Agenda item

7.1  The Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission embarked on a review to look at total public spend in the Borough - covering statutory public sector providers, voluntary sector and private sector – to consider how the Council and local partners could reconfigure services to meet demand with less resources.

7.2  The report was intended to help the London Borough of Hackney deal with two fundamental challenges: first, big cuts in public expenditure and second more complex social challenges that require a very different approach from the council, other public agencies and the wider community.

7.3  The Chair welcomed Councillor Geoff Taylor, Cabinet Member Finance from London Borough of Hackney (LBH) to the meeting.  The Cabinet Member for Finance provided a verbal update and outlined the draft Executive response to the review’s recommendations.  The draft was circulated to members of the Commission.

7.4  The Cabinet Member Finance stated he was aware the principal point of this review was to look how agencies could work together to reduce costs.  In the Executive response Hackney Council highlights the challenges associated with implementation because of the way government agencies are organised.  Phase 2 of the review provided an example of how government agencies needed to work together in the future to deliver services that meet demand at a reduced cost.

7.5  The introduction highlights the challenges to implementation of phase 1 of the review and makes reference to what the Council is doing in relation to the services reviewed in phase 2.

7.6  The Cabinet Member explained there are a number of initiatives that are happening across London.  All these initiatives are moving in the direction of greater integration of services.  There is integration between boroughs and integration between borough and government services.  The key concerns are about commercialisation, identity and accountability.

7.7  The Cabinet Member pointed out there is a role for the Commission on the journey of change.

7.8  The Cabinet Member congratulated the Commission on being shortlisted for an award for this review.

7.9  The draft Executive response was as laid out and the Cabinet Members asked members of the commission for comments in relation to the draft response.

7.10  Questions, Discussions and Answers

(i)  Members commented the area of work from this review was hard to measure but they wanted to see more measurable outcomes.  Members suggested instead of coming back to review the progress of the recommendations in 6 months, they could take 1 or 2 of the areas referred to in the response and track the progress of that work.  It was suggested this would involve being part of the process as it develops.  Suggested areas of work were scenario planning or the cross cutting officer programme board.

(ii)  Members commented the response is positive but very process orientated.  It was highlighted that the response promises to follow the principles but does not show how this will be implemented.  Members wanted assurance the process outlined would not just be discussed but taken forward and implemented.

(iii)  Members see this journey as a way to help upskill more widely across the organisation including councillors.

(iv)  Member commented they would like to monitor the progress of 1 or 2 areas using the service redesign principles outlined in the review.  Highlighting it was about having a dialogue throughout the process and the journey of change, not monitoring the process.

(v)  Members commented the paper showed a thrust for a broad agreement to the principles but not how it will be achieved.  Members asked for the response to show how they could keep watch over the process of change.  Using tangible areas where a rich evaluation on the process can be carried out. 

(vi)  Members referred back to their recommendation about setting up a pilot or participating in a programme initiative in an area.  Members pointed out the response places a lot of emphasis on the work of the Ways into Work team - the Commission acknowledges the work this team is doing.  Members pointed out the WiW team operated at one end of the spectrum.  The review highlighted a need for further support and coordination of the support to get people to the point where they are ready to access the WiW support services. 

(vii)  Members discussed selecting a service area that could be a pilot for the service redesign principles with a budget allocation.  Members suggested the health transformation pilot because it would have access to the budget along with the ability to integrate services.  Members pointed out this is an iterative and evolving process with drivers for more local effective delivery.

(viii)  Members discussed selecting employment support services as a possible pilot area. But concern was expressed about the ability to get information from the Department for Works and Pension (DWP) that would enable the initiative to progress.  There was the view that having this as a pilot (as suggested in the recommendations) would give the Council a live example to demonstrate the direction of travel for these services in relation to devolution.  Showing that tackling the issue further down the line collectively could produce positive outcomes.  Helping to make the case to Government for the devolution of employment support services to councils.

(ix)  The Cabinet Member advised an officer steering group had a discussion about applying for funding to carry out work with the more complex cases – people who are further down the spectrum - to support them on their journey to improved health and wellbeing and maybe into employment.  The Cabinet Member did not see the suggestion for a pilot as very explicit in the report’s recommendations.  The Cabinet Member pointed out taking this option would require repeated and persistent requests to DWP to get their attention and involvement. 

(x)  The Chair suggested the Council’s funding request should be set in the context of demonstrating examples where local authorities have led by innovation.  Highlighting programmes that have used similar principles.  Members referred to a programme initiative in Hackney Council which provided intensive support to single parents to stop repeated cases of children being taken into care. 

(i)  The Chair summarised the next steps for this to be:

·  The Commission identifying three areas they could get involved in.  The Commission suggested they could be involved in the first three points outlined in rec 1 response box.  Promotion of the principles to the top three tiers of the Council’s management - use of the principles to guide the work of the organisation; the work of the cross cutting officer programme board and the scenario planning work

·  The set-up of a pilot that the Commission could have a dialogue about, track the progress and review the evaluation.