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 that there were no Reserve Members in attendance at this meeting.

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 9 – Pinner Village Surgery Challenge Panel Report Update

Councillor Stephen Wright declared a personal interest in that he was a patient at the surgery.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 8 – Health White Paper – Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS

Agenda Item 9 – Pinner Village Surgery Challenge Panel Report Update

Councillor Sue Anderson declared a personal interest in that she worked for NHS Harrow.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Ann Gate declared a personal interest in that she was an employee of a GP surgery in Harrow.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the special meeting held on 21 July 2010 and the meeting held on 27 July 2010 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

A Member of the Committee suggested that for future meetings involving a question and answer session with the Leader and Chief Executive, these be recorded.  This would then allow for the minutes to be drafted in a similar style to how the items on public and councillor questions were composed for Full Council and Cabinet.  The Chairman responded by stating that the suggestion would be investigated.

RESOLVED: That

(1)               the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2010 be taken as read and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

On page 17, reference be made to a question being asked to read as follows “Why was the Portfolio Holder for Housing referring questions to the Leader?”;

(2)               the minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2010 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED: To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting.

(if any).

There were none.

Report of the Divisional Director Partnership Development and Performance.

The Committee received a report outlining the findings and recommendations from a Harrow Magistrates’ Court Scrutiny Challenge Panel which took place on 19 August 2010.  The Committee noted that proposed amendments from the Challenge Panel had been circulated to Members.  The Chairman explained that, in his view, the Challenge Panel had been effective with a number of interesting conclusions reached.

The Chairman of the Challenge Panel commented that the Panel had thoroughly analysed the business case put forward by Her Majesty’s Court Service (HMCS).  Additionally a representative from HMCS had attended the Panel meeting.  One of the main conclusions of the Panel was that the proposed closure would push huge costs onto other public sector organisations in the borough, such as the Council and the Police.  Residents would also be severely inconvenienced.  The Chairman of the Panel concluded by thanking the report author for his work.

A Member of the Committee commented that an estimate of additional cost relating to expenses for witnesses was still to be provided.  It was not yet clear if this had been taken into consideration by HMCS.

Members of the Committee also expressed some concern at the perceived lack of publicity on opposition to the proposed closure.  The Chairman commented that the Council would do what was required to raise its profile.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Challenge’s Panel’s report forming part of the Council’s corporate response to the consultation, be recommended to Cabinet and all other Councillor colleagues;

(2)               the report be presented at Cabinet on 14 September 2010, prior to submission to Her Majesty’s Court Service, as another way to raise public awareness of the proposed closure of Harrow Magistrates’ Court and specifically, to formally demonstrate to Her Majesty’s Court Service the Council’s clear determination and commitment to retain local justice for local people;

(3)               the following recommendation of the Challenge Panel be referred to the Major Developments Panel for deliberation:

‘Consideration to be given to alternative proposals, such as co-locating Harrow Magistrates’ Court at Harrow Crown Court and, in the medium-longer term, whether Harrow Magistrates’ Court might become part of a larger co-location of public services (police, council and courts) on the Kodak site’.

Report of the Divisional Director, Partnership Development and Performance.

The Corporate Director of Finance reported to the Committee that the project had been running for a significant period of time and was an important long term decision for the future of the Council.  She reported that:

·                     the Council had reviewed its IT services. Concerns highlighted included a limited capacity to support remote and flexible working, lack of a disaster recovery system and being a constraint to future transformation;

·                     an IT strategy was developed in 2008 which initiated an options appraisal.  This was conduced in partnership with PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PwC).  This looked at the future options of the service and included soft market testing;

·                     the outcome of this appraisal was a recommendation to transfer responsibility for the IT service to Capita.  This was considered to be the most appropriate and cost effective solution;

·                     the next phase involved a proposal request.  This included a detailed description of the service the Council wished to receive.  Capita were asked to prepare a response which was received by the Council on 1 March 2010.  The proposal involved a single unified solution to deal with the core services infrastructure;

·                     a detailed evaluation of the bid was conducted.  The evaluation involved a value for money assessment, a key part of the evaluation given that it was a single bid;

·                     an in-house option was also developed in order to make a comparison.  This found that in order to deliver the same level of service the Council would have to spend a comparable amount but the option involved greater risk in relation to delivery;

·                     Cabinet at its meeting in July 2010 made an ‘in principle’ decision to transfer IT services to Capita.  After this meeting, four additional projects were conducted.  This involved consultation with staff and unions, negotiating the proposed contract, working on a transition plan and pricing model;

·                     a flexible pricing model had been negotiated to take into account lower fees for reduced number of users and vice versa;

·                     extensive consultation with staff had taken place.  Consultation with individual staff would continue up to the proposed date of transfer;

·                     the report to Cabinet in September 2010 provided an update on the proposal and contained a recommendation to proceed with the transfer.  A final decision would be made at Council;

·                     the transfer of IT services to Capita was integral to the transformation agenda in order to facilitate projects such as remote and flexible working.  There were numerous benefits associated with transferring IT services to Capita and it would be an important tool to drive efficiencies for the Council.

During the discussion, Members raised a number of queries which officers responded to including:

·                     the Council had an existing partnership arrangement with Capita.  The partnership agreement had been established in 2005 and would continue up until 2015.  The partnership agreement had been designed in such a way so as to include delivery of services.  During the initial options appraisal process, other options had been considered but it was concluded that working with Capita under the current partnership agreement would be the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Report of the Divisional Director Partnership Development and Performance.

The Chairman introduced the item and reported that the item had been considered by the Health Sub-Committee at its last meeting on 2 September 2010.  The Chairman commented that the Sub-Committee had recognised that the white paper was a lengthy document.  As a result the Sub-Committee had decided to conduct a workshop session whereby Members would focus on all of the specific themes raised in the white paper.  Responses to the consultation were required by 11 October 2010 and a report on the outcomes of the workshop would be presented to the Committee.

During the discussion on this item, Members raised a number of issues which included:

·                     the issues relating to the closure of the Pinner Village Surgery had demonstrated the importance of holding the Primary Scare trust to account.  As part of the proposals contained in the white paper, it was important to ensure that the proposed NHS Commissioning Board could be held to account in a similar way.  Additionally experience of previous issues would be an important factor when considering the response to the white paper;

·                     there was ambiguity in relation to proposals for aspects of commission to revert to the Local Authority.  There was a view that the white paper provided more questions than answers;

·                     it was likely that there would be significant financial implications for the Council as a result of the proposals in the white paper.  There was therefore a strong need for the Council to consider the proposals carefully;

·                     it was important to focus on how the proposals in the report affected the borough.  An impact assessment report was required so that the Committee could analyse the white paper effectively.  It was appropriate to request that the Director of Public Health, NHS Harrow, provide an impact assessment.

An officer reported that the purpose of the report was to commence the response process to the white paper.  The workshop session would include the attendance of officers within the Council, who would provide specific expertise.  Officers within the Council were still currently analysing details of the white paper.  The Chairman confirmed that an impact assessment would be requested and the Director of Public Health could also be invited to the workshop meetings.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Verbal update.

The Chairman reported that the Committee had established a Challenge Panel to investigate issues into the closure of the Pinner Village Surgery.  The Chairman of the Challenge Panel provided a number of updates to the Committee which included:

·                     it was a fair comment that Members of the Health Sub-Committee had been concerned by the responses received to questions at its meeting on 16 June 2010 when the issues were first considered;

·                     further to the meeting of the Challenge Panel, he had chaired a public meeting which representatives from the PCT had attended.  There had been recognition from the PCT that they could have been more helpful and handled the responses provided in a better manner;

·                     having obtained a full understanding into the issues surrounding the closure of the surgery, it was his view that the correct decision had not been made.  There were other options available which had not been properly investigated.  However there was recognition that the PCT did have a legitimate reason for concern;

·                     it was important that in the future the PCT took into account the views of local residents.  It was also important that Lead Members met regularly with key officers from the PCT to ensure that these issues would not arise again in the future;

·                     the PCT would now have to consider whether they would commission a new surgery to replace the Pinner Village Surgery and had to take into account local demand.

RESOLVED: That the item be noted.

The Committee received a report of the Scrutiny Lead Members detailing issues they had recently considered and further proposed actions.

RESOLVED: That

(1)               the proposal for further briefings to be provided to the Lead Members on Sustainable Development and Enterprise on the Local Economic Assessment, the refresh of the Economic Development Strategy and the Council’s property disposal system be agreed;

(2)               the request for a Challenge Panel to be established on the Housing Ambition Plan, with specific focus on resident engagement, be agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item for the reasons set out below:

Which the Chairman has decided is urgent and cannot otherwise be dealt with.

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman provided a verbal update on the current situation relating to the Harrow Association of Voluntary Services.  They explained that they had both been briefed on the executive summary of the investigation into the organisation.  They informed the Committee of the key issues which had been raised.

A Member commented that it was important for the Committee to consider wide issues such as the monitoring of grants provided by the Council and the appropriate training of Council appointed trustees.  It was important to conduct some random testing relating to the monitoring of grants to check if this was a one-off occurrence or whether there was a more widespread problem.

Another Member commented that a review was required as opposed to a challenge panel as there were significant issues to be addressed.  This would need to be a tighter, shorter piece of work to ensure that any relevant outcomes could be easily absorbed.

An officer confirmed that she would liaise with the Audit department and present proposals on a potential review to the next meeting of the Leadership Group.

RESOLVED: That the item be noted.