Agenda item
Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission - 2016/17 Work Programme
Minutes:
7.1 Members discussed the work programme and agreed the points below.
7.2 Following the short review looking at income generation the Commission will write to the Scrutiny Panel and suggest they continue with this work. The note will summarise what G&R has considered and the questions to ask the Council about in relation to it income generation strategy. The points noted were:
· Municipal enterprise needs to go beyond fees and charges and generate income in the £100,000s not the £10,000s (£500k is the equivalent to 1% increase in council tax). That this a very important area for the council to continue to explore and this means looking at things that have material value.
· The council should concentrate the income generation activities it is good at doing.
· The Council need sot ensure it has the right culture and resources to support this work (e.g. to do Tiger Way and Nile Street the council had to build up an expert team in this)
· This will involve taking on more risk
· There needs to be scrutiny and accountability for this work when it is through joint boards.
· Making sure the lesson learnt from the early examples (Tiger Way and Nile Street) are incorporated in future projects.
7.3 Recommend the Scrutiny Panel continues to monitor temporary accommodation.
7.4 Invite Cllr Ann Munn, the current Chair of the Scrutiny Chairs Group and the Cllr Rebecca Rennison, Cabinet Advisor for Advice Service and Preventing Homelessness to formally note the work from G&R to be incorporated in the new overview and scrutiny structure.
|
ACTION
|
Invite Chair of Scrutiny Chairs Group and Cabinet Advisor for Advice Service and Preventing Homelessness to G&R meeting in April 2017. |
7.5 Members wanted to highlight the importance of covering Temporary Accommodation, Income Generation and ensuring the Council embarks on a culture change programme.
7.6 In the discussion about the draft devolution report the following comments were noted:
7.7 Comments From Cllr Sharman
a) Double check if there are any statements that don't relate to each other
b) Too much emphasis on the economy and especially fiscal devolution - needs to emphasise more the impact on local people - able to define the place they live in more
c) Don't say that economic growth leads to local jobs as this is not always the case - depends who has access to the economy
d) Emphasise in the plan section that the council should define the objectives and outcomes it wants to see in each service area
e) Need to include in the body of the text that the challenge with devolution is postcode lottery - have to face the argument and win it
f) The variable geography point comes out well as a principle but not so much in the body of the text. Needs to be clearer in the text that devolution is not going to be neat because there will be different groupings for different service areas for devolution
g) The statement that London and the boroughs don't have sovereignty is wrong and the statement that LEPs are a mechanism to drive growth is wrong
h) There needs to be a principle of public accountability - how to make sure people can hold to account the NHS or the deficit of skills as they devolve.
7.8 Comments from Cllr Fajana-Thomas:
a) Would the recommendation on public involvement to be clearer and clearly state this will enable services to be person centred. It is not just be about engaging with the people and informing them about the decisions, but doing co-production so they can be part of the devolution process
b) Would like the principle for public involvement to say ‘ensuring public accountability through effective community engagement'.
c) Include reference to the voluntary and community sector in the devolution process
d) Would like the point to be made that devolution is negotiation. Therefore it was important for Hackney to know what it wants to negotiate - this could be included in the wording for the first principle.
7.9 Comment from Cllr Oguzkanli
Double check the language so that the report makes it clear that we heard evidence from X explored Y and recommended Z, so the audience can understand where the recommendations originate from and that they are based on their experience as councillors with residents.
Supporting documents:
PDF 53 KB