Agenda item

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 Members to review and digest.

9.12  As a final note, the Chair and Group wished to place on record their thanks to Martin Bradford, Scrutiny Officer. Martin had provided excellent, very high quality support throughout the process.

9.13  A Member thanked Cllr Garasia. He felt there was a risk of Budget Scrutiny processes having their potential value reduced, if they were sought to be used as mechanisms to review but quite quickly endorse, already developed plans. He felt Groups could add value by fuller explorations of a range of detailed options.

9.14  Cllr Patrick was a Member of the Fees and Charges Task Group and acted as an advisor to the North London Waste Authority / Recycling & Waste Task Group. She felt they had generally been very useful.

9.15  In terms of the ways they had operated, it had taken some time to obtain the information for the Fees and Charges group in order to reach well informed views. However, ultimately this had been provided. She noted that the work of this group was being taken further forward by a working group, as Members felt there were more potential areas where fees and charges might be reviewed.

9.16  The level of information provided to the Waste and Recycling Task Group had been very strong.

9.17  She did agree with a point made previously; she felt that Groups could have been convened at earlier points in order to help fully shape and consider a range of proposals, rather than to review the proposed way forward at the final stages.

9.18  However, she did feel that they had been very valuable. This was in terms of providing a sense check of proposals, and also enabling a wider range of Members to gain in depth knowledge of likely developments in quite contentious, high profile areas, and the reasoning for them.

9.19  The Chair thanked Members. She noted that the findings of the groups were due to be reported at the meeting in October.

9.20  Moving onto suggested items for the Scrutiny Panel work programme – she noted points made earlier around the next meeting in October having items on the approaches of this Council and others to municipal entrepreneurialism, and communications support to Overview and Scrutiny. That meeting was also due to receive the Annual Complaints report.

9.21  In addition to these, she suggested that the October meeting seek an update on the implementation of the Council’s Sustainable Procurement Strategy.

9.22  On future meetings, she advised that the annual standing items of the Question Time sessions for the Mayor and the Chief Executive would be scheduled into the work programme.

9.23  She suggested that the April 2020 meeting would be an opportune time for the Panel to receive items on the Corporate Equalities Programme (covering workstreams to address identified equalities issues in workforce diversity, staff satisfaction, and hidden inequalities), and on the impact of the new assessment framework for advice services grants. These would be timed one year on from previous items on these.

9.24  She also noted the Council was in the process of developing a Poverty Reduction Strategy for Hackney and suggested that the Panel should be involved in the consultation on this.

9.25  Further to seeking views on these suggestions and others, a Member said she would support exploring the Council’s response to increased poverty and financial hardship. She suggested that this should include consideration of the Council’s approach to debt recovery.

9.26  She would also welcome an item exploring the approach to the whole organisation meeting its corporate parenting role. She suggested that this might form one of the Chief Executive’s Question Time topics.

9.27  The Chair thanked Members.