Agenda and minutes

1.1  Apologies for lateness from Cllr Plouviez.

1.2  Apologies for absence from Cllr Peter Snell.

1.3  Officer apologies for absence from Ian Williams, Corporate Director Finance and Resources.

2.1  None.

3.1  Cllr Brett declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item 6.  The Member explained his employment responsibilities included campaigning on public engagement in the devolution process and could in the future involve consultation for local authorities on public engagement in devolution.

4.1  Minutes from the meeting on 18^th January 2016 were approved.

4.2  Matters Arising

4.2.1  Members requested for the Assistant Director ICT to return to the Commission (G&R) in April 2016 with an update on the ICT transformation projects.

5.1  Budget Scrutiny Task Groups (BSTGs) reviewed budget savings proposals and service redesign proposals scheduled for implementation in 2016/17.  Each BSTG was requested to endorse the proposals presented or suggest alternative solutions.  BSTGs were set up by the Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission (G&R) and the Terms of Reference (TOR) outlining the scope of their work was agreed by G&R in September 2015. 

5.2  G&R agreed to evaluate this process and invited Members of the BSTGs to give feedback about the process and their experience.

5.3  The Chair welcomed Councillors: Caroline Selman, Chris Kennedy, Clare Potter and Emma Plouviez to the meeting.

5.4  The discussion centred around Members experience of the following:

·  The information received and their ability to make an informed decision

·  The ability to pursue the lines of enquiry set out in the TOR

·  What worked well, what did not, also any suggestions for improvement either with the process or the work of the BSTG.

5.5  The Chair highlighted the Commission was interested in hearing about officer support, their ability to feed into the Council’s budget setting process, recommendations made to Members and the information received to enable Members to make recommendations. Members were also asked to discuss the continuation of BSTGs.

5.6  Cllr Selman Chair of the Enforcement BSTG outlined the following main points from her experience:

·  Savings targets originally indicated for the group to review totalled £1.3 million but by the end of the process the BSTG was presented with saving proposals to the value of £65,000 for the 2016/17 budget.

·  Members found the process frustrating.  Equally officers were constrained because the proposals were still going through the Council’s internal governance processes.  For the BSTG it became clear the cross cutting enforcement programme was not at the stage where it was ready to be scrutinised and there were no outcomes to review. 

·  The Enforcement programme was a combination of service delivery changes and budget savings.

·  Scrutiny officers worked with officer to obtain information for Members of BSTG.

·  The time to complete the process was short and did not factor in time for Members to clarify the scope of their work.  For the Enforcement BSTG once the scope was agreed the information presented was very good. 

·  Members needed to state clearly from the outset the type of budget scrutiny task group work they would be completing.  Cllr Selman highlighted the TOR was not explicit and asked for the new TOR to define more clearly is they would be conducting budget scrutiny on service redesign or specific savings targets.  Members should clarify this at the start of the scrutiny process.

5.7  Cllr Rennison Chair of Customer Service BSTG outlined the following main points from her experience:

·  The customer service BSTG was assigned a directorate rather than a cross cutting theme – all proposals for customer services related to one directorate.

·  Two sets of savings proposals were presented but one proposal was at implementation stage.  The driver for the latter proposal was driven by service change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  The Chair presented this item and advised the Commission would be undertaking a short focused review to explore Devolution for London and the implications for London Borough of Hackney.

6.2  The Chair referred to the draft terms of reference on pages 21-30 of the agenda and outlined the rationale for the review.

·  Devolution for London would require local authorities to work in partnership at a regional, sub regional and local level.  Councils will be working in partnership with organisation that have different accountability structures.  G&R decided to conduct this review because the proposals would have constitutional implications for Hackney.  The review would focus on accountability and governance arrangements. 

·  Devolution presented both opportunities and risks.  G&R wanted to explore the implications for Hackney and consider how the council could maximise opportunities and mitigate risks.

·  Through this review Members wanted to get an understanding of Hackney’s view and the commitment the council would need to make in relation to the London Proposition document produced by London Councils.

6.3  The Chair started the discussion by referring to the core questions and asked Members to comment.  Members discussed the draft TOR and the focus of the review. 

6.4  Questions, Discussion and Answers

(i)  Members agreed core questions 1 and 3 focused on governance but suggested core question 2 should be redefined because it was to board.  The suggestion was to ask: what is happening now and how has Hackney responded to these changes.

(ii)  The aim of this review was to give Members an understanding of the implications for Hackney and to provide Hackney’s voice to help shape and influence the regional work and discussion. 

(iii)  Members discussed the options for devolution in Hackney and making the following enquires:

·  What is happening and what position is Hackney in - Members want to identify the implications of London’s devolution proposals for Hackney.

·  The future of the local authority – what is Hackney’s view and what approach will be taken. 

·  Does the Council have capacity to manage the devolution proposal and is the council equipped to manage the size of the financial challenge being presented with these devolution proposals.

·  How can the Council equip itself to manage areas and issues it is not experienced in managing for example running health services.

(iv)  The Cabinet Member for Finance from London Borough of Hackney highlighted, democratic accountability was not explored in London’s devolution proposals.  His concern was devolution is moving at pace and democratic accountability needed to be explored.  It was also highlighted there are a number of operational working arrangements in different areas that do not report to democratically accountability bodies, a growth of this working practice could present challenges for councils.

(v)  Members discussed evidence sessions and witnesses.  Members agreed to speak to the following:

·  London Borough of Hackney Cabinet Members and officers (working on devolution)

·  London Councils - to discuss the London Proposition document.

·  Centre for Public Scrutiny – information about the national debate, the options being explored by different area and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  The work programme for G&R on pages 31 – 38 of the agenda was noted for information.

7.2  Members were informed the next steering group meeting was on19^th January 2016 at 6pm.  Members would be discussing performance information.  The Chair reminded Members links and access to all the performance information held by the Council was circulated to Members for review prior to the meeting.

8.1  None.