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: That there were no Reserve Members in attendance.

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:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2009 and the special meeting held on 8 December 2009 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 24 November 2009 and 8 December 2009 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8.

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 9.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received.

(if any).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no references.

Report of the Interim Divisional Director Community and Cultural Services.

(The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services will be in attendance for this item)

The Committee received a report which set out the background to the development of the Council’s draft Third Sector Strategy.  The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services stated that the report was being presented to the Committee as part of the consultation process being undertaken before the strategy was finalised.

The Portfolio Holder stated that over the next three years the Council would lead the transformation of the public sector’s relationship with the local Third Sector.  It was explained that the key objectives were to strengthen the role of the Third Sector as a strategic partner, support the development of capacity within voluntary and community organisations, and increase opportunities for Third Sector involvement in the design and delivery of public services.  The Portfolio Holder informed the Committee that there had been wide consultation and research conducted with the Third Sector and other key stakeholders in the preparation of Harrow’s Third Sector Strategy.  Whilst the recent adverse weather conditions had resulted in some consultative events being cancelled, officers were currently addressing specific gaps.

Following questions from Members, the Portfolio Holder and the Interim Divisional Director for Community and Cultural Services stated that:

·                     the feasibility study that would consider the possibility of a Third Sector Organisation delivering the Council’s grants scheme was still in an early stage and no further details could be provided at present.  The Council was working to improve the grants process by making it as accessible and transparent as possible;

·                     when implementing the Third Sector Strategy, the Council was aiming to adhere to the timescales identified in the action plan.  Whilst external delays could not be ruled out, the Council had already commenced work on some programme areas and it was hoped that this early start would negate any subsequent delays;

·                     the programme areas outlined in the action plan were due to take place in parallel, not in sequence;

·                     the West London Alliance was due to undertake a mapping exercise in West London in relation to the Third Sector.  The Council was currently considering whether the data collected from this research would be sufficient for its own purpose or whether further independent research would be required;

·                     whilst it was the Council’s aim to appoint a Compact Champion, this programme area had not yet been fully scoped.  It was acknowledged that the Council needed to explore what the Compact meant to the Third Sector;

·                     in order to ensure that the Voluntary Sector remained aware of the Council’s Third Sector Strategy, a communications update was being sent via Harrow Association of Voluntary Services (HAVS) to all its members;

·                     the consultation period had been extended by 2 weeks, although the final report was still due to be considered by Cabinet on 18 March 2010.

A Member stated that he recalled a Voluntary Sector review meeting at which a commitment to funding was made to support Compact Champions.  An officer agreed to look into the matter.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Divisional Director Partnership Development and Performance.

The Committee received a report which set out the findings of the Standing Scrutiny Review of the Budget.  The Chairman explained that the review had been established in October 2007 and had presented its interim report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in September 2008.  The Committee were informed that the review group had met over a number of months with Council officers, external witnesses and also undertook visits to Hillingdon, Newham, Wandsworth and Camden.  The Chairman stated that the visits had proved very useful in identifying best practice, particularly in relation to the management of capital assets, and the report made a number of recommendations as to how the Council’s performance in this area could be enhanced.

A Member stated that he was pleased to have been part of the Standing Scrutiny Review of the Budget and fully supported the conclusions and recommendations.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the findings and recommendations of the Standing Scrutiny Review of the Budget be noted and approved;

(2)               the report of the Standing Scrutiny Review be referred to the meeting of Cabinet on 11 February 2010 for consideration as part of the budget setting process, with the recommendation that it is included in the budget papers submitted to Council on 18 February 2010;

(3)               the Overview and Scrutiny Committee re-constitute the Standing Scrutiny Review of the Budget in the next Municipal Year.

Report of the Divisional Director Partnership Development and Performance.

An officer introduced the report which set out the findings of the Integrated Care Organisation (ICO) Challenge Panel that had been established to investigate the implications of proposals to develop an ICO comprising Ealing and Harrow Community Services and Ealing Hospital.  The officer stated that the Challenge Panel had been well attended, with a number of senior figures from the NHS present.

The officer explained that a number of recommendations had been made by the Challenge Panel, as detailed in the report.  The Committee was informed that one of the Challenge Panel’s central concerns was ensuring that NHS Harrow understood the role of Scrutiny and that the process for engagement was clear.  The officer explained that, though there was a general acceptance that the ICO proposals may well represent a good model of care for Harrow, the Challenge Panel had highlighted the importance of Scrutiny being provided with sufficient and timely information in order to ensure that the interests of local residents were being safeguarded.

A Member thanked all those that had been involved in the Challenge Panel and stated that it was important that Scrutiny maintained an open and honest relationship with all its partners.  Another Member stated that although the ICO in its current form did not constitute a substantial change to service provision, it set the scene for future and more substantial alterations.  As a result, the Member stated that scrutiny may decide that a broader piece of work considering changes in the NHS may be needed in the future.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the observations and recommendations of the Integrated Care Organisation Challenge Panel be noted and endorsed;

(2)               the report of the Integrated Care Organisation Challenge Panel be referred to Cabinet;

(3)               the report of the Integrated Care Organisation Challenge Panel be referred to NHS Harrow.

The Chairman of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub-committee explained provided the Committee with a verbal update, during which he stated:

·                     the Sub-Committee had been pleased with the results of the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) and had considered how Overview and Scrutiny could assist in identifying further improvements in Adults and Children’s services.  He explained that the Council could only achieve a 4 star rating during the next CAA if both these services attained equally high individual ratings.  He recommended that Scrutiny add this topic to the Scrutiny Work Programme for the next Municipal Year;

·                     the results of the recent staff survey had been good and the Sub?Committee felt reassured that the Council was moving in the right direction.  The Sub?Committee felt that further work by Scrutiny on this topic was not needed and resources could be better utilised elsewhere.

RESOLVED: That the verbal report be noted.

To receive and note/agree any actions arising for this Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:  That the actions arising from the minutes of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub?Committee meeting held on 19 January 2010 be noted and, insofar as necessary, agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Scrutiny Policy and Performance Lead reports be noted and the recommendations contained therein approved.

The Question and Answer Session will focus on the following documents:

(The Chief Executive, the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Performance, Communication and Corporate Services will be in attendance for this item)

The Leader of the Council introduced the budget for 2010/11 and informed the Committee that despite a difficult economic climate, the budget had been balanced whilst allowing for a 0% increase in Council Tax.  Savings of £7.3 million had been achieved via an efficiency programme and the Council had invested £4.3 million in priority areas.  The Leader added that despite numerous efficiency savings, the budget setting process had successfully minimised the risk to frontline services.  He stated that there was a funding gap of £15.9 million in the budget for 2011/12 and £13.8 million in 2012/13, and that this represented a challenge for the future.

Introducing the Corporate Plan, the Leader stated that, following consultation with residents, the Council had rolled forward the three 2009/10 corporate priorities.  These were:

·                     To deliver cleaner and safer streets.

·                     To improve support for vulnerable people.

·                     To build stronger communities.

It was explained that the Corporate Plan set out the Council’s Flagship Actions against which the Council could be assessed.  The Leader stated that the results of the recent Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) demonstrated that the Council was continuing to improve services for residents.  However, despite these successes, the Council faced future challenges.  The Leader explained that as considerable savings had already been made, it was becoming increasingly difficult to identify further efficiency savings, especially as demand for services was increasing.  Furthermore, the Local Government Settlement offered by Central Government for 2010/11 was down to 1.5% in its final year, and the three year concessionary fairs package, announced by Central Government in 2008 to help local authorities cover the cost of providing free off-peak bus travel in London, was being changed retrospectively, and would likely cost the Council around £1 million.

Following questions, the Leader of the Council, Chief Executive, Portfolio Holder for Performance, Communication and Corporate Services and the Corporate Director of Finance responded as follows:

Q - Given that many local public bodies such as the PCT, the Police and neighboring authorities are facing the same financial difficulties as the Council, has the Business Transformation Project given consideration to how these bodies can work collaboratively to overcome these shared financial concerns?

A – The Leader stated that the Council was interested in the concept of Total Place, a new initiative that looked at how a ‘whole area’ approach to public services could lead to better services at less cost.  Total Place sought to identify and avoid overlap and duplication between organisations, delivering service improvement and efficiency savings at the local level.  The utilisation of building assets would also be reviewed, with an emphasis on co?locating certain services to reduce the need for multiple buildings and offices.  In addition to working with other public bodies, the Leader stated that the Council needed to reconsider its relationship with residents by exploring the concepts of civic duty and citizenship.

Q – Do you feel that the Council’s partners are willing to engage with the concept of “Total Place”?

A –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 679.