Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 7 – Harrow Youth Offending Team – Annual Report; Agenda Item 8 – Harrow Youth Offending Partnership Youth Justice Plan 2015-2018

Councillor Marilyn Ashton declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a magistrate but not a youth magistrate.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 9 – Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Reforms Implementation

Councillor Jeff Anderson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a governor at Kingsley School.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 11 – Commercialisation Strategy

Councillor Paul Osborn declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived close to the Vaughan Road Car Park site.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 9 June 2015 and the special meeting held on 3 September 2015 (To Follow) be taken as read and signed as correct records.

That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 9 June 2015 and the special meeting held on 3 September 2015 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Friday 11 September. Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

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

There were none.

Report of the Interim Corporate Director, Children and Families.

This Committee considered a report which presented the draft Youth Justice Plan (The Plan) 2015-2018 setting out how its outcomes would be delivered and what were its challenges and priorities

The Interim Corporate Director of Children and Families addressed the Committee and explained that the Youth Justice Plan was a 3 year plan and would be submitted to the Youth Justice Board in August 2015 prior to Full Council approval in December 2015.

The Head of Service – Youth Offending also addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·                     the three Key Performance Indicators for the Youth Offending Team, as set by the Youth Justice Board were reducing first time entrants; reducing re-offending and reducing the use of custody. Performance against these targets was good;

·                     there was a decrease in the number of young people being found guilty of a crime in 2014-15;

·                     the Harrow Youth Offending Team Annual Report fed into this Plan;

·                     the financial grant which was provided and associated with the work set out in the Plan would only be provided once the Plan had been finalised and agreed;

·                     the Plan addressed a number of key issues.  These included structure and governance, partnership arrangements, use of resources, value for money and performance.  It also reported on the key achievements and challenges.

·                     there had been a decrease in the number of youth remanded into custody. However those who had been remanded into custody were now being sentenced for longer periods for more serious crimes;

·                     there was increased compliance with national standards;

·                     the Youth Offending Service had been re-structured.  There were now permanent members of staff as opposed to temporary members of staff.  This meant that staff were better able to support young people;

·                     it was acknowledged that there were still some challenges in relation to assessments conducted and consistency.

The Portfolio Holder Assistant for Children’s Health and Social Care addressed the Committee and reported that in her view the report was excellent and provided a good account of the issues in Harrow.

The following questions were made by Members and responded to accordingly:

·                     How was radicalisation of young people being addressed?

This was a very important issue.  The Council had a bespoke officer who dealt with this issue.  Training was also provided to members of the Youth Offending Team.  If anyone was suspected of being radicalised they were referred to the appropriate Panel who could signpost them to the relevant support networks and to gather soft intelligence.  There was a comprehensive Council approach and the Youth Offending Team played an important role in delivering this broader strategy.

·                     The number of female youths committing crimes in Harrow appeared to be higher than the national average.  Was this significant?

It was believed that more young females were becoming involved in gangs in Harrow.  There would be a peer review taking place on gangs in Harrow and it was expected that this issue would be reviewed in more depth to understand the issues.

·                     How would the issues surrounding the core group  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Report of the Interim Corporate Director, Children and Families.

This Committee considered this report which was discussed together with minute item 115 – Harrow Youth Offending Partnership youth Justice Plan 2015-2018.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Interim Corporate Director, Children and Families.

The Committee received a report which set out the arrangements for implementing the SEND reforms introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014 to improve outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs.

The Divisional Director of Special Needs Services introduced the item and made the following points:

·                     the Committee had first considered the issues raised in this report about a year ago.  The Committee had agreed that these issues would be further reported at this point to set out the relevant developments which had taken place;

·                     the requirements of the SEND reforms are contained within the Children and Families Act 2014 which repealed previous legislation;

·                     Local Authorities and their partners were required to implement a number of key aspects of the reforms by 1 September 2014 and there were a number of elements that were being developed over time;

·                     a key feature of the new system that had been introduced was that there was a greater emphasis on a family-centred approach with the expectation of a stronger engagement of the parents of children, young people with special educational needs and disabilities, children and young people;

·                     there were a number of key developments relevant to Harrow.  Firstly the Council was required to publish an initial, accessible local offer developed with key partners.  This covered the support available for those with or without special educational statements or education, health and care plans from birth to 25 years, including SEN support in school;

·                     a Transition Plan had been published as part of the local offer and was produced and developed with parent and schools and colleges.  This gave information on how the Council would go about transferring children and young people who received support as a result of special educational statements or a learning difficulty assessment to education health and care plans overall by April 2018;

·                     a clear policy was in place regarding the scope of personal budgets being part of the local offer.  Whilst personal budgets had attracted a lot of media attention, they had attracted less attention from parents;

·                     there was a strong emphasis on Joint Commissioning and the requirement for Local Authorities and Clinical Commissioning Groups to work together strategically to develop special needs and disability system that will nest support the SEND reforms;

·                     the Authority was required and had put in place arrangements for providing independents information, advice and support for parents and children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities across education, social care and health, including independent supporters;

·                     the Council also had to have in place systems for dispute resolution;

·                     the Government had provided funding for the implementation of the SEND reforms.  However the amount provided had been modest and the Council had engaged in considerable amounts of work and service restructure to deliver the new requirements;

·                     research commissioned by the Department for Education had indicated that the new proposals would on average be more expensive than the previous system of special needs statements.  This was consistent with the Council’s experience locally;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Report of the Divisional Director, Strategic Commissioning.

The Committee received a report which set out the draft scope for the scrutiny review of welfare reforms.  The proposed Chair of the Review Group addressed the Committee and explained that potentially the review could have a very wide scope.  Given this there were two areas that the Review Group wanted to focus on.  These were consideration of Working Tax Credits and the Benefits Cap.

There were 4 phases involved as part of the review.  This would involve the evidence phase, evidence gathering, the solution phase and finally writing of the final report.

A Member of the Committee commented that given the Greater London Authority Elections would be held next year, it was advisable that the final report was submitted back to the Committee at the first meeting after these elections.  The report could potentially involve political discussion and it was in the interests of the Review that this was considered at a time when there would be less political discussion about it.  The Member also asked that in section 6 of the Draft Scope, the second paragraph be amended to read ‘Amongst the cohorts to focus on …’

RESOLVED:  That

(1)          the scope of the Review be agreed subject to the second paragraph of section 6 of the Draft Scope, being amended to read ‘Amongst the cohorts to focus on …’

(2)          the Chair of the Review Group be Councillor Pamela Fitzpatrick;

(3)          a final report be presented back to the Committee at its first ordinary meeting after the Greater London Authority Elections on 5 May 2016.

Report of the Corporate Director, Resources.

 The Committee received a report which set out updates to the Commercialisation Strategy that was approved by Cabinet in June 2015.  The Committee welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Major Contracts and the Portfolio Holder for Business, Planning and Regeneration who were in attendance for this item.

The Corporate Director of Resources & Commercial introduced the report and explained that it was of huge importance that the Council investigated how it could bring new streams of income to invest in and support the delivery of priority outcomes across the Council.  The Corporate Director made the following points:

·                     the scope and objectives of the Commercialisation Strategy had been included in the report;

·                     the Council will be part of the Advanced Commercialisation Network at the Local Government Association (LGA) and had been liaising with a number of different authorities;

·                     it was recognised that the Council would have to undergo cultural changes if the aims and objectives of the Commercialisation Strategy were to be achieved.  It was recognised that different skills and knowledge were required by the Council;

·                     when the Commercialisation Strategy had been presented to Cabinet, a number of initial ideas had been included.  For some of these ideas feasibility studies had been produced and some were quite detailed;

·                     it was expected that when the draft budget was produced in December 2015, there would be more information provided on the financial savings which it was expected that these ideas would make;

·                     the Council had taken legal and tax advice and had decided to set up trading entities and a limited liability partnership to deliver the proposals contained within the Commercialisation Strategy;

·                     there were a number of programme activities contained within the Commercialisation Strategy.  These included reviewing the Council’s subsidy position on fees and charges and revising the Council’s trading performance and an ongoing review of service specification levels in major contracts.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Major Contracts explained that it was important that the Council embarked on a Commercialisation Strategy given the financial cuts facing the Council.  The Portfolio Holder for Business, Planning and Regeneration explained that it was believed that the options explored in the Commercialisation Strategy would provide income to the Council.

The following questions were raised by Members and responded to accordingly:

·                    there were concerns that the risks involved with the Commercialisation Strategy had not been explored fully.  There were big risks particularly in relation to commercial property and to the skill set that existing staff in the Council had.

There were risks involved in the Commercialisation Strategy but a lot of work had been done in assessing these.  Specific analysis of risks would be included as decisions to progress key areas are brought to Cabinet in the future.  The initial Commercialisation Strategy is high level.  The Council had studied other authorities where commercialisation ideas had worked well and had also studied those were it had not.  There would be business cases for each idea contained within the Commercialisation Strategy before it was commenced and this would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Report of Divisional Director, Strategic Commissioning.

The Committee received a report which set out the draft scope for two scrutiny reviews from the Environment and Enterprise Scrutiny Leads covering community involvement in parks and Social and Community Infrastructure.

The Chair commented that it had previously been informally agreed that a Labour Group Member would Chair the Review into Parks and a Conservative Member would Chair the Review into Social & Community Infrastructure.  However the Vice-Chair commented that this had not yet been agreed by the Conservative Group.  It was agreed that the memberships and Chairs of the working Group would be decided at a future scrutiny leadership meeting.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)          the scopes for the Reviews be agreed;

(2)               the membership and Chairs of the Scrutiny Reviews be agreed at a future Scrutiny Leadership Group meeting.