Agenda and minutes

1.1  The Overview and Scrutiny Officer opened the meeting and requested nominations for the position of Chair of Scrutiny Panel. Councillor Munn nominated Councillor Hayhurst and this was seconded by Councillor Peters.  Cllr Hayhurst was duly elected as Chair of the Scrutiny Panel.

  Councillor Hayhurst in the Chair

1.2  The main political opposition party had indicated that it did not want to take up the position of Vice Chair as per constitution.  It was agreed that this would be discussed in under Urgent Items at the end of the agenda.

2.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Anna-Joy Rickard and Councillor Christopher Kennedy.

2.2  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Mete Coban.

3.1  The main opposition had not taken up the Vice Chair role as per constitution.  It was suggested that opposition involvement in Scrutiny should be encouraged.

Agreed: To explore ways to encourage opposition involvement in the Scrutiny Panel

4.1  Cllr Peters informed he was a Governor of a special school in Hackney which supported children with severe special educational needs (SEN).  Although this was not considered a prejudicial interest, the declaration was made because they would be discussing the SEND budget under agenda item 6.

4.2  Cllr Hayhurst declared that he was a member of the Council of Governors at the Homerton Hospital in relation to the prospective discussion on integrated healthcare commissioning under agenda item 5.

5.1  The purpose of this item was to question the Mayor of Hackney about his key areas of responsibility, the delivery of services, and performance and decision-making within the Council.  It had been agreed that the Mayor would attend Scrutiny Panel twice per annum to respond to questions from the panel.

5.2  The Mayor was invited to update on 5 topics which had been identified by the Scrutiny Panel in advance of the meeting and to respond to member questions thereafter.  The five topics were:

a)  The establishment of a Housing Company and its future plans;

b)  An update on Integrated Commissioning including the rollout of youth commissioning;

c)  Civil resilience and emergency planning;

d)  The new central government, policy direction and implications for Hackney;

e)  Britannia Leisure Centre.

The Housing Company

5.3   The Panel noted that the purpose of the establishment of a Housing Company would be to improve the supply and delivery of private rented properties in Hackney.  The policy framework for the Housing Company was still in development and a final proposal for its establishment was expected at Cabinet in the autumn (2017).

5.4  The council had a strong track record of housing development, which in part was due to a large and experienced housing development team.  There were approximately 700 homes currently being developed on site by the Council, all of which are being financed through the headroom (debt cap) in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).  The housing development team is experienced in building out a range of housing options which include homes for social rent and shared ownership, both of which are cross-subsidised by the sale of private sector homes.  This is undertaken on a portfolio basis on multiple sites across the borough.

5.5  The council also has an ambition to increase the supply of homes in the private rented sector at London Living Rent.[1] The Council is not able to provide such homes directly however, as it is not be able to issue an Assured Shorthold Tenancy or any other private rented product under the 1985 Housing Act. It will therefore be necessary to establish a Housing Company in order to issue such private sector tenancies.

5.6  The sole purpose of the Housing Company will be as vehicle for delivery of private rental homes.  A range of sub-market rents (e.g. London Living Rent) will be offered through the Housing Company, which in part will be cross-subsidised by offering a number of properties at market rent.  The financial modelling that underpins this strategy is important as this will determine the number of private rented homes which can be let at sub-market rents.

5.7  To support the delivery of the private rented homes, the Housing Company will have access to wide range of finance options.  The Housing Company could borrow money from the Council to support development, or take loans from the Public Loans Work Board (PLWB) or a number of other public and private finance options.  The Housing Company will be able to buy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  The Chair welcomed Ian Williams, Group Director for Finance and Corporate Resources to the Panel.  A number of finance reports were submitted to the Panel ahead of the meeting, and these were discussed in turn.

SEND

6.2  One of the key points to note from this report was that the same pattern of budget pressures within SEND budgets was experienced across other London boroughs.  Other Councils were experiencing similar budget pressures as a result of high demand for services and decline in central government support.  Hackney would be surveying other London boroughs through the Society of London Treasurers to identify the scale of this problem.

6.3  The Panel noted that the levels of central government resource for SEND had not been upgraded since 2011.  This had created additional budget pressures which had to be offset locally. 

Action: To provide further details of the targeted and exceptional policy to the Panel and what this involves.

Temporary Accommodation

6.4  A number of developments had been made since this item was last presented at the joint session for Children and Young People and Governance & Resources Scrutiny Commission in December 2016.  Most notably the work that has been undertaken to reduce the time taken to turn around void properties and the conversion of council properties for use as temporary accommodation.  The Panel also understood that the Council had also bought a hostel and invested in new leasing arrangements to increase its temporary accommodation offer.

6.5  The interventions outlined above were however just temporary solutions and it is unsustainable to maintain such a large number of families in temporary accommodation.  There had also been an ongoing shortfall in funding to support people in temporary accommodation which was further adding to budget pressures.

  (i) The Panel sought to clarify whether the total cost of service outlined in the paper (on page 13) was the actual overspend and or projected overspend.

  The base budgets provide for a significant element of the cost of the service and where this isn’t fully resourced the council would top up from reserves.

  (ii) The Panel sought to clarify, given the extreme housing pressures in the capital, whether the Council was formulating a policy to offer accommodation outside of London?

  The Council is currently taking a suite of policy documents through to decision which include homelessness strategy, temporary accommodation strategy and a rough sleeper strategy. The housing regulations allow the Council to discharge its duties outside of London, but to date this been used very sparingly as people were very reluctant to take up such offers.

  The only way people could be re-housed was if they were homeless.  It was suggested that an additional piece of policy work would be needed to identify what support could be provided to people to prevent them becoming homeless and presenting at the council for emergency accommodation.  It was suggested that policy options should be explored to identify ways in which newly homeless residents can be supported (e.g. staying with friends or family)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  Each Chair or Vice Chair of the Commissions highlighted the main components of their respective work programmes in the year ahead.

Working Hackney

7.2  The main review of the Commission would be to assess the skills and training needed to meet the local employment needs over the next 10 years.  The Commission would focus on what could be done to upskill local residents to obtain local employment opportunities.

7.3  Other one-off items agreed were:

·  Integrated schemes to get people back in to work who had been unemployed for a period of time;

·  Inequality at work and in work poverty;

·  Skills and training at local schools and local jobs (possibly with CYPS);

·  Support to small businesses (July 2017).

7.4  The Commission noted that many local young people aim to go to University and that many of these institutions were themselves beginning to consider how they could offer apprenticeships.  The Commission will look at how the current apprenticeships programme in Hackney could be expanded and explored the cultural barriers that may inhibit uptake of this career pathway.

  Children and Young People

7.5  The Commission’s in- depth review would focus on CAMHS and the early identification and support for young people in schools.  The Chair and Vice Chair had begun to scope this with key stakeholders.  A spotlight review would take place in October 2017 and focus on the recruitment and retention of Foster Carers.

7.6  Other one-off items that the Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission would include:

·  School admissions;

·  Children’s Social Care Annual Report;

·  Child Safeguarding Annual Report;

·  School attainment;

·  Integrated commissioning arrangements.

7.7  The panel hoped to work together informally with the Working in Hackney Scrutiny Commission to support a joint scrutiny of how schools are preparing young people for local job opportunities. The Commission also hoped to agree a joint scrutiny process with Living in Hackney in respect of scrutiny of Temporary Accommodation and how this impacts on the attainment of children.

7.8  It was noted that the Unregistered Educational Settings report was due to be presented at the September meeting of the CYP Scrutiny Commission.

7.9  It was noted the Corporate Parenting Committee had also undertaken work on foster carer recruitment and it may be beneficial to factor this in to the scoping of the planned review by CYP Scrutiny Commission. It was suggested it would be useful to know how other local authorities have approached this issue.

Living in Hackney

7.10  The Commission had started a review to assess fire safety controls in local housing in light of the Grenfell Tower fire.  This would include not only fire safety officials, but also housing associations and tower blocks managed by the private sector.  The Commission felt that it was important that this is undertaken in public to help bring confidence to local fire safety regulations.

7.11  Another line of work would be to assess the local impact of the privatisation of the Probation Service. 

7.12  In addition, the Commission would look at children in temporary accommodation, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  The Panel discussed the work programme for the Scrutiny Panel for 2017/18.  It was noted that a number of items were already scheduled:

·  2 Mayor’s Cabinet Member Q & A and December 2017. 

·  2 Chief Executive question time session - October 2017 and February 2018

·  Quarterly Finance Updates – the Panel can choose particular areas of focus for each update.

8.2  The Panel were keen to have an IT focused session at the next Panel  meetings.  It was suggested that the panel can raise a number of issues in relation to IT which can be scrutinised at the meeting (e.g. CRM, spend to save).  This could involve inviting the new Head of IT to present to the Panel the key IT and digital challenges for the council.

  Agreed: That the next meeting in October will focus on IT.  Members of the Commission will identify 3 topics for Group Director for Finance and Corporate Resources and 3 topics for Chief Executive and Head of IT.

8.3  It was suggested by members that it would be useful to assess how Corporate Procurement systems work across the Council. Members agreed that this would be useful and would complement work undertaken by the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission on contract management.  It was suggested that this could be a themed session with the Chief Executive (February 2018).

8.4  There was also a suggestion that the Scrutiny Panel should also assess the performance of the Council against its key corporate objectives. In addition, the Panel may also assess the new delegated management structure proposed by the Chief Executive at his next attendance at Scrutiny Panel.

8.5  Members of the Panel indicated that the meeting had been productive and positive.  It was suggested that further work could be done to promote public engagement and involvement at Scrutiny Panel so that the process of holding key decisions makers to account could be more transparent.

8.6  The Chair thanked members and officer for attending. The next meeting would be 23^rd October 2017.