Agenda and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence from Cllr Deniz Oguzkhanli.

2.1  None.

3.1  None.

4.1  Minutes were agreed subject to the amendments below in point 4.4.

4.2  Cllr Sharman commented the minutes did not reflect as an outcome from the discussion, the willingness to think about joint commissioning by service providers and commissioners.

4.3  The Chair and Cllr Sharman referred to the discussion item on Executive Response to the ICT Review.  They wanted it noted that technology and the Council’s ICT strategy would be critical for the future of the organisation and key in the next phase of development for services to reconfigure successfully.

4.4  The Chair requested for an amendment to point 7.1.2 bullet point 3 on page 10 for accuracy in relation to the difference between all political parties and their plan to tackle the UK’s deficit.  The statement should read ‘Although the main parties have different fiscal positions overall, whatever the outcome of the election the settlement for local government is likely to be poor’.

5.1  The Chair welcomed to the meeting Councillor Feryal Demirci, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods London Borough of Hackney (LBH), David Beadle, Managing Director from North London Waste Authority and Tom McCourt, Assistant Director Public Realm from LBH.  Also in attendance was Mark Griffin, Head of Waste Services from LBH.

5.1.1  The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods opened the discussion by explaining the decision was taken to end the major joint procurement process being led by NLWA on behalf of the 7 Boroughs.  The NLWA Officer, Cabinet Member and Officers from LBH provided an update on the future plans, costs and the reasons why the decision was taken to end the procurement process for waste services.

5.1.2  Members thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers for the paper provided in advance of the meeting.  Members asked for clarity on the following:

·  Reasons for strategy change?

·  How the partnership can be successful?

·  Rationale for menu pricing and its impact on the Council’s budget?

·  NLWA’s work to change residents’ behaviour?

·  Evidence that supports this approach to show it will be successful?

5.1.3  The Managing Director from NLWA referred to the paper in the agenda on pages 17 – 22 and highlighted the key points below: 

·  The procurement process started in 2007.  The service contracts needed to be replaced by 2014.  NLWA started the PFI procurement process with publication of an OJEU notice for tender of two contracts for waste services.

·  The requirements to contract out waste disposal functions was repealed by Section 47 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

·  In 2009 the NLWA acquired ownership of the Edmonton waste incinerator at the Edmonton site.

·  Previously, proposals to extract energy from waste was not viewed as favourable and the NLWA could not carry out waste conversion on the Edmonton site, so they started the process of looking for a new site.  Since the start of the procurement process the likelihood of obtaining planning consent for the NLWA’s proposals to extract energy from waste has become a strong possibility.

·  In addition 2 major planning policy documents were published that supported the NLWA waste service proposals.

·  The NLWA has been informed the current Edmonton site will be available until 2025 (with an appropriate maintenance plan).  This has enabled the NLWA to continue using the Edmonton site until new facilities can be found.

·  The conversion of waste to energy on site would be the most efficient process.

·  The PFI procurement process was a long process and as this progressed the situation regarding planning consent started to change in favour of the NLWA proposals and plans.

·  During the tender process the bidders reduced to one bidder for each contract. 

·  Following the planning authority changes and the reduction in the competition in the procurement process.  The NLWA reviewed the procurement to decide if it was in their best interest to proceed to the final stages - in light of the reduced competition and lack of competitive tender – and potentially award 2 long term contracts.  The review found in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  The Chair welcomed to the meeting Councillor Geoff Taylor, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ian Williams Corporate Director of Finance and Resources from London Borough of Hackney.  Also in attendance was Michael Honeysett, Assistant Director, Financial Management from London Borough of Hackney. 

6.1.1  The Chair explained the 2015/16 budget report was still being finalised.  In the absence of the budget report G&R was presented with the Medium Term Planning Forecast (MTPF) report (discussed at Cabinet) which sets out the 2015/16 budget proposals.

6.1.2  The Corporate Director of Finance and Resources highlighted the cover note summarised the approach taken to fees and charges and built on the work of G&R from their Fees and Charges Review.

6.1.3  The Corporate Director of Finance and Resources advised under the previous governance structure the budget report was presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Board.  This board was disbanded and the budget report has been moved to G&R.  He explained the date of G&R meeting in February was too early in the process of the budget report production to enable it to be presented to the Commission.  To avoid this in the future a request has been made to move the G&R meeting in February to a later date in the month to enable the budget report to be presented and discussed.

6.1.4  The MTPF report provides information on the 2015/16 budget.  It was pointed out the Council proposes to continue with the existing policies and approach taken to achieving savings.

6.1.5  Since the publication of the agenda the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources advised the Council had received the following confirmation in relation to the budget:

·  The finalised local government settlement

·  The Government has reduced the DHP in the Revenue Support Grant by £600,000

·  The Social Fund Scheme was reduced to £1.4 million.

6.2  Discussion, Comments and Queries

a)  Members referred to page 53 and commented Council Tax income would become one of the largest proportions of the Council’s income in the future.  Members expressed concern as previously local authorities have not relied heavily on this as a source of income.

b)  Members enquired about the next phase or approach to achieving savings once the current principles were exhausted?

c)  Members asked to be involved earlier in the process for the production of the MTPF. 

d)  Members wanted to know the Council’s view on the type of organisation it will become in the future?

e)  Members queried if the report presented financial projections or provided solutions. 

f)  Members commented the report did not give them a clear indication of what proportion each service area has contributed to the cuts.

g)  Members enquired about the strategy taken to form the projections and the Council’s plan for the next five years?

The Cabinet Member for Finance informed the Council has been successful in achieving year on year savings through technology, back office efficiencies and officer output increasing.  The Council is working on proposals to achieve the savings required for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  The Chair referred to the draft Service User Research Specification for the qualitative research on pages 93 – 98.  He explained this document outlined the proposed methodology and criteria for participant selection.

7.2  The Chair informed the Commission he would be meeting with officers from the research company on 13^th February 2015 and welcomed any comments from Members to feed into this discussion.

7.3  Members of the Commission provided the following comments:

·  Asked for the research criteria to include geographical spread across the borough.

·  Asked for consideration to be given to using other workshop models if applicable.

·  Asked for the research information to highlight any areas of overlap identified from the participant’s story.

·  Asked for the criteria to include people on and off benefits.  Members pointed out some people have come off the ESA / IB benefit or may not be receiving any benefit.

·  Asked for clarification on the method of analysis that will be used.

·  Avoid using the word ‘service user’.

·  Record if a participant has comorbidity and note the types of disability a person may have.

·  On page 97 amend EAS to ESA.

·  Change point E to be 2 years on.

7.4  Members of the Commission who did not attend the site visit referred to the information circulated from the site visit (to London Borough of Lewisham) and asked for the attendee’s views on the service provision visited.

7.5  Members in attendance at the site advised the pilot service was an additional step in the DWP process for Universal Credit. 

o  The different service areas were working well and supporting people through fragmented services.

o  The numbers going through the new service were small in comparison to the numbers at the front end of the process.

o  Having a key worker to help the person navigate their way through the different services was key to the service provision.

o  The pilot was using a multi-borough approach to access jobs in the growth areas.  Cllr Sharman added from his discussions this approach may not be required for Hackney because it is thought the local economy is providing local jobs.

7.6  The second document was the Draft TOR on pages 99-108.  The Chair explained the information in the formal scrutiny document was not new and drawn from the draft TOR documents discussed and agreed at previous G&R meetings. 

7.7  The Cabinet Member for Finance from LBH requested for point 1.1 in the TOR to be expanded to explain the review would help to identify the barriers to whole place thinking in general and look at how to overcome these barriers.  

7.8  The Cabinet Member asked for the point to reflect that this piece of work by G&R would feed into a wider cross cutting review programme that aimed to improve the quality of life for local residents and would help the Council to identify were to focus resources to be most effective.

7.9  Members agreed the TOR subject to the amendment in point 1.1

8.1  The Chair referred to the work programme on pages 109 - 116 of the agenda.

8.2  Members suggested the March meeting should have a wider discussion on whole place thinking.  Members agreed to invite policy experts and academics to explore whole place thinking in relation to system change, joining up services and look at the capabilities and skills required in a workforce to provide the new services.

8.3  After a discussion Members suggested inviting:

·  The project leads from the 21^st Century Public Service Workforce review by Birmingham University

·  LankellyChase Foundation.

8.4  In addition Members agreed to explore preventative services to get a sense of how much should be invested up front to make savings and reduce expenditure in the long term on expensive service provision.  Members agreed to invite the Early Intervention Foundation.

8.5  Members requested for an additional discussion item to be added to the work programme.  Members asked for information on the interdependency of the different housing benefit changes and the cumulative impact of these on residents.

Members referred to information they have received about changes to:

·  Local Housing Allowance (LHA) and the cap on size for LHA properties

·  Increase to age 35 for room only entitlement

·  The benefit cap

·  Spare room subsidy

·  Cuts to Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP).

Members pointed out whilst they have received reports on the numbers affected by each policy change for each benefit; they wish to explore the cumulative impact of these changes and if they have affected the options available to residents when finding a property.  For example are there:

a)  People affected by the benefit cap or LHA that have become reliant on DHP so their children can finish key exams?

b)  Couples affected by the spare room subsidy who are unable to find a new property because the relatively low levels of LHA mean they can't find a property.

9.1  None.