Agenda and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Bunt.

1.2  Apologies for officer absence were received from Ian Williams, Corporate Director Finance and Resources.

2.1  None.

3.1  None.

4.1  Minutes of the previous meeting held on 8^th July 2015 were approved subject to the following amendment.

4.2  Cabinet Member for Finance from London Borough of Hackney requested for the word ‘view’ on page 10 point (iv) to be changed to ‘feelings’.  Members agreed.

5.1  The Chair welcomed Hackney Council’s Election Returning Officer, Tim Shields and Deputy Returning Officer, Gifty Edila to the meeting.

5.2  The Returning Officer for London Borough of Hackney provided an update about the problems experienced on 7^th May 2015 (General Election).  In relation to the Individual Electoral Registration (IER) (the new online voter registration) system and postal votes. 

5.3  The Commission was informed the formal investigation and data analysis was still ongoing therefore the Returning Officer was providing a verbal update on the findings to date.

5.4  The Officer provided background information about the IER system.  The officer informed the Commission IER was implemented in 2014.  IER was aimed at new voter applications.  The IER system was implemented to help move away from paper based applications.  The deadline for new application on IER was 20^th April 2015 and the date of the Election was 7^th May 2015.  The officer highlighted that the timescale for processing and completing all new voter applications on the system was just under 3 weeks.

5.5  The officer explained IER issued all applicants with a unique number.  At this stage the application is submitted to the Cabinet Office and the data from the application flows to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and the relevant Local Authority.  DWP carry out the verification process to match the information supplied with the data held for that individual.  The officer explained that applicants assumed the unique reference number meant they were on the register.  This was not the case.  At the end of the process the application is rated green or red.  Green meaning the individual was added to the register and Red meaning additional information was required.

5.6  LBH put in place a small team to manage the system applications.  The officer highlighted, at this point, if the application has a spelling mistake or the applicant used a different name it would be rated red because DWP could not match the record.  Therefore a number of complex multiples can cause an application to not complete the verification process.

5.7  As part of the election planning process the Council is required to hold several planning meetings to review the risks, plans etc.  These plans are approved by the Electoral Commission.  The officer advised at no stage leading up to the election (and most notably the Tuesday before the election date) were potential problems highlighted or identified.

5.8  The Council started to become aware of a potential problem the day before the Election Day.  It started with a local resident querying her electoral registration and providing evidence of her online application.  The Council investigated this query and tracked the application through the system; to understand why the Council had not received the application submission.  This process took some time to complete.  Once they identified her application the Council found an electronic file of applications the Council’s election team could not see on their system locally.  Phone calls to the Cabinet Office and IDoc revealed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  The Chair welcomed the Chief Executive of Hackney Council, Tim Shields to the meeting.  The Chief Executive provided an update on the Council’s cross cutting programmes.

6.2  The Chief Executive referred to the report on pages 19-24 of the agenda and pointed out each programme was at a different stage.  In addition to the report the following points were highlighted about each programme.

6.2.1  The Employment and Opportunities cross cutting programme has been in existence for some time and this programme is spilt into two areas (under 25s and over 25s).  The cross cutting programme was split into two areas because the under 25s have more resource and this aspect of the programme is looking at how this can be better co-ordinated.  The offer for over 25s varies and this programme is looking at provision.  The second phase will be analysis.

6.2.2  The Enforcement cross cutting programme is looking at all enforcement services provided by the Council.  This programme has a cost of £4 million and affects 200 staff members.  This review is at the stage of identifying every process and staff member and clarifying each person’s job role.

6.2.3  The Customer Service cross cutting programme is particularly focused at present on housing and housing repairs.  This programme will establish principles for how the Council will provide better, more efficient services by responding more efficiently to demand.

6.2.4  The Public Realm cross cutting programme is reviewing all staff across the different teams.  This is about a holistic view of all services.  Phase 1 is looking at public realm estates and joining up services.  Hackney Homes services are excluded at present and will be included after the transition; this is to ensure nothing impacts the transition back into the Council.

6.2.5  The Capital Investment Strategy cross cutting programme is focused on investment and sustainability.  Initial thoughts are to review leisure estate investment.  It was pointed out that alongside the budget cuts the Council is managing investment in infrastructure to meet future demand.

6.2.6  The Families cross cutting programme is at the scoping stage.  It was pointed out, this is not a troubled families type review, it is a review to consider if there any gaps in provision around anti-social behaviour, truancy etc.  This is taking a holistic view of the whole family.

6.2.7  The Procurement cross cutting programme will look at different approaches to and making use of demand management.  This programme is a radical rethink about how the Council designs, procures, manages and operates services including digital systems.

6.3  The intended outcomes from these cross cutting programmes are:

·  Better services

·  Saving money

·  Remove inefficiencies

·  Better quality of services to local residents.

6.4  The Chair commented the Commission agrees with the thinking being undertaken by the cross cutting programmes and highlighted G&R’s review would be feeding into the Employment and Opportunities cross cutting programme.

6.5  Questions, Answers and Discussion

(i)  Members agreed with the approach being taken for the reviews and their aims and asked about the Council’s key  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  The Chair welcomed the Chief Executive, Tim Shield from Hackney Council to the meeting.  The Chief Executive provided an update on the devolution discussions for London.

7.2  The Chief Executive referred to the report on pages 27-35 of the agenda.  Page 30 of the report outlined the areas being discussed for devolution for London.  Page 34 of the report provides a summary of the requests under each theme area.

7.3  The pan London discussions to date have agreed a set of areas London Councils would like devolved powers.  They are starting to work out the detail behind each theme for London in consultation with other boroughs.  It was pointed out London has a number of governance layers to consider before being able to progress this work.

7.4  The areas of Employment and Skills will provide local authorities in London with the power to commission across areas and the opportunity to address local need.  Housing has a number of complex issues to overcome such as rent levels and land values.  The biggest risk is taking on the health economy in London because of its size.  It is likely this would be taken on, in a phased approach.

7.5  London is confident a devolution deal for London can be achieved.  Local Authority leaders are cautious about the risks devolution poses but despite the potential threats and opportunities it will be crucial to find the right balance.

7.6  In relation to Manchester’s devolution, the detail of their deal was unclear.

7.7  Questions, Answers and Discussions

(i)  Members enquired if local authorities were better placed to build housing and if the devolution proposals would provide an opportunity to get a better deal.

The Chief Executive advised local authorities were still speculating about the impact of the Government’s announcement concerning right to buy.  The potential challenge these changes pose to Hackney are house prices and land value.  There have been discussions about London having a different set of proposals.  It is recognised there is an opportunity to do more in the area of skills development and right to buy. 

Westminster City Council is building housing outside of the borough.  Hackney Council has undertaken the role of building housing. 

The development of a pan London approach is complex but does offer opportunities.  Devolution could for example present an opportunity to expand into building housing for other areas, but LBH would need to further develop its house building skill sets.

(ii)  Members hoped the devolution discussions for London would find the right scale and level of responsibility to be devolved.  Members commented that Manchester had a solid political message in relation to devolution and the powers they wanted.  Members hoped London was clear about the risks they were taking on for commissioning and understanding the whole person.

(iii)  Members enquired if the Work Programme would be a feature of the devolution discussions and in its request regarding employment.  Members pointed out this programme has not been successful in supporting people to progress into employment.

(iv)  Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  The work programme for G&R on pages 37 - 44 of the agenda was noted for information. 

8.2  The Chair informed the Commission, invitations were sent to:

·  Renaisi

·  Shaw Trust

·  Core Arts

·  Peter Bedford Housing Association

·  Hackney Community College;

asking them to participate in a workshop with the Commission.  This workshop would review the research findings and ask frontline staff for their views.

8.3  A date for the workshop was in the process of being agreed.

9.1  None.