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 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 in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interest was declared:

Agenda Items 8 – Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)’s Review of Financial Management at Harrow

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was employed by London Councils and was involved in the Capital Ambition project at London Councils.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2012 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 received.

To receive any references from Council and/or other Committees or Panels.

None received.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership, Development and Performance.

Following a discussion at the previous meeting of the Sub-Committee on 24 July 2012, the Sub-Committee considered and agreed an amended version of its Terms of Reference. 

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

That:

(1)               the Sub-Committee’s Terms of Reference be revised as set out at appendix A to these Minutes; and

(2)               the Overview and Scrutiny Committee refer the revised Terms of Reference to the Constitution Review Working Group for consideration.

Item to be deferred until the next meeting.

RESOLVED:  That this item be deferred until the next meeting of the Sub?Committee.

Presentation by CIPFA.

The Sub-Committee received a presentation from representatives of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), which set out its Review of Financial Management at Harrow Council.

The Corporate Director of Resources stated that CIPFA was the only professional accountancy body to specialise in public services and the Council had commissioned it to undertake a financial management review in February 2012.  She added that the Council had decided to use the CIPFA Financial Management Model as a framework for the review and emphasised that this had not been an audit or an inspection, but a review of the wider financial management systems in place at Harrow with the objective of providing constructive challenge to assist our improvement journey.

A representative from CIPFA advised that it set standards for financial management in the public sector and the Financial Management Model used as part of the review of Harrow was aimed at helping organisations to carry out a self-assessment of their financial management systems.  He added that the model had been in use for a number of years and had been used by numerous public sector organisations.  It allowed CIPFA to benchmark financial management systems within an organisation and identify areas of strength, weaknesses and improvement. It also measured an organisation’s attitude to Financial Management and the performance of the Finance Team.  The conclusions of the review were based on a mix of evidence obtained through electronic surveys, interviews and document review.

The CIPFA representative stated that the overarching aim of the review carried out at Harrow had been to transform financial management at the Council so it could better meet the huge and difficult challenges required by an unfavourable financial environment.  He added that their report had covered the following areas:

·                     challenges facing the public sector generally, such as the consequences of restricted government funding,  possible increases in Council Tax and another spending review;

·                     38 statements of best practice which covered leadership, people, processes and stakeholders;

·                     financial management competencies, accounting processes, areas of strength and development;

·                     finance function service standards and performance management;

·                     key findings and overall conclusions;

·                     lessons from other organisations.

A Member asked whether the issues with the SAP software related to inefficiencies within the system itself or to its implementation.  The Member also queried whether there were other better systems available on the market which were more suited to the needs of local government.

The representative from CIPFA stated that SAP was a high-end, powerful system, but its effectiveness depended on whether an organisation had adequate resources to make the most of its capabilities.  He added that in his experience, few local authorities used SAP, and staff generally found its reporting structure complex.  Inefficient use of SAP and insufficient knowledge of its processes gave rise to the risk of inaccuracies in data.  Miscoding of data meant that time was wasted cleansing data.  The review had shown Harrow to be a low cost performer in the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Report of the Divisional Director, Environmental Services.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Divisional Director, Environmental Services which set out the recommendations and actions arising from the Snow Clearance Challenge Panel Report. 

A Member asked whether resources were at the right level to ensure that Harrow would be adequately prepared to deal with the next heavy snowfall.  An officer responded that there were enough grit bins in the borough and the gritting team were skilled and experienced.  However, resources for the service were under pressure and had been subsidised across a number of budgets.

A back benching Member asked about the higher cost of the new road clearance contract.  The officer stated that the new contract had cost double the price of the previous contract and had been accommodated through budget changes. The previous contract had been unusually cheap. He added that the Council had been able to negotiate a minor reduction with the contractor.

A Member back benching asked if there was sufficient liaison with local partners such as schools and healthcare providers about a co-ordinated approach at times of heavy snowfall.  The officer stated that his service had written to school head teachers, their governing bodies and the local Primary Care Trust to let them know that gritting routes had been changed to include key locations in the borough.  The Member stated that during the last heavy snowfall, many schools had decided to close, however, the Council had gritted the area around these schools.  He stated that there should be greater communication between the winter service and local stakeholders.  The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Families stated that head teachers had overview for health and safety at schools and may decide to close schools during heavy snowfall for reasons of health and safety within the school grounds.

A Member back benching stated that there should be better communication and dialogue between Public Realm services and Children’s Services.  He added that there may be cost implications for the local PCT if many local surgeries were to close during periods of heavy snowfall.

A Member noted that there some residential areas had not been prioritised for gritting during the heavy snowfalls over the last few years.  He suggested that more information and advice for residents should be provided in the Harrow People magazine and on the Council’s website during extreme weather conditions.

A Member stated that the grit bins policy set out in the report seemed to cover the gritting of roads only.  In his view, grit bins should essentially be a tool for ensuring pavements were clear, which was separate from a road clearing service.  He added that during the last heavy snowfall, roads and paths in the town centre and other busy areas been cleared, but the roads and pavements leading to these areas had not been cleared.  The officer responded that grit bins had been placed in roads of known difficulty and residents often helped themselves to grit from these bins.  Both the Greater London Association and Transport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Resources, which was due to be considered by Cabinet the following day, which set out the Revenue and Capital financial monitoring position for Quarter 1.  The Corporate Director advised that:

·                     some early risks had been identified and there was an overall forecast overspend of £426k;

·                     the overspend mostly arose in the Resources Directorate and in the Community, Health and Wellbeing Directorate;

·                     there were increased risks related to increased homelessness, but this situation was being closely monitored and any year end flexibility in this service area was being assessed;

·                     there had been no additional spend in the Transformation projects;

·                     there was better control of expenditure and additional growth in demography, which had been factored into the budget;

·                     income and cost trends had been included in the report, but she was looking to change the format of future Revenue and Capital Monitoring reports to reflect both forecast and actual budget information, as well as spend to date and phased budget spend to date.

A Member questioned the £426K forecast overspend figure in comparison to the £186m revised total budget requirement listed in the report.  He stated that the report should provide comparisons against original budget figures listed in the report.  The Corporate Director advised that the figures in question did not constitute an overspend but were legitimate adjustments to the budget and she hoped to further clarify this at the next Chair’s Briefing session.  She added that she understood the changes to budgets was complex data which used to be included in previous reports and had been omitted from reports in recent years at the request of Members. 

The Member responded that the report lacked transparency in its current format.  He added that demography had been an issue in previous years and asked what was being done to reduce demand.  The Corporate Director advised that demand-management measures and financial modelling and forecasting were being implemented.

A Member questioned the forecast overspend in the Environment Directorate, which was largely due to forecast under recovery of parking enforcement income. The Corporate Director stated that this was reported to be partly due to increasing compliance by motorists but she was concerned as to whether the service had budgeted for this appropriately.  She had requested a detailed report from the service.  She felt that Parking enforcement could be carried out using new technology rather than just relying entirely on staff in the future.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director, Children and Families.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Corporate Director, Children and Families, which set out the statutory Children and Families Services complaints annual report for 2011/12.  An officer highlighted the main areas of the report as follows: 

·                     there had been no new Ombudsman investigations this year;

·                     there had been only 2 children and families complaint local settlements in the last 8 years;

·                     the Children and Families directorate had introduced a number of learning points from complaint improvements over the last 18 months;

·                     there had been no adverse Ombudsman findings against Safeguarding in the last 7 years;

·                     none of the escalated complaints about Special Needs had been upheld;

·                     the Children and Families directorate had achieved 75% stage 1 response timescale compliance;

·                     safeguarding remained an area for improvement.

The officer added that the above figures were encouraging because they demonstrated that the service encouraged and was open to feedback.

A Member questioned whether the key message from the Local Government Ombudsman and the Head of Complaints at the Commission for Social Care Inspection in the table comparing complaints in 2011/12 to previous years could be considered current.  The officer responded that these messages were still valid as they came from two separate independent bodies which had great expertise and knowledge about complaints.  The officer emphasised that receiving a healthy level of stage 1 complaints demonstrated that the Council welcomed feedback and used it to improve its performance rather than engaging in blaming.

A Member asked how many stage 1 Safeguarding complaints had been received in 2011/12.  The officer stated that these had reduced since 2011/12, which was not necessarily a positive sign.  The improvement board reports stated that the Service did not want to engender a defensive culture.

A Member stated that he would have preferred the report to set out the number of complaints received within the context of the Council’s interaction with the public and would have preferred more qualitative analysis of whether the Council was doing enough in this area.  The officer gave the example of the School Admission Service, which had extensive dealings and contact with the public but generally only received about 5 complaints each year.  The Member stated that this data should be used as a guide when evaluating other, more critical service areas to ensure resources were correctly targeted.

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Families emphasised the importance of investigations revealing why complaints had been received, then identifying areas of improving services and staff training.  He added that some complaints relating to schools may relate a child not being offered a place at a preferred school, which was essentially a policy issue and could only be resolved through the school expansion programme.

A Member stated that in his view complaints performed two functions: they were a learning tool for an organisation and a diagnostic tool for the good functioning of an organisation.  He stated that the latter had not been sufficiently covered in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Report of the Corporate Director, Children and Families.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Corporate Director, Children and Families, which set out the statutory Adults Services complaints annual report for social care, 2011/12.

An officer made the following points:

·                     whereas previous evaluation of learning disability (LD) complaints had been critical of LD practice, there were very few complaints in this area in 2011/12;

·                     the Reablement and Personalisation Service had a healthy level of stage 1 complaints with few escalations;

·                     there had been a noticeable increase in policy/financial complaints, although, there were no adverse Ombudsman findings in relation to this;

·                     all 5 of the Safeguarding, Mental Health & Residential Services stage 2 and 3 complaints, which were upheld, indicated that errors had not  been correctly identified at stage 1. Further analysis of these complaints had revealed that the Safeguarding decisions had been sound but difficulties arose from how they had been handled;

·                     the Adults Service was well managed but needing to make difficult decisions given the current economic climate;

·                     eligibility for residential places and adaptations was now strictly managed;

·                     Commissioning, which was a key area, had only received 3 escalated complaints in the past 3 years;

·                     many other local authorities did not audit their complaints or engage in meaningful learning from this process.  The Council performed well in this area in comparison to other London Boroughs.

A Member asked whether the Councillor/MP complaints received were from a variety of Members or from the same Councillors/MPs.  The officer advised that these were cross-party and submitted by a number of different Councillors/MPs.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14.2 (Part 4B) of the Constitution.

RESOLVED:  At 9.59 pm to continue until 10.05 pm.