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 of the following duly constituted Reserve Members:

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Sub-Committee;

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 7 – Mid Year VCS (Voluntary and Community Sector) Grant Monitoring Report

Councillor Richard Almond declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a trustee of the Harrow Citizens’ Advice Bureau.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Sue Anderson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a member of the following organizations: ADHD & Autism Support Harrow, Harrow Association of Disabled People and was a Council appointed representative on the Harrow Environmental Forum and the Harrow Nature Conservation Forum.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was employed by the Citizens’ Advice Bureau at a national level.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Adam Swersky declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a trustee of the Harrow Citizens’ Advice Bureau.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2014 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2014, be agreed at the next meeting.

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, Monday 24 November 2014.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

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

To receive a report from the Interim Corporate Director of Children and Families, and Director of Finance and Assurance.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Corporate Director Children & Families and the Director of Finance and Assurance which provided an update on the implementation of the school expansion programme and related matters.  A document which set out the most up to date information regarding the School Expansion Programme (SEP) was tabled at the meeting.

The Chair welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Young People to the meeting.  Following a brief introduction to the report by the Portfolio Holder and the Interim Corporate Director of Children and families, Members made the following comments and asked the following questions:

·                    What types of difficulties had affected the SEP and why had it been necessary for officers to have meetings with the Keepmoat, the contractors?

·                    There were systemic failings across the council with regard to the terms and conditions of large contracts and it was the responsibility of the Procurement team to ensure there were adequate safeguards written into large contracts.  Why had lessons not been learnt from previous building contracts and were there penalty clauses and strict deadlines specified in the current contract?  Why had fluctuations in the construction market not been anticipated and mitigated against?

·                    What quality issues had there been related to the works carried out by the current contractors and were these of a serious nature?

·                    Who was expected to flag up issues relating to ongoing building works – was this the responsibility of school heads or Council officers?

The Portfolio Holder stated that the main quality issues had not been serious and did not relate to structural issues but were on the whole minor issues related to finishing off works, for example, painting.  These had occurred due to inadequate communication between the contractors and schools.  They were also a consequence of a demanding summer programme of work fitted into a shortened 5½ week summer holiday period. 

The Corporate Director added that a Head Teachers Consultative Group had been set up in order to ensure early engagement by schools with building plans and to ensure good communication between schools and contractors.  The regional Director at Keepmoat had met with school heads recently.  Officers were making every effort to ensure that there was a mutually supportive process between school heads and council officers.  These measures would be of benefit during phases 3 and 4 of the SEP.

An officer advised that the building trade had been in recession this time last year and was now experiencing a boom.  This rapid change in market conditions had seen a sharp increase in construction costs and a sudden shortfall of trade contractors, who had reduced their capacities during the recession.  A notable recognition of this change in market conditions was the 12% increase in construction costs that the Education Funding Agency (EFA) had agreed this year.

Keepmoat, like all main contractors, had recently had a high turnover of staff as there was an ongoing clamber to recruit new staff to meet the increase in demand.  Subcontractors, who were recently chasing work,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive a report from the Corporate Director Community Health and Wellbeing.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Community Health and Well-Being, which set out information on the monitoring of projects or services awarded grant funding in 2014-15 and provided a summary of information provided byorganisations on the delivery of their services as part of the mid-year monitoring process.

The Chair welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Community, Culture and Resident Engagement to the meeting.

Following a brief overview of the report by an officer, Members made the following comments and asked the following questions:

·                    Some of the outcomes set out in the Monitoring forms were not sufficiently detailed.  It was not clear how the grants would be used to achieve the outcomes set out or how these would be measured by the organisation in question or by the Council.  Why had this information not been more clearly defined and specified in the report?

An officer advised that a maximum of £5k was available per organization and most organisations received less than the maximum amount.  There was less specificity required for the small grants.  Some organisations had provided detailed outcomes for grant funded projects and set out who the proposed beneficiaries would be.  This information would be validated by officer validation visits to the organisations in question.

She added that the report had written before any of the validation visits had been undertaken.  Historically, a more complete version of the report would have been reported to the Grants Advisory Panel in December.  She added that the outcome based grants report was also submitted to the relevant Portfolio holder and to Cabinet.  Furthermore, officers were able to hold back or even claw back grants in cases where the organisation was deemed to be under-performing.

·                    Was it possible to differentiate between those organisations that were in receipt of additional funding from other sources and those which were solely funded by Harrow?

An officer advised that organisations were asked to identify other additional funding streams for their projects.  She added that the appendices to the report contained only extracts from the monitoring forms and did not go into full detail.

·                    Why did the extracts not set out which protected groups would be targeted by the organisations?

An officer advised that this level of detail would have been specified on the original grant application forms submitted by groups.

·                    Some groups appeared to be operating in neighbouring boroughs.  Surely this was unfair on Harrow residents?

The Portfolio Holder advised that there was an expectation that grants awarded to groups in Harrow would be used to benefit Harrow residents.  However, some groups had members living in neighbouring boroughs.  An officer added that Community & Voluntary Sector (CVS) organisations did not operate within borough boundaries, however, officers would expect to see evidence of delivery of services to Harrow residents during their validation visits.  The officer added that, in hindsight, she realized that it would have been more useful if the report had included both the original grant application forms, the SLAs and the complete monitoring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business, on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence, or of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972:

RESOLVED:  That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business, on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence, or of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972: