Agenda and minutes

1.1  The Overview and Scrutiny Officer opened the meeting and invited nominations for Chair.  Cllr Sharman proposed Cllr Muir and Cllr Brett seconded.  Cllr Muir was elected as Chair.

1.2  Cllr Muir took the Chair.  He stated that the Commission would not be electing a Vice Chair at this meeting as the item had been postponed until the opposition groups took up the invitation to appoint members to committees.  He stated that he hoped they would do as at Full Council on 23 July.

2.1  An apology for absence was received from Cllr Rennison.

3.1  There were no urgent items and the order of business was as on the agenda.

4.1  There were none.

5.1  The minutes of the meeting held on 9 April 2014 were agreed as a correct record and the matters arising were noted.

6.1  Members noted the briefing ‘Introduction to Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission’.  The O&S officer stated this was particularly aimed at new members and should be read in conjunction with the O&S End of Term Report 2010-2014 and the O&S Members’ Induction booklet.

7.1  Members gave consideration to the draft report of the Commission’s own review on ‘ICT’.  The Chair stated that this was a handover from the previous Commission and that at the April meeting some amendments had been requested before it could be agreed.  These had now been made by the outgoing Head of O&S.

7.2  The Chair welcomed the AD ICT to the meeting who commented that she was pleased with the final outcome of this review.

7.3  The Chair stated that he was particularly supportive of the establishment of the Digital Advisory Board as outlined in Recommendation 2.

7.4  The O&S Officer noted that the report would now be sent to Cabinet for an Executive Response.

8.1  The Commission gave consideration to the note “London Living Wage – findings from the short inquiry”.  The Chair also welcomed Cllr Taylor (Cabinet Member for Finance) for this item.

8.2  The Chair stated that this was another handover from the previous Commission and Members were being asked to agree this wording which would be sent as a letter to Cllr Taylor for a formal response.  The Chair stated that in his view the note contained all the key points but it needed to have some requests for action or recommendations added even though this had not been a full review.  He suggested that it should state that this was not just an internal issue and that the Council had a wider ambition to raise levels of pay in the borough.  Members agreed and stated that the Council must recognise its role in taking this forward.  It was also suggested that the letter should request  specific detail from Cabinet on how this might happen and how public and private sectors could be encouraged to work together here.  Members also asked whether the response might also look at employment practice more generally and the zero hours issue in particular.  It was also suggested whether it might be possible to look at whether some part of the Pension Fund could be invested locally. 

8.3  The Chair undertook to draft a final ‘recommendations’ section and circulate it round Members for agreement before sending the letter to Cllr Taylor.

9.1  The Chair welcomed Cllr Geoff Taylor (Cabinet Member for Finance), Ian Williams (Corporate Director of Finance & Resources) and Michael Honeysett (AD Financial Management) for this item.

9.2  Members gave consideration to presentation by the Corporate Director on the financial challenge and the budget update.  Members also noted a report ‘General Fund Savings 2011/12-2013/14’ which had previously come to the Commission on 12 November 2013 but which outlined the major savings plans over three years and was being presented for further background information for the new Members.

9.3  In introducing his presentation the Corporate Director stated that his aim was to broaden out the focus wider than the financial aspects for the Council and address the impact of the changes in the global economy as well as the infrastructure and housing challenges.  As part of this shared services had been, for example, seen by some as a panacea but this needed to be examined. 

9.4  It was suggested that with the NHS funding ring-fenced there was in effect a hole emerging in that ring fence now with the integration of health and social care which would go some way to help local government.  The Corporate Director responded that they were taking a very cautious approach to the Better Care Fund, which represented just £3.8bn nationally. The problem with it he added was that the existing organisational boundaries remained in place and this limited the potential for progress. 

9.5  In response to question about the process for the sale of assets the Corporate Director pointed out that the Council generally did not dispose of land as it generated much income.  In relation to the educational estate there was a need to invest in schools infrastructure post BSF.  It was also not possible to dispose of educational land as the Secretary of State would more than likely take it for a Free School so investment here allowed the Council to retain control of its asset base.

9.6  In response to a concern that high asset values were leading to the creation of “two boroughs” as per Islington, the Corporate Director replied that part of the Council’s response here was to use its commercial power to acquire assets in Shoreditch to help stem this. This allowed the Council to protect workspace areas.  They were trying to acquire assets where appropriate e.g. in the fashion hub at Hackney Central.  There was a need however to rethink how residents will wish to use services in the future.  The country was only half way through the government’s austerity plans and low interest rates for a number of years had meant, for example, that the Council could make no income on its deposits as it would have done pre 2008. 

9.7  He also added that since 2010 local government spend had been falling while central government spend continued to rise.  He also reminded Members that for London Boroughs the Revenue Support Grant was expected to fall by 61% between now and 2017/18.

9.8  There was a discussion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.1  The Chair stated that the Commission would now have to agree on its work programme for the year.  It was noted that Members already had had a number of discussions on shaping the programme.

10.2  Members gave consideration to the draft work programme as well as a document tabled by the Chair ‘Suggested themes for our work programme 2014/15’. This listed proposed review topics which would be covered over the coming 4 years of the Council term as well as one-off items.

10.3  Members agreed to proceed first with a review on ‘Hackney Pound – what public money is spent in Hackney to achieve what outcomes’.  The aim would be to look at the total volume of spend from all the public sector organisations in the borough as in the ‘Total Place’ approach.  The review would attempt to analyse what might be done differently to save the overall public sector bill and what budgets could be brought together.  Members suggested that the focus here be kept wide and to address the larger framework of public sector spend.  It was suggested that the review would require a careful and fresh approach to methodology.  The Corporate Director stated that he could assist in suggesting contacts to be approached for this review from his equivalents in the other main public sector organisations locally. 

10.4  Members agreed that generally the work programme needed to focus on areas where it can add value and this should be prioritised over more routine oversight of budget proposals as had happened in the past.  They questioned the value of receiving formal budget papers late in the day before they are just agreed at Cabinet.  Leading on from the discussion of the great Medium Term financial challenges Members agreed that the focus of the Commission’s work should not be looking back but on looking forward and providing helpful input to Cabinet. 

10.5  A Member suggested that the work programme should involve working with citizens to look at investment options and at whether there was sufficient capacity in the Council to effect the change which is needed.  More joined up commissioning would be the key.  This also touched on issues of democratic engagement as change has to involve residents from the outset. 

10.6  The Chair stated that the Deputy Mayor has asked Scrutiny Chairs to give consideration a ‘Fairness Commission’ and Members discussed how this element could be mainstreamed into reviews.  It was suggested that a more specific piece of work on this should however be led by Community Safety and Social Inclusion Scrutiny Commission.

10.7  Members agreed the following changes to the work programme:

(a)  That the first review would be ‘Hackney Pound’.

(b)  That another briefing on the ‘Impact of the welfare reforms on local residents’ be requested from Finance & Resources for the September meeting (these are regular ongoing updates shared between G&R and CSSI Commissions).

(c)  That a written update in response to the recommendation from the ‘Council Governance’ review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.1  There was none.