Agenda item

9.1  The Chair welcomed Mayor Glanville to the meeting for the regular Mayor’s Question Time Session.  Also attending for this item were Tim Shields (Chief Executive) and Ian Williams (Group Director Finance and Resources).

9.2  The Chair stated that the Mayor had been asked to answer questions on:

(a)  Progress on implementation of the 2018 Manifesto commitments

(b)  The financial resilience of Hackney Council

(c)  The Impact of Brexit in Hackney

9.3  The Mayor described the progress being made in planning for implementing the 157 individual commitments in the manifesto.  They had been narrowed down to 10 key areas of focus which would shortly receive Cabinet sign off.  They would also be the key building block of the Corporate Plan, to be agreed in October.  The intention was to make the documents as interactive as possible.  They were also phasing the commitments and planning the engagement that must be done on them early on.  Several could be described as ‘business as usual’ and many were of course cross-cutting.  Some involved capital investments and new projects e.g. future plans for King’s Hall.  He was also pleased that a lot of the manifesto commitments could also be included in the next iteration of the Local Plan. 

9.4  On the issue of financial resilience the Mayor stated that many of the issues had already been covered in item 6.  The increasing challenge of supporting SEND and No Recourse to Public Funds cases would offset the savings that would have been provided.  Also it was not year clear what the full impact of Universal Credit will be.  There was no obvious end in sight to austerity for local government and instead for example the goal posts keep shifting on plans for retention of business rates, he added.  The latter had not been built into base budgets because the government’s position kept shifting. The current overspend of £5.5m was the first in a very long time and other London councils had deficits of c. £20m and many in west London were complaining that they didn’t have any reserves to deploy. 

9.5  On the issue of Brexit the Council would be lobbying hard and standing up for its values.  It would impact on workforce development, on procurement to name just two areas.  The Council would ensure that support was offered both to EU citizens who live in the borough and those who work for the Council.  The Council would be holding event with the EU Commission at Hackney House at the end of the month. 

9.6  A Member asked about the redevelopment of King’s Hall Leisure Centre.  The Mayor replied that it was a manifesto commitment.  He stated that much detailed work on the options appraisal would need to be done. Lessons could be learned from the consultations on London Fields and Britannia Leisure Centre.  The options were broadly refurbishment or building a new facility and closing Kings Hall completely but then what would be done with a Grade II listed building, he added.  His personal preference was for refurbishment of it but this would require closure for some time and there was an issue about provision of leisure facilities on the eastern corridor of the borough.  One of the challenges with such historic buildings was that you never know what you will discover during refurbishment or what limitations might have to be placed by English Heritage.  Generally there was a need to complete the Britannia project first and it was unlikely that it would be possible to embark on a major spend on Kings Hall during this administration.

9.7  The Chair of Audit Committee asked how the Council was responding to the funding crisis nationally for local government which had seen some councils such as Northamptonshire go under.

9.8  The Mayor replied that the crisis in Northamptonshire was neither sudden nor unexpected.  The danger was that councils would panic and either reimagine their services by for example selling off assets and using lease back.  Hackney decided in 2010 that it wouldn’t change its approach and would not become merely a commissioner of services.  There proved to be no need for knee jerk reactions and overall the council has very good commercial acumen, excellent financial management and it has also been adept at winning outside investment.  Unfortunately there was no solution for local government finances that was not based on a national solution.  The Council has got the right partnerships in place and is focusing more on integrated commissioning he added.  The Council was also investing in people and focusing on retaining a high proportion of its workforce. Local government was at a breaking point but Hackney was not and it would not be driven for example to the extreme of funding Adult Social Care to the exclusion of all else, the position faced by councils in dire trouble.  It was also becoming clear that the government would not be able to deliver Brexit without working with local authorities, he added.

9.9  TS added that nationally the situation was serious and many local authorities were walking towards the edge of a cliff.  He reminded Members however that county councils have different problems than inner London boroughs e.g. lots of roads to look after, a larger ageing populations with rising social care needs etc.  Hackney’s strategy has been to try to keep ahead of the game, because if a council acts too late it can end up making bad decisions e.g. quickly cutting 500 staff to save money which then doesn’t deliver savings.  The general lesson was that difficult decisions must be faced up to early on.  Changes to contracts with providers designed to save money will take time to play out and deliver savings for example.  Overall there has to be a structural change in how local government is funded. 

9.10  The Mayor added that if you allow council tax to take the strain of the cuts you’d have to increase it by 80% to make a difference.  Business rates, as currently constituted, were destroying the high street and yet the government was trying to move to a position where they do not have to put money into services. 

9.10   A Member asked about how much coordination there was with other boroughs on lobbying on Brexit issues.  He stated the Skills Employment and Growth Scrutiny Commission would be shortly meeting with Amazon, now headquartered in the borough, to discuss employment and regeneration issues.  One issue being explored was how Brexit might even present an opportunity to young people seeking employment locally because some of the larger local employers might end up short of employees post Brexit.

9.11  The Mayor replied that much work was being done at a London Councils level to make the case nationally for London.  Nationally there were debates pitting the need for HS3 vs Crossrail 2 and a group of councils were arguing for the need to rebalance the economy without London unduly taking a hit.  The LGAs Regeneration Committee now had a London leader who was making the case for London.  He commended the work Cllr Williams was doing on Investing in People which was not only about apprenticeships and having local schools work with Amazon but also having TRAs working with Here East.  He warned that there was also the possibility that the Hackney economy gets seriously damaged by Brexit and we’d be trying to upskill people for jobs that would no longer exist.  It was of great concern that nationally that Further Education Colleges were on their knees, he added.  Having further education cut to the bone would not make up for the benefits of the devolution of the Skills agenda to London.  London was still performing very poorly on both apprenticeships and on skills.

9.12  Cllr Klein asked the Mayor why the Council was using bailiffs against poor people on benefits. 

9.13  The Mayor replied that the welfare cuts which were producing this hardship were a direct consequence of government policy and this should not be forgotten.  He stated that use of bailiffs was decreasing and they were ensuring that they were only used as a last resort and the aim was to have an independent organisation in between the council and the bailiffs.  On the other hand if a Council doesn’t have an effective mechanism in place to collect its debts the financial system that underpins support to residents will fail.  IW stated that there was already in place a whole raft of support measures for residents in financial difficulties and he referred Members to the details on p.35-39.  This detailed work with the Money Advice Trust on enhancing the support to residents.  He added that a lot of the persistent non payers paid up in the end with some paying £10k for example so it was not correct to characterise them all as people of no means. He referred to the work with the previous Governance and Resources Commission on revising the whole approach to debt collection and the work of Cllr Rennison on leading a One Council approach to debt collection.  The use of bailiffs was constantly reviewed, it was a last resort but the Council needed that final sanction if it was to recover what it was owed.

9.14  Members asked about how there might be an ongoing conversation with the public on the difficult decisions. 

9.15  The Mayor replied that on the budget it was very difficult to get the public engaged with the concepts such as the financial envelope etc.  When budget consultation events were held in the past they tended to attract the same limited number of residents/stakeholders and this process was very resource heavy.  Budgeting was a 4 year discussion he added.  A lot of work needed to be done on co-production.  On ‘early years’ for example there was a need to present as much of the offer as early as possible and have a 2 year public discussion not just a yes/no consultation.  You need to do this early enough for it to be genuine but then you won’t have all the potential answers worked up.  Overall though this is worth the risk involved.  The overall local government financial situation needed to be explained and how councils have ended up where they are. 

9.16  The Chair concurred stating that there is a need for a more deliberative process.  She thanked the Mayor, the Chief Executive and the Group Director of Finance and Resources and the Cabinet Member for their attendance.