspect around the benefits and disbenefits of direct, in-house delivery of the event. She noted the annual BoishakhiMela festival in Tower Hamlets. She understood ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting - TO AGREE Additional documents: Minutes: 9.1 The minutes of the meeting of 8th April were agreed as an accurate record. This was with the exception of the third bullet point under minute 5.3, which should have appeared as:
· For 2018/19, £11 million had been allocated to fire safety work, including £8.7 million for the front door replacement programme. |
|
|
Any Other Business Minutes: 10.1 It was agreed that the Commission meeting currently scheduled for the 2nd September would be rescheduled for the 30th September. |