Agenda item

6.1  The Chair reminded Members that they were now coming to the end of the first phase of the Budget Scrutiny work process.

6.2  The aim of this phase had been for Task Groups to review proposals for savings for 2016/17 within specific areas of Council operations, and to reach a view on whether as a group they endorsed these or not.

6.3  The Chair noted that the proposals put to the group around achieving savings for 2016/17 were:

• For Leisure and Green Spaces, the renegotiation of the leisure contract

• For Bulky Waste, the introduction of a charging model

• Reductions to Council graffiti and street cleansing services.

6.4  The Chair felt that the Group had reached a position of agreement on the first two of the three proposals above.

6.5  She suggested that on the third proposal (around reductions to graffiti and street cleansing services), Members had felt unable to endorse these. This was due to a view amongst the Group that further exploration was needed around the capacity to achieve required savings through the integration of Hackney Homes and Council cleansing and waste services, rather than through a reconfiguration of Council functions in isolation.

6.6  She noted that in addition to reviewing the immediate proposals for 2016/17, the Group had heard information and made suggestions for, areas for potential savings for after 2016/17. She said that these had included:

• Exploring how events in parks might be used more effectively as an income generator.

• Exploring roles of volunteers / community groups in parks

• Exploring the room for media activities on the public highway

6.7  The Chair advised that further phases of the Budget Scrutiny process would explore these and other options in more detail.

6.8  At this point the Chair asked for Members to give their views on the process, and around the responses which the Group should make to help inform the budget decision process.

6.9  A Member said that he had found the meetings beneficial and useful. He felt that in addition to the group giving a view on whether proposals were endorsed or not, their response should also set out a range of principles which they felt that explorations for savings should be made within. He felt that these principles should include:

·  The Council working to achieve a common level of service and standards across the borough

·  Charging for more services to be accepted if this was done fairly and ensured strong public services

6.10  Another Member agreed that there needed to be a set of principles around the Council’s approach to delivering the savings required. These could aid discussions between Members and residents around changes (events in parks for example) which would be contentious. He named the following as principles which he felt to be appropriate:

• Common service standards for all residents

• A commitment to integration

• Maintaining good levels of service and exploring options on how this could be funded.

6.11  A Member said that while some of the proposals for 2016/17 involved discussions of savings and changes which could be seen as quite modest, he felt that the Task Group had been very progressive. He said that Members had explored difficult areas and weighed up their appetite for making decisions which would be contentious, against the benefits that they would deliver. Developing an approach which would enable the maintaining of good public services through difficult measures (such as greater allowance of large events in parks) was harder than an approach of simply scaling back service quality across the board.

6.12  Another Member said that he felt that a record should be made of the effect that a group of back bench Members had had. He felt that their interest in the capacity for integration of services in the Council and Hackney Homes had helped to escalate and drive forward a process for which Members had wanted progress on for a long time.

6.13  A Member said that he was concerned to see that the Budget Scrutiny Task Groups were time limited. He felt that the process had worked very well, partly as a result of this form of scrutiny sitting outside of a more rigid 5 Scrutiny Commission arrangement. He felt that an ongoing arrangement where groups of interested Members could be brought together to scrutinise any one issue, could be an appealing option for the future of Scrutiny in Hackney.

6.14  Another Member agreed with this point. He felt that the Scrutiny Commissions delivered excellent and strong pieces of work which informed policy. However, he saw perhaps more value in an approach of programming a range of investigations, and bringing together time limited bespoke Commissions to complete each of these. He felt that particularly during the lifespan of the Comprehensive Spending Review to be announced shortly, that there should be capacity for this function.

6.15  The Chair thanked Members for their points. She agreed that the work had been useful, and that it also had helped identify areas for later further discussion around savings considerations for beyond 2016/17.

6.16  However, the Chair also noted that Scrutiny Officers had been asked to support the Budget Scrutiny Groups in addition to their main roles of supporting Scrutiny Commissions. In addition, this group had met for an additional meeting in this phase. She suggested that, if the Task Groups were going to be made more of a permanent arrangement, consideration would need to be given on how they could be supported. She thanked the Scrutiny Officer for his work. She also thanked Officers for all of their input, and for making such a rich level of information available for each meeting. Finally, she thanked Members for their interest and effective lines of questioning.

6.17  Another Member wished to place on record his thanks to Public Realm Officers who had worked to provide an excellent and insightful intelligence base. This had helped a group of backbench Members to give effective challenge, which was very positive.