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 the majority opposition were still currently not engaging with the Scrutiny process. She hoped that this would change. With the Vice-Chairship 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 for absence had been received from Cllrs Billington, Etti and Conway. Cllr Patrick had sent apologies for lateness.

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

4.1  There were no declarations of interest in items in the agenda.

5.1  The minutes of the meeting of 29^th April were agreed as an accurate record.

5.2  On actions emerging from the previous meeting, the Chair noted that the Group Director, Finance and Corporate Resources had provided briefings to Members on three areas, as covered under action 1.

5.3  Action 2 had been completed, with responses having been provided by Officers to members of the public who had submitted questions regarding April’s item on the Council’s Advice Services Review.

5.4  Actions 3 and 4 were for the Joint Trade Unions to provide further background information to the Panel, further to its submission to the April meeting. The Chair advised that the Unions were currently preparing this information and would submit this when it was available.

6.1  The Chair welcomed the Group Director, Finance and Corporate Resources for the item.

6.2  She advised there were four papers in the agenda packs for this item. She suggested that the main focus would be on the first three of these; the Overall Financial Position (OFP) Report, an update on the Capital Programme, and a report setting out the Council’s preparations for 2020/21 budget setting.

6.3  The fourth paper provided the findings of the most recent State of Local Government Finance survey, run by the LGiU and The MJ. This had been enclosed to provide wider context on the financial pressures facing local government.

6.4  The Group Director thanked the Chair. Highlighting the OFP Report, he made the following substantive opening points:

·  This was the first OFP for 2019/20. This set out the Council’s current and forecast position around its major funding sources - the General Fund, Housing Revenue Account and Schools Budgets – and other areas.

·  In line with previous positon statements, and with other local authorities, this latest statement continued to project significant cost pressures, particularly in relation to Adult Social Care, homelessness and temporary accommodation, and Special Educational Needs.

·  Projected surpluses in other areas did enable the Council forecast a near-balanced budget; with a £4,028k overspend projected for year end.

·  However, it was important to be clear on the cost pressures in particular areas. It was also important to note that the surpluses expected in some areas in 2019/20 - which would help fill gaps elsewhere - could not be presumed to be in place for future years also.

·  This meant there needed to be a continued focus on addressing overspends. The Council was progressing this agenda. Discussions were ongoing with City and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) around greater funding support from the Health Service for activities currently financed by the Council. These had been largely encouraging.

·  The 2018/19 end of year accounts showed the scale of the challenge around SEND funding. 2018/19 saw SEND activity costs at £9.5 million above agreed budget level. The Council had been able to put in measures to handle these pressures, but it was not sustainable for the longer term. Furthermore, 2019/20 was currently projected to see spending increase by £2 million compared with 2018/19.

·  As with Adult Social Care – and as Members were aware - this was an issue which was affecting all Councils. He did note that officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government had seemed to have a greater grasp of the issue; ie the significant increases in the numbers of Education and Health Care Plans (EHCP) in place not being matched with a corresponding increase in funding. He hoped that this translated into a new settlement.

·  The update also summarised measures to better secure the financial viability of a number of Council assets.

·  This included agreeing a new 125 lease for 3-10 Bradbury Street, which was effectively required in order for the leaseholder to access finance with which to carry out substantial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  The Chair introduced Members to the revised Government guidance on Overview and Scrutiny in Local Government.

7.2  She advised the guidance sought to ensure local authorities were aware of the purpose of overview and scrutiny, what effective scrutiny looked like, how it could be conducted effectively, and that they understood the benefits it could bring.

7.3  She said the two over-arching questions asked of Councils by the guidance were those below:

·  Is scrutiny working as well in as it could, and is there any actions that could be taken to improve scrutiny?

·  Are there areas of improvement for the constitution, procedure rules and protocols?

7.4  She noted that the guidance focused on six areas. The key messages emerging from these were those below:

·  Organisational culture – The guidance noted the need for the whole Council to be engaged with Scrutiny, rather than only Scrutiny Councillors and Scrutiny Officers.  The culture should encourage Scrutiny to be challenging, uncomfortable and potentially politically difficult.  This required the council and Members to have clarity on the role and function of scrutiny

·  Resourcing of the scrutiny function – this included but was not limited to budget for the function and Officer time. In addition this aspect paid regard to the need for effective support from the wider organisation to help scrutiny carry out its function.

·  Selecting committee members – this focused on the need for Members to have the necessary skills, expertise, commitment and the ability to act impartially to fulfil its functions. She suggested this was not an issue in Hackney.

·  Access to information – setting out the need for access to relevant information and to receive it within good time, including exempt and confidential information

·  Work programme planning – this set out the need for scrutiny work to have impact. This could be achieved partly through recommendations being achievable and tangible, and scrutiny having a clear role and function.

·  Establishment of protocol – the guidance recommended the creation of an Executive – Scrutiny protocol. This was in order to achieve full clarity on roles, relationships, expectations and operational processes in advance.

7.5  The Chair advised this item had been preceded by a discussion among some Chairs the previous week around the guidance. This had been particularly focused on the last of the points above and on whether there was a need to bring in some more formal processes to the function in Hackney.

7.6  Invited to comment at this point, the Head of Scrutiny and Ward Forums said that the discussion the previous week and this one were set in a context where there was not a dedicated, detailed protocol in place.

7.7  The Council’s Constitution did provide a framework around processes. This included aspects around roles, relationships, expectations, and operational processes.

7.8  However, it did not cover all elements and was not prescriptive on all of those that it did. This had led to a discretionary approach being taken in a number of areas. These included aspects around the role of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  The Chair said this item had been scheduled in order for Members to gain an insight into the emerging work programmes for each of the Commissions for the current municipal year.

8.2  She asked each Commission Chair to set out the likely key items of their work programmes (she would provide this update for the Children and Young People’s Commission, as Vice Chair).Cllr Hayhurst, Chair of Health in Hackney Scrutiny Commission advised that the Commission’s substantive review for 2018/19 had explored the emergence of digital access to primary care, and wider impacts. Digital services enabled patients were able to register with new (often private) providers offering access to remote (online) consultations and appointments with GPs.

8.3  The review had included an exploration of the impact of these developments on GP practices, from whom patients (and the per-patient funding linked to them) would be automatically removed following their registration with the remote provider. In crude terms evidence pointed to practices being disadvantaged via this development, as the patients they lost through this were disproportionately made up of less intense users of practice services. The report and recommendations which would be drafted shortly were likely to ask that the CCG took action to help bring some redress to this.

8.4  For 2019/20, the Commission was expected to look broadly at health inequality, and the extent to which these were manifested in a range of specific areas (for example rates of cancers and harm from air pollution). The scoping stage would need to ensure that the review was appropriately focused.

8.5  The Commission also wished to continue to explore the rationale and impact of migrant charging for health services. This was in a context where local providers were required by central Government to take action around recoveries of costs. He was in dialogue with the Department of Health around the rationale for this position and any impacts including any reduced propensity of vulnerable people coming forward for treatment. He was also seeking input from local health services around their experiences, including impacts in terms of administration and case management.

8.6  The topics above were in addition to a wide range of items focusing on the fast developing and changing health and social care landscape.

8.7  Cllr Coban, Chair of the Skills, Economy and Growth Scrutiny Commission said the Commission was intending to follow the same arrangement as last year, when it dedicated whole meetings to focusing on particular topics within the areas of its remit.

8.8  It had recently held its July meeting when it fed into the consultation on the Inclusive Economy Strategy. Future meetings would be shaped around themes including the cost of living, any implications for recruitment in the public sector and strategies to address this, and the future of the night time economy.

8.9  For its review for 2019/20, the Commission wished to look at ‘Just Transition’. This would be focused on how the Council and partners supported residents through changes to the economy, labour market,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1  The Chair advised that this item would seek suggestions on areas which might be explored by the Scrutiny Panel this year.

9.2  However, she suggested that prior to this, that there might be a discussion seeking the views and experiences of Members who had been involved in the work of the four Budget Scrutiny Task and Finish Groups. These had been established by the Scrutiny Panel during the previous municipal year.

9.3  The findings of the groups were expected to be summarised at the next Scrutiny Panel meeting in October. However, she had suggested that a discussion at this point on any learning from these groups, would be timely. This was in relation to the processes around the selection of topics, the arrangements around evidence gathering, and the interaction within them between the Task Group and the Executive.

9.4  She welcomed Cllr Garasia. Cllr Garasia was a Member of the Early Years’ Service Task Group and was in attendance for this item on behalf of the Chair Cllr Woodley, who had another commitment. The Chair said she was aware of the depth of evidence gathering which had been carried out by the Task Group under the leadership of Cllr Woodley for which she was grateful.

9.5  Invited her to make any comments on the experiences of the Task Group, Cllr Garasia advised that Cllr Woodley wished to report back on a number of points around the process, and suggested learning from this.

9.6  The first of these was around there having been some lack of clarity amongst Members around the focus of the group. There had been inconsistency between the initial mandate (agreed via Scrutiny Panel) and the ultimate focus of the work of the Task Group. This led to some concerns about the legitimacy of the subject focus.

9.8  The second point was around the depth of information provided to the Task Group. Whilst fully recognising the financial context in which they were operating, the Group were not – in its view - supplied with thorough enough information to enable full and effective scrutiny of options. 

9.9  Specifically, the Task Group was presented with what it felt to be a short-term savings plan. This was rather than a medium-term financial proposal supported by a clear vision and strategy for Children’s Centres, which would – in its view – have allowed for more informed consideration.

9.10  Combined, the factors above led to a situation where – after a third meeting – the Group remained unclear on the overall vision and strategy behind any planned changes. This had led to the need for an additional meeting (which would be held in the summer) to be arranged, and a resulting delay in the reporting process.

9.11  In terms of the running of the meetings themselves, the Group had found the Officers providing insight to the meetings to have been helpful, and their contributions informative. However, papers were only tabled at the meetings themselves rather than being shared in advance for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.  There was no other business.