Agenda and minutes

1.1  The Scrutiny Officer opened the meeting and called for nominations for Chair. Cllr Coban proposed Cllr Gordon and Cllr Maxwell seconded.  There were no other nominations and the vote was carried unanimously.

1.2  Cllr Gordon took the Chair. She advised that discussions with the majority opposition had not yet led to securing their engagement in the scrutiny process. With the Vice-Chair-Ship of the Panel allocated to the majority opposition party, she advised that the position would not be elected to at this time.

2.1  Apologies had been received from Cllrs Conway and Patrick and from Cllr Sharman (Chair of Audit Committee) who - whilst not a Member of the Panel - was a regular attendee.

3.1  There were no urgent items and the order of business was as laid out.

4.1  There were no declarations of interest.

5.1  The Minutes of the meeting of the 7^th February 2018 were agreed as an accurate record.

5.2  The Chair noted that in the last meeting and as recorded in paragraph 7.4, the previous Chair had suggested that Members would benefit from receiving guidance around the level of flexibility open to the Council (what it could and could not do) around increasing Council Tax charges and Council Tax bands.

5.3  The Group Director, Finance and Corporate Resources noted that a detailed training session had been delivered which was relevant to this. He offered to produce a summary paper for circulation to Panel Members.

5.4  The Chair noted that one of actions arising from the last meeting had been for the latest available Overall Financial Position (OFP) and Capital Programme reports to be included in Scrutiny Panel agendas as a matter of course. She noted that these were both available under item 6, and thanked the Group Director Finance and Corporate Resources.

5.5  She noted that the other two actions related to Council Tax collection, in regards to the number of occasions in which the Council had instructed enforcement agents since the onset of welfare reform, and the approaches developed to better enable residents to manage their budgets (for example by aligning payment dates for rent and Council Tax).

5.6  She thanked the Group Director Finance and Corporate Resources for the papers provided in response to these which were available on pages 17 to 22 of the agenda. She asked him to summarise their key points.

5.7  The Group Director Finance and Corporate Resources advised that the table on page 17 showed that the number of instances in which working age Council Tax Support Claimants had had their accounts referred to enforcement agents had significantly fallen between the scheme’s introduction in 2013/14, and 2017/18.

5.8  This reflected the significant work of Officers to share information on the scheme, the new liabilities it brought for some residents, and to improve flexibility and convenience around payment options.

5.9  The Council now had 54,000 residents paying their Council Tax by Direct Debit. This could make things more convenient for customers whilst at the same time achieving savings and more certainty for the Council. Recent periods had seen 300 to 400 customers moving to Direct Debit arrangements each month.

5.10  He said it was important to compare the number of Council Tax accounts which the Council managed and issued bills for, against the relatively small number of cases which were referred to enforcement agents. There were around 113,000 live Council Tax accounts in place. The number of bills issued were far higher than this (approximately 200,000 a year), reflecting the churn in terms of property occupants.  This compared to a total number of Council Tax cases referred to Enforcement Agents of 12,750 in 2017/18.

5.11  The relatively low numbers of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  The Chair opened the item by asking the Corporate Director Finance and Corporate Resources to set out the context in which this Council and others were operating.

6.2  The Group Director Finance and Corporate Resources made the following points:

·  Local Government had been on a trajectory of declining finance since 2010.

·  Hackney had seen a 45% reduction in funding from central Government at a time when cost pressures were increasing.

·  He suggested that he shared with Members some detailed slides which set out the context, how the Council had responded to the reductions so far, and the forecast challenges moving forward.

·  The Council had worked to achieve greater savings in some areas compared to others, in an approach informed by the organisation’s priorities, which included best protecting the most vulnerable. Within this approach, some services had seen little or no funding decrease, or had had their budgets slightly increased.

·  Intensive work was now being undertaken around budget planning up to 2021/22. Given the scale of the savings which had been required in recent years, there was a risk that the levels now required could be seen as quite small. However, it was important to note that the savings figures now needed to come from a significantly smaller total amount meaning that required savings as a percentage of total budgets would still be high.

·  There was major uncertainty around allocations of funding for the period 2020/21 to 2022/23. This would not be eased until the autumn of 2019 when the Government would publish its Spending Review setting out the budgets for its departments for this period.

·  The Prime Minister’s announcement in June around increases to NHS funding was coupled with soundings that there was very little room for increases for other Government departments. Indeed, given the apparent continued commitment by Government to fiscal rules requiring reductions in debt coupled with the state of public finances generally, it was difficult to see how tax rises would not be required to fund this element alone. The recent announcement had not contained any reference to social care funding meaning the Council would continue to face significant pressures at least for the short term. Social care funding would be dealt with via the Spending Review next year.

·  The Council was working with its local government partners to lobby government around the extent of funding reductions suffered in the sector alongside increasing service demands. This was in order to state the case that the sector was now one of the most efficient in the public sector and that it was working within an increasing unsustainable financial context.

·  There were signs that these messages – which had been given illustration through Northampton county council having had to impose emergency funding controls – were now beginning to land. However, there remained little sign that financial constraints  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  Introducing the item, the Chair advised that she had asked that Members receive an item on the staffing resources in place within the Scrutiny function, its position within the wider organisation, its areas of work, and its approach.

7.2  She invited Tracey Anderson, Head of Scrutiny and Ward Forums to deliver a presentation.

7.3  Thanking the Chair, the Head of Scrutiny and Ward Forums made the following substantive points while presenting a set of slides:

·  She and each of the three 3 Scrutiny Officers she managed was designated dedicated scrutiny support for one of the 4 Scrutiny Commissions.

·  The role involved managing the work programme and day-to-day work of the Commission in consultation with the Chair and Commission Members.

·  In addition, the Head of Scrutiny and Ward Forums led on supporting work programme management of the Scrutiny Panel, with officers within the team supporting meetings through taking minutes on a rolling basis.

·  In addition to scrutiny work, the Scrutiny Team had a number of other responsibilities, as per below:

Ø  Management and support of the Ward Forums; led by the Head of Scrutiny and Ward Forums this involved the management and co-ordination of ward forums across the borough, and strategic development of support and provision for the function.

Ø  Healthwatch Contract Management; the Scrutiny function was deemed to be the most appropriate service area of the Council to undertake the management of this contract, given that it involved monitoring an organisation which conducted scrutiny of (among others) a number of Council service areas.

Ø  Inner North East London Committee (INEL);  INEL was a regional joint health scrutiny committee across north east London. Hackney had led this committee for over 2 years and had provided officer support. Moving forward, support would be provided by the residing borough of the committee chair.

·  It was important to note that whilst the service took on a number of wider areas, ongoing regular monitoring ensured this did not impact on the dedicated support to the commissions. This element remained the  first and foremost function of each Officer.

·  However, allowing Officers to work on other projects helped to keep staff motivated and engaged, and enabled development and learning of new skills and knowledge bases.

·  An activity audit conducted in 2015 had provided independent insight in the profile of activities performed. This audit had been applied to both roles of Scrutiny Officer and Governance Services Officer, with separate analysis produced for both.

·  The findings from the exercise had helped to inform a conclusion that the Scrutiny Officer role had greater synergy with posts relating to policy, than it did to Governance Services roles. This had helped lead to the Scrutiny function being placed within the wider Corporate Policy area.

·  A chart in the slides gave a profile of the Scrutiny Team’s work areas, and the shares of officer time they accounted for. The largest area of work was found to have been planning and management (37%), and the second technical and projects (16%). A further chart  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  The Chair advised that the purpose of this item was for Chairs and Vice Chairs to update Members on the topics likely to form their Commissions’ substantive reviews for 2018/19.

8.2  The Chair of the Health in Hackney Scrutiny Commission noted that a decision on this would be made at the Commission meeting scheduled for the following week.

8.3  However, he was intending to propose that the focus be on the increasing digitalisation of GP appointments, and implications for both patients and GP surgeries.

8.4  One factor for exploration was around the Digital Divide, and exploring any inequalities in access that advancements could create. Another was around the impact which recent developments could have on the financial viability of local surgeries. A new service enabled patients to have video consultations with GPs online.

8.5  However, it would involve patients opting out of their existing GP surgery and transferring to one in Central London. Proceeds would be split between the London practices and the private company providing the online app. There was some concern that the programme would lead to lighter users being lost to local surgeries, along with the per patient funding for these patients which in effect helped to fund the spending on higher level service users. Hackney had already lost 1000 patients.

8.6  Another likely area for exploration was the Estates Strategy for North East London being developed by the East London Health and Care Partnership. This would include the Commission gauging the emerging plans for key sites including St Leonards and Whipps Cross hospitals, and implications of the proposals for Hackney residents. He suggested that a key question for the Commission would be around the plans for any capital gained from land sales.

8.7  With Cllr Patrick having sent her apologies, the Vice Chair of the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission advised that the substantive review for the year would explore some of the issues of possible relevance to levels of serious violence in the borough, with a focus on young adults (aged 18-25).

8.8  She advised that the Commission hoped to hear from the Integrated Gangs Unit (IGU) and their work with the approximately 150 young people currently identified as being involved in gang activity. They would aim to explore provision for young adults (18-25s), how those at risk were supported to move away from harmful behaviour, and how prevention might be improved. This would be partly delivered through speaking to both young adults and parents. The Commission also wished to gain an understanding of the level and nature of support provided by Probation Services to the young adults in their client groups.

8.9  The Chair thanked the Vice Chair. The Vice Chair agreed to her suggestion that Members were kept abreast of developments with the review, and were invited to attend evidence sessions where it was practical.

8.10  The Vice Chair of Living in Hackney advised that the Commission was also holding items reflecting its continued concern around the extended stays of many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1  The Chair opened this item by noting that the Commission would hold annual question time sessions with the Mayor and the Chief Executive during the term, and receive Finance Updates at each meeting. It would also receive and review the annual report on Complaints and Members Enquiries.

9.2  As covered in an earlier discussion, the next meeting would host an item exploring the Council’s approach to consultation.

9.3  In terms of other topic-specific areas, suggestions had been made for the Panel to explore aspects around ICT and Digital, the Council’s development of a sustainable procurement policy, and on its approach to a review of contracted services.

9.4  Of relevance to the latter two elements, the Chair noted the referral letter from the Chair of the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission to the Scrutiny Panel, which was available in the agenda packs.

9.5  With the Chair of Living in Hackney having sent her apologies, the Vice Chair of the Commission introduced the letter.

9.6  She advised that Living in Hackney Members had noted that the Mayor’s manifesto committed to a review of external contracts with a view to expanding in house provision where possible, and also that the Council planned to develop a new Sustainable Procurement Strategy.

9.7  Members understood that there was an appetite among Scrutiny Members that the Scrutiny Panel helped to inform these elements. This was the basis of the letter that Living in Hackney Members agreed should be issued to the Scrutiny Panel.

9.8  She said the letter set out findings of relevant investigations by Living in Hackney over the last year. These explored the subjects of procurement, contract management, and divisions between insourced and outsourced services.

9.9  The investigations had focused on contracts managed by the Council’s Housing Services. They had involved the Commission receiving regular updates on one specific contract, and holding a single discussion item focusing the benefits, risks and issues with some of our larger housing contracts generally.

9.10  There were a range of key findings drawn from the work, which were summarised on the first three pages of the letter. She said that whilst it had been evidenced that large, long term partnering contracts had helped to facilitate very significant levels of renewal in housing stock, and that some of these contracts worked very well, the investigations had also highlighted major issues. These included factors around contractor behaviour and performance, both in terms of standards of work and in their interactions with the Council.

9.11  She encouraged the Scrutiny Panel to digest the content of the letter in full, and asked that it was used as evidence in any broader items around procurement and insourcing and outsourcing by the Panel.

10.1  The Chair advised there were four updates around general business.

10.2  Firstly, and subject to Council approval at its meeting on 18^th July, the name of the Working in Hackney Scrutiny Commission would be changed to the Skills, Economy and Growth Scrutiny Commission. It had been felt by scrutiny Members that this would give greater clarity to the Commission’s areas of focus.

10.3  Secondly, it was proposed that the Scrutiny Panel agreed to increase the Membership of majority party Councillors on the Health in Hackney, Living in Hackney and Working in Hackney Scrutiny Commissions, from 6 to 8. This would bring each of these Commissions’ Memberships up to 9 when including (currently vacant) opposition places.

10.4  The third update was around Commission remits. Following discussions, it had been agreed that the scrutiny of the areas of planning and licensing would transfer from the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission to the Working in Hackney Commission. This decision had been made to give a better balance to the areas covered by each.

10.5  Finally, the Chair reminded Members that whilst sending apologies for this meeting, the Chair of the Audit Committee (Cllr Sharman) was a regular attendee at Scrutiny Panel. Given previous discussions around the value in linkages between Scrutiny and Audit, the Chair advised she had requested legal advice around the possibility of the Chair of Audit position also sitting on the Scrutiny Panel by default.

10.6  The Head of Scrutiny and Ward Forums advised that response which had now been received advised against this. This was due to it possibly being seen to put the independence of the Scrutiny Panel in question.

10.7  This was due to the conceivable event of the Chair of Audit Committee finding themselves scrutinising decisions taken by their own committee. Whilst a Committee Chair may be able to demonstrate that they held an open mind when scrutinising a decision (or could excuse themselves from any particular item), this would not detract from a likely common perception that they would support decisions made by their committee.