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 Member:-

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

(a)               all Members of the Committee;

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

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 7 – Reference from Cabinet on 4 April 2012 – Petition from Shopmobility

Councillor Sue Anderson declared a personal interest in that she was a member of the Grants Advisory Panel.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Nana Asante declared a personal interest in that she was the Chair of the Grants Advisory Panel.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon but would not participate as discussion on the item had commenced prior to her attendance as a Reserve Member.

Councillor Krishna James declared a personal interest in that she was a member of the Grants Advisory Panel.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 8 – Redefining Youth Engagement – Report from the Scrutiny Review Group

Councillor Sue Anderson declared a personal interest in that her husband was the Chair of Governors at Kingsley High School.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Ann Gate declared personal interests in that her husband was the Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Families and that she was the Director of a youth charity, Soul Survivor.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Brian Gate, who was not a member of the Committee, declared personal interests in that he was the Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Families and that he was married to the Director of a youth charity, Soul Survivor.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a personal interest in that his sister was a teacher at Hatch End High School and was a sports co-ordinator.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Victoria Silver, who was not a member of the Committee, declared a personal interest due to the consultancy work she was currently doing with Futuerversity.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon unless the interest became prejudicial and she would then leave the room.

Agenda Item – 10 – Scrutiny Lead Member Report

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a prejudicial interest in that he was a member of Cabinet when SmartWater had been introduced.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon unless SmartWater was discussed and he would then leave the room.

Councillor Paul Osborn declared a prejudicial interest in that he was a member of Cabinet when SmartWater had been introduced.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon unless SmartWater was discussed and he would then leave the room.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2012 and of the Special meeting held on 24 May 2012 (to follow) be taken as read and signed as correct records.

The Committee agreed to consider the minutes of the Special meeting held on 24 May 2012 as a matter of urgency for the reasons set out on the supplemental agenda.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 April 2012 and of the Special meeting held on 24 May 2012, be taken as read and signed as correct records.

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, petitions or deputations had been received under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rules 17, 15 and 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

The Chair welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services and representatives of Shopmobility, Mrs Eileen Kinnear and Mrs Gaye Branch, to the meeting.

The Committee received the reference from Cabinet on 4 April 2012 in relation to the petition seeking continued funding for Harrow Shopmobility.  The petition had been referred in accordance with the Council’s petition scheme and the Chair explained that, whilst the organisation had been unsuccessful in their application for grant funding, they had subsequently been successful on appeal.

The Chair then invited the Portfolio Holder and officer to make a brief introduction.  He advised those present that the questions submitted by Shopmobility in accordance with the petition scheme had been tabled and that this document also included the answers.  The questions and answers are attached at Appendix I to these minutes.

Four Members expressed concern that 3 of the members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee present were also members of the Grants Advisory Panel and stated that it was difficult to separate these roles and that they should not be involved in scrutinising the decision referred to in the petition.  Whilst the four Members accepted that the Grants Advisory Panel did not make the decision on grant applications they expressed the view that the Members concerned should leave the meeting.  The Chair stated that petition related to process and that it was up to individual Members to determine whether they needed to leave the meeting.

The Chair invited the representatives to put their questions to the officer present.  The representatives stated that the purpose of their questions was to get some clarity for other organisations. The Committee agreed to take the written answers provided as read.  In addition, Members asked additional questions of the officer and Portfolio Holder and made comments as follows:

·                     Members accepted that it could be difficult to fully answer some of the questions on the Grants application form.

·                     The form received by Shopmobility was the same as that received by 77 other organisations.

·                     It was clarified that some support had been provided to assist with the completion of the form.

·                     Members noted the petitioners comment that there was no option to include supplementary information on the form.

·                     The Portfolio Holder advised that the form and guidance notes had been reviewed in light of the comments made the previous year.

·                     In response to a Member’s question, the officer advised that the marks were conveyed to each organisation and that Shopmobility had scored 24 on their initial application.  On appeal, Shopmobility had scored 28.  The Member expressed concern at the checks and balances in place and commented that the scoring appeared to be arbitrary.  The officer advised that the appeals process involved taking a second look at the form and interpretation may vary on review.

·                     Members were reminded that the Grants Advisory Panel was cross party and also included representatives from the voluntary sector.

·                     The Portfolio Holder advised that the Grants team could not complete applications for organisations, it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 269a

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance

The Chair welcomed Councillor Victoria Silver, Chair of the Scrutiny Review Group, Hannah Nathanson, Chair of Harrow Youth Parliament, Ladan Dirie, Harrow’s Member of UK Youth Parliament, and David Howes, Harrow Mencap, to the meeting.

The Chair of the Review Group introduced the report which set out the findings and recommendations from the scrutiny review.  The review had explored ways in which the Council could most effectively communicate with young people in decision making and community activity.  She emphasised that the report was the young peoples and that they wanted to have an input into policy, have their opinions valued and that they wanted to be leaders.  She added that the Council could learn from young people who were questioning whether the right policies and politicians were in place.

The Committee then received a presentation from Hannah Nathanson and Ladan Dirie which set out the background to the review, the process and results and finally, their recommendations.  The recommendations related to the Youth Summit, commissioning decisions, Harrow Youth website and the Summer Uni.  The recommendations are set out in detail in the presentation which is attached at Appendix 2 to these minutes.

David Howes advised that Harrow Youth Parliament and Harrow Mencap provided a wider view as to the needs of all young people.  Young people with learning difficulties had been having a more difficult time than many other young people as they had a higher support need.  He stated that report could make a significant difference to the young people of Harrow.

All Members of the Committee congratulated the young people on their report and the presentation.  Members then made comments and asked questions of the young people and the Chair of the Review Group which were responded to as follows:

·                     In response to a question as to the role of parents, schools and clubs in the review, the Chair of the Review Group advised that it was one of the key challenges in gathering evidence.  It was a difficult time in Harrow due to many schools converting to academy status and it was hard to establish an integrated view.

·                     A Member stated that it was important for young people to be aware of what the Council did.  He suggested that work experience was invaluable and assisted the development of business acumen.

·                     The consensus was that young people could be defined as within the 16-25 age range.

·                     The recommendations on engagement could be taken more generally rather than just specifically youth and a the Member suggested that Cabinet might wish to consider applying them across the Council.

·                     Referring to recommendation 1, a Member stated that it needed to be clear as to which Councillor was taking the lead.

·                     Responding to a comment in relation to recommendation 10 on Cabinet meeting with young people, a representative of the young people stated that such a meeting would be more productive it was on the young people’s terms.

·                     A  Member agreed that the Harrow Youth website  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance

The Chair of the Review Group introduced the report which set out the scope for the Customer Care Scrutiny Review.  He reminded the Committee that they had discussed the draft scope at their meeting on 3 April and had requested that it be re-presented at this meeting incorporating any subsequent comments from Members.

The Chair of the Review Group expressed his disappointment at the poor attendance by Members at the two review group meetings and suggested that scheduling required consideration.  He acknowledged that scrutiny members might be trying to do too much and that a discussion at their Leadership Group might be helpful.

In response to a question in relation to the definition of customer care, the Chair of the Review Group advised that customer satisfaction was measured by the engagement tracker.

RESOLVED:  That the scope for the Customer Care Scrutiny Review be approved.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance

The Committee received the reports from Scrutiny leads. Members made the following comments:

·                     It was acknowledged that whilst Members interests had to be considered it was also important to have a meaningful discussion.

·                     Although a Member had received the SmartWater kit no other anti burglary devices had been received.

·                     The Borough Commander stated on his blog that burglary had gone down but this was not reflected by the report.

RESOLVED:  That the reports from the Scrutiny Lead Members be noted and the actions proposed therein agreed.

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

The Committee agreed to consider the appointments to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) as a matter of urgency for the reasons set out on the supplemental agenda.

A Member reported that it was currently proposed that the Member from Harrow Chair the JOSC and that there was funding available for administrative support.  The Committee expressed the view that Harrow should welcome the opportunity to chair the JOSC.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Krishna James be appointed as Member of the JOSC and Councillor Mrs Vina Mithani as the Reserve Member.