Agenda and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence from Cllr Bunt.

2.1  None.

3.1  None.

4.1  Following nominations for the position of Vice Chair, Councillor Rebecca Rennison was elected by the Members of the Commission as Vice Chair of the Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission.

5.1  Minutes were approved subject to the following amendment.

5.1.1  Point 7.1 the name ‘Tim Shield’ should read ‘Tim Shields’.

5.2  Members referred to the Elections discussion item and request for a follow up on the action taken following the final report of the Council’s investigation and the Electoral Commissions evaluation report.

Members agreed

6.1  The Chair welcomed Bruce Deville, Head of Business Analysis and Complaints from London Borough of Hackney to the meeting.

6.2  The Governance & Resources Scrutiny Commission reviews the number of corporate Complaints and Members Enquires annually.  The report on pages 17-26 of the agenda is as laid out.  The report outlined the progress on improving the Complaints and Members Enquiries process and provides information on the performance, volume of complaints and enquiries.  The report covers 2014-2015.  The main points highlighted were:

6.2.1  The Council currently interacts with 2 Ombudsman bodies (Local Government Ombudsman and Housing Ombudsman).  This may return to one body incorporating both areas again.

6.2.2  Implementation went well and the quality of response at stage 1 of a complaint has improved.  These improvements have resulted in less referrals to the Ombudsman.  Complaints are no longer closed until they research the resolution stage.  The response times for Housing complaints has increased.

6.2.3  In relation to Members Enquires there has been some increase in the time taken to resolve the queries.  This is due to changes with the process and not allowing a complaint to be closed until it has researched a resolution.

6.2.4  The content of complaints are being fed through to Hackney Homes to inform the transition.

6.2.5  The number of cases being dealt with as Mayor’s casework has reduced but response times have increased.

6.3  Questions, Answers and Discussions

(i)  Members the level of communication about the progress of a case.  Members enquired if an automatic email was sent to keep Members informed of the progress.

The Head of Business Analysis and Complaints advised service areas are reminded to keep Members informed.  Members also have access to Covalent which is a monitoring tool that tracks cases.

(ii)  Member enquired if there was a reason for the reduction in case work for the Mayor in 2014/15 compare to 2013/14?

(iii)  Members enquired if the Mayors casework included referrals to Cabinet Members too?

The Head of Business Analysis and Complaints advised there was no specific reason identified for the reduction in Mayor’s casework.  The officer explained that sometimes the reduction is related to an election just passing.

(iv)  Members enquired if the number of complaints were an indication that things are going wrong or that a service area was under pressure.

The Head of Business Analysis and Complaints informed it can be an indication of things going wrong.  The officer pointed out that sometimes an increase in complaints could be as a result of a change in demographic or a demanding resident.  In his experience it was prudent to look at all areas related to the complaint to help identify the trigger. 

(v)  Members commented that complaints should be taken seriously because they can be an indicator of where things are going wrong.

(vi)  Members referred to volume of complaints decreasing and the response times increasing.  Members commented this should be reviewed.  In particular reference was made to the response time doubling for Hackney Home’s complaints.  Members raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  The Chair welcomed Ian Williams, Corporate Director Finance and Resources and Councillor Geoff Taylor Cabinet Member for Finance from London Borough of Hackney to the meeting.

7.2  The reports related to this discussion item is as laid out on pages 27-53 of the agenda.  The key points highlighted were:

7.2.1  London Borough of Hackney (LBH) has provided a balanced budget for the last 13 years. 

7.2.2  Despite the loss of £36 million (30%) in Revenue Support Grant, there has been no material cuts to services.

7.2.3  The Council is in receipt of the audit report and no adjustments needed to be made.  The accounts of the council are published now.

7.2.4  LBH continues to face challenges in relation to its finances and pressure on areas like Looked after Children, Homelessness, Temporary accommodation, No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), Welfare Reform / Care reform and the London living wage.

7.2.5  The Council’s income in areas such as council tax, business rates, domestic commercial rents, parking and sundry has improved.

7.2.6  To date there has been a 30% reduction to the Council’s revenue support grant.

7.2.7  The Council has an extensive Capital Investment Programme.  This is continuing and involves housing development, strategic acquisitions and various maintenance and update programmes.

7.2.8  The Government’s budget announcement advised the national budget will not be balanced until 2019/20.  The austerity plans are set to continue for a longer than previously expected.

7.2.9  The Government is continuing with welfare spending reductions whilst protecting some government departments.  It is anticipated that departments like Department for Further Education (DFE) will suffer funding cuts to areas like Early Years and Post 16 education.

7.2.10  Key policy area that will have an impact on local government announced in the July budget are: devolution, social housing rents, national living wage; business rate reform, care cap postponed to 2020, local government pension scheme and the spending review.

7.2.11  The Commission was shown an illustration of how difficult it will be for councils to fund the budget gap if specific government spend areas continue to be protected.

7.2.12  The Commission was shown an illustration of the Council’s spends in relation to the monetary value and numbers of the population.  This illustration highlighted that the largest area of spend is on a small proportion of the population.

7.2.13  The Council faces some reductions to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).  Policy changes impacting this account relate to the benefit cap reduction to £23,000, introduction of universal credit and changes to tax credit.

7.2.14  The housing business plan for the HRA was agreed 3 years ago and spans 30 years.  This was to provide a long term funding stream.  The changes announced by the Government in relation to housing will have the following implications:

·  Changes announced to social housing rent means that, instead of rent rising by Consumer Price Index + 1% there will be a 1% deduction. 

·  Rent charges raised using the new income criteria for social housing will be sent to the Treasury.

·  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  The Chair introduced this item.  The Chair explained the Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission was proposing to set up Budget Scrutiny Task Groups to examine areas of major spend that would consider the Council’s budget saving proposals and models for the future shape of council services. 

8.2  Under the Constitution G&R has the power to establish such scrutiny task groups.

8.3  The Chair highlighted the draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for Budget Scrutiny Task Groups was outlined on pages 57-62 of the agenda. 

8.4  The Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission proposed the task groups’ focus on areas of significant spend to contribute to the 2016/17 budget setting process. 

8.5  The chair pointed put the budget scrutiny task groups were open of all non-executive Councillors currently on and off scrutiny commissions. 

8.6  The Budget Scrutiny Task Groups would be aligned to ongoing officer work on the corporate cross cutting programmes.

8.7  The Chair asked Members to agree the Terms of Reference (TOR) and to the establishment of the four budget scrutiny task groups as outlined in the TOR.

8.8  Questions Answers and Discussions

(i)  Member of the Commission enquired if the proposed budget scrutiny task groups provided sufficient coverage of the Council’s budget.  Members also enquired about the savings target each budget scrutiny group would be scrutinising.

The Vice Chair of G&R explained there will be two phases of work from the Groups.  Phase 1 will consider the approaches to budget savings for 2016/17 to give Members an understanding of the direction of travel and where savings will come from.  Phase 2 will look at the budget savings for 2017/18 through to 2019/20 and help shape the priorities for budget savings and service delivery models in 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20.

The Corporate Director of Finance and Resources highlighted that the budget scrutiny task groups covered 70% of the Council’s budget.  It was anticipated the budget scrutiny task groups would continue to contribute to the budget setting process over the next 9 months as the Council works towards finalising the savings proposals for the Council’s budget for 3 years from 2017/18.

The Chair pointed out the budget scrutiny task groups would be reviewed in January and they could revisit the scope and coverage of each task group.

(ii)  The Cabinet Member for Finance suggested a Member of the G&R Scrutiny Commission should be on the membership of each budget scrutiny task group to support financial discussions.  The Cabinet Member pointed out G&R Members have knowledge of the Council’s overall financial position and the challenges facing the Council’s budget.  Therefore they could helpfully share their knowledge in the task group discussions.

Following a review of each budget scrutiny task group membership, they identified one group without a Member of G&R in the membership.  Cllr Brett agreed to be a Member of the Enforcement Budget Scrutiny Task Group.

(iii)  Members agreed the terms of reference for the BSTG subject to a review of the process and groups in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1  The work programme for G&R on pages 63 – 70 of the agenda was noted for information. 

9.2  The Chair proposed changes to the G&R meeting dates for the remainder of the year due to a clash of meeting.  The Chair proposed:

·  Moving the 13^th October to 29^th October 2015

·  Moving the 10^th November to 11^th November 2015

·  Moving the 8^th December to 14^th December 2015.

9.3  Members agreed to confirm their availability via email on the proposed dates above.

9.4  The next steering group meeting would be on the 16^th September 2015 at 6pm.

9.5  Members discussed carrying out some promotion work to launch the report once it was signed-off to promote the principles among the Council and its partner organisations.

10.1  None.