Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 8 – Draft Funding and Commission Compact Code: Discussion Report

Councillor Nana Asante and Deven Pillay (adviser) declared personal interests in that they had participated in the discussions with the Voluntary and Community Sector during the updating of the Compact.  They would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 9 – Update on the Third Sector Investment Plan Proposals

During a discussion on this item:

(a)               Councillor Nana Asante declared a personal interest in that she was a member of the African SANG which belonged to the Raft cooperative.   She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

(b)               The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Nizam Ismail, declared a personal interest in that he was the Chairman of Harrow Muslim Council.

(c)               Deven Pillay (adviser) stated that he was Chief Executive of Harrow Mencap which belonged to the Raft cooperative.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments under Minute 59, ‘Declarations of Interest’:

(i)                 paragraph (a) to include Councillor Chris Mote’s personal interest declared in relation to his membership of ‘Harrow Sports Council’;

(ii)               paragraph (a), ‘Muslim Council’ to be replaced with ‘Harrow Muslim Council’, as Councillor Nizam Ismail’s personal interest declared;

(iii)             paragraph (b), ‘Weldon Activity Centre’ to be replaced with ‘Welldon Activity Group’, as Councillor Joyce Nickolay’s prejudicial interest declared;

(iv)             minor typographical corrections.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 51 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that the following public question was received to which a summary response was provided by the Chairman in the absence of the questioner with a detailed response to be sent. The detailed written response has also been reproduced below:

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions had been received.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

[Note:  The Panel’s policy (Minute 60:  28.07.03) in principle is not to receive deputations relating to individual grant applications].

[Note:  The Panel's policy (Minute 13: 06.07.06) is to receive deputations annually at its November meeting].

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at this meeting.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment, which proposed revisions to the grant application form and assessment scoring sheet for the administration of the 2012/13 main Grant Programme.  The form and the assessment scoring sheet had been revised following the receipt of comments previously provided by the Panel.

An officer informed Members that the revisions proposed had been informed by the results of consultation with officers, Members and the Voluntary and Community Sector representatives.  She gave examples of feedback that had not been taken on board, and outlined the changes proposed to the application form, as described in the report.

In response to a question about the rationale behind the introduction of a single application form from the three forms currently in operation, the officer stated that a single form would help simplify the process, that all the questions were relevant to all organisations to answer and that the form had been designed to meet the small grants programme or a regular open process.  It would ensure that there was a single set of guidance notes and requirements for all applicants to consider and a single set of assessment criteria to meet.

Members commented and officers responded, as follows:

·                     whilst the criterion around duplication and track record supported during consultation in order to keep the process accessible to all, including new organisations, this criterion had not been included. It was suggested by a Member that all new organisations ought to have a limit placed on their application.  She further added that the eligibility criteria did not rule out any organisation and therefore it was essential that a limit was placed, as the grants process was oversubscribed.  A gross turnover limit of an organisation could also be applied but this needed to be explored further and an agreement on a figure would be required based on whether it would be on an organisation’s national or local status.  Any limit placed would have to be included under the criterion set so that organisations were aware whether or not they would be eligible for a grant from the outset.  The information would need to be included at the beginning of the application form;

·                     a Member questioned the rationale behind the numerous questions about ethnicity but another Member was of the view that the information requested was valuable, as it would prompt organisations to also consider their client base.  The Divisional Director Community and Cultural Services replied that the information would help monitor equality impacts.  She added that each application was about funding the organisation’s project and not the organisation itself.  The application form would provide ‘wrap round’ information which had previously not been requested, such as a brief description of the project.  Whilst such information would not form the basis of an assessment, it would help monitor the project subsequently;

·                     it was considered that the risks identified were a key factor.  In response, the Divisional Director Community and Cultural Services stated that the risks would be mitigated and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Report of the Divisional Director, Partnership Development and Performance.

The Panel considered a report of the Divisional Director Partnership Development and Performance, which invited comments on the draft Harrow Code of Practice on Commissioning and Funding, of the Harrow Compact.

An officer introduced the report, which set out the draft Funding and Commissioning Compact Code and invited the Panel to provide comments.  It was noted that the Compact was a mutual agreement between those who had decided to endorse its principle and commitments to action.  Its authority was derived mainly from the respect accorded to it by the partners and the extent to which it influenced future decision-making and development.

The officer reported that the Code’s aim was to clarify how the Statutory and the Voluntary and Community Sectors could work together to enable a clearer and more effective funding relationship. The Code underpinned the original undertakings within the Harrow Compact first published in 2004.  A thorough review had since been undertaken and a draft Code produced and discussed with representatives of the Voluntary and Community Sector prior to it being presented to the Panel for comment and approval on the direction of travel.  The officer informed the Panel that the Code was ‘owned’ by the Harrow Partnership Board, which would give final approval.

The Panel Members and the adviser made the following comments:

·                     Council representatives ought to be appointed to serve on the Voluntary and Community Sector bodies up until the organisation had bedded-in.  The notion that the Voluntary and Community Sector should no longer be required to include provision for a Councillor/Council appointee to serve on the Management Committee/Board was not supported by some Members of the Panel.  They were of the view that statutory organisations providing funding should be able to serve on the body being funded for a given period of time.  Alternatively, observers who had access to information could be appointed as it would allow the appointee to provide a value judgement on the operation of the body being funded.  Moreover, it was essential that Councillors appointed to serve on the Voluntary and Community Sector were trained and diligent in their respective roles.  Some Members were of the view that provided robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms were in place, the Voluntary and Community Sector should be able to retain its independence without any interference from the Council;

·                     clarification on who would provide advocacy support to user groups to engage in the consultative process was essential;

·                     developing an optimum size of contracts was a good idea and, if possible, two organisations providing a comparable service could be explored;

·                     there needed to be a distinct link between the 2004 Compact and the Code. The ‘Ideal Funding Lifecycle’, as set out in the 2004 Compact ought to be included in the new Codeand would be particularly relevant when Commissioning was in place. It was essential that there was an established link between the two, as the 2004 Compact was still relevant; 

·                     full consultation was essential prior to the Code being approved by the Harrow Partnership Board.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Divisional Director, Community and Cultural Services introduced an information only report updating the Panel on the next steps for the Third Sector Investment Plan following contributions from various workshops and the Panel.  The Divisional Director reported on the number of options identified for implementation for commissioning and small grants, which were subject to further discussions.  The Plan also encompassed other areas of support provided by the Council to the Voluntary and Community Sector, such as the development of a new Accommodation Strategy and Community Lettings Scheme.

The Panel was briefed on the four options, details of which were set out in the report, including the benefits and risks associated with each of the options.  The Divisional Director advised that:

·                     Option 1 - which involved the introduction of small grants and commissioning for 2012/13, contained more risks than benefits. More time was needed for its development, including the development of service specification;

·                     Option 2 – relating to the implementation of a phased introduction of commissioning, was the officers preferred option, as it would allow the Council to pilot its approach and bring about a dialogue with the Voluntary and Community Sector on how it could be developed further prior to it being rolled-out;

·                     Option 3 - proposed delaying the introduction of small grants and commissioning to 2013/14, which would allow time to prepare for the eventual launch but the delay would lead to a great deal of uncertainty going forward;

·                     Option 4 -  which involved the retention of the current grant giving system thereby precluding commissioning, was not supported by the Panel as it did not provide long term certainty of funding.  The option would not allow the Council to take a strategic approach to securing services from the Voluntary and Community Sector and in its use of funds.

The Divisional Director also spoke on the new opportunities for the development of a new Accommodation Strategy and identified the projects that were being examined.  Officers would facilitate meetings between interested organisations with a view to taking forward various projects, including advice on how the Infrastructure Fund, provided by the government, could be applied for by the Voluntary and Community Sector.  The existing Community Lettings Scheme was considered to be laborious and ought to be streamlined to ensure that the costs to the Council do not rise.  A number of alternative arrangements were being explored, including a consortium approach, with a view to its implementation by December 2011.

The Panel Members noted that the report was for information only and commented on the options.  A Member of the Conservative Group stated his Group’s position on the available options. He stated that options 1 and 4 were not viable and that option 2 was the Group’s preferred option, as it involved the taking of less risk than option 3. Option 2 was also achievable and would provide the Voluntary and Community Sector an insight into the process.  With regard to the Community Lettings Scheme, there was a proposal put forward on a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.