There were no apologies for absence.

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Interim Monitoring Officer.

 

There were no declarations of Disclosable Pencuniary Interest.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 5^th October, 2015.

The Chair Moved  and it was:-

 

RESOLVED

 

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 5^th October, 2015 were approved as a correct record of the proceedings.

To receive any petitions (to be notified at the meeting).

 

Nil items

Nil items

Nil items

Nil items

Nil items

This report provided the annual procurement expenditure analysis for financial year 2014-15 and an update on the Authority’s performance against key objectives set out within the Councils Procurement Policy Imperatives.

 

The Committee noted the:

 

1.    Annual procurement expenditure analysis;

2.    Achievements against the Procurement Policy Imperatives;

3.    Authority’s position on central records of all supplies, services and works contracts and progress made in improving third party expenditure under management; and

4.    Current issues, future challenges and planned improvements to further transform Council’s procurement activities.

It was noted that the terms of reference of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee provided that in respect of the Council’s petition scheme, power is delegated to the Committee to undertake a review if a petition organiser feels the authority’s response to his/her position was inadequate. In her request for a review (appendix 2 referred), the petition organiser states that despite submitting a petition to Council in January 2014, no formal response has been received and an explanation and a response is sought.  

 

The Committee heard that:

 

In the autumn of 2008 following a lengthy campaign from leaseholders and Tower Hamlets Leaseholders’ Association, the Council agreed a Motion to commission an independent audit of leasehold service charges to ensure these were accurately calculated in accordance with best practice, and to ensure that the charges levied were fair, accurate and transparent.

 

A Project Steering Group (PSG) including leaseholders and cross-party Members was set up to oversee the audit. The PSG were responsible for drawing up the brief for the audit, and oversaw the procurement process, with leaseholder representatives and Councillors on the selection panel which appointed Beever & Struthers.

 

The audit by Beever & Struthers was conducted in early 2010, and an Action Plan containing 54 service recommendations was developed. A Leasehold Action Plan Working Group (LAPWG) was established, comprising leaseholders and THH/LBTH staff, which met regularly to monitor detailed progress against the action plan and recommend completions to PSG for sign-off.

 

THH carried out work to implement all of the recommendations, with a projected delivery date of March 2013. The PSG signed off 9 of the recommendations as completed, 15 recommendations were considered by PSG but not signed off, and 32 were completed but not yet considered by PSG.

 

PSG did not discuss or consider any of the outstanding recommendations after October 2012, as leaseholder members on the LAPWG disagreed with THH over changes to service charge calculations which were introduced in September 2012. The changes introduced were to:

 

·         allocate all overheads to front line services (in line with best practice and with Beever & Struthers’ recommendations.); and

·         charges in relation to caretaking to blocks and estates based on time spent, again in line with Beever & Struthers’ recommendations.

 

The Council proposed to resolve this impasse by commissioning a further independent review to assess the progress made in implementing the 54 points of the action plan. This review was undertaken by Housing Quality Network and completed in February 2015. Again, leaseholder representatives from PSG were fully involved in the selection process to appoint Housing Quality Network. The review by HQN found:

 

·         Good progress made on the B&S recommendations;

·         Not all the recommendations ready for sign off;

·         Evidence of improvements in the engagement structure;

·         A wider range of opportunities offered to leaseholders;

·         Increased leaseholder satisfaction; and

·         Relationships of THH and Tower Hamlets Council and PSG needed to improve.

 

An audit by Mazars Audit was also commissioned by Mayor Rahman to look at:

 

·         the on-going costs reduction process being undertaken by THH; and

·         ensure that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.2

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) noted that good financial practice requires that regular reports be submitted to Council/Committee setting out the financial position of the Council against budget, and its service performance against targets.  The regular reporting of the Strategic Performance and Corporate Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring should assist in ensuring that Members are able to scrutinise officer decisions.  The main points of the discussion may be outlined as follows:

 

Review of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)

 

OSC agreed:

 

•           To request a more detailed business case on these proposals, including the risks; and

 

 

Realignment and funding of efficiencies in early years provision

 

OSC agreed:

 

•           To request more details.

 

 

Charging for community Social Care services

 

OSC agreed:

 

To request a more detailed business case and calculations/assumptions for charging;

 

 

Review of Day Services for Older People

 

OSC agreed:

 

• To request further information on how spending on Mayfield House is split between in-house and commissioned services;

 

 

Improving focus on reablement for social care users

 

OSC agreed:

 

• To request a briefing on the assumptions underpinning this proposal.

 

 

Review of high cost Learning Disability care packages

 

OSC agreed:

 

• To request details of any risks of a reduced/poorer service resulting from these proposals.

 

 

Saving Money by Reducing or Stopping Sunday Idea Store Opening

 

OSC agreed:

 

•           To request a more detailed business case on these proposals.

 

 

Renegotiation of Current Leisure Services Contract

 

OSC agreed:

 

•           To request a more detailed business case on these proposals.

 

 

Discontinue the Incontinence Laundry Service

 

OSC agreed:

 

•           To request a more detailed business case on these proposals, including the risks.

 

 

Alternative funding arrangement for Toilets

 

OSC agreed:

 

•           To request a more detailed business case on these proposals.

 

 

Alternative Waste Disposal Solution

 

OSC agreed:

 

• To request a more detailed business case on these proposals.

 

 

Review of Streetcare and Streetworks Team

 

OSC agreed:

 

•           To request a more detailed business case on these proposals.

 

 

Reduction in Blackwall Tunnel Approach Cleansing

 

OSC agreed:

 

• To request a more detailed business case on these proposals.

 

Increased productivity and commercialisation of planning and building control services

 

OSC agreed:

 

• To request information on the limits of what could be funded from potential increased income generated by these proposals.

 

 

Other requests

 

OSC agreed:

 

• To request the total budget and breakdown of spend on the council’s Public Health service;
• To request information on the impact of loss of the Independent Living Fund.

 

 

Agreed to defer consideration of this item until the next meeting.

To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet.

 

(Time allocated – 30 minutes).

Agenda Item 5.6 – Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2014-15

 

Committee asked for details

 

1.    of attendance at the Board to see who is being engaged;

2.    on what the Board is doing to scrutinise themselves and their partners;

3.    on what is being done to ensure learning is filtering down to staff and that they are aware of how the Board is improving their practice/learning; and

4.    of the costs to LBTH of the Board Chair and how is this bench marked.

 

Agenda Item 5.7 - Safeguarding Adults Board Annual report 2014-15

 

Committee asked for details

 

1.    of attendance at the Board to see who is being engaged;

2.    on what the Board is doing to scrutinise themselves and their partners;

3.    on what is being done to ensure learning is filtering down to staff and that they are aware of how the Board is improving their practice/learning; and

4.    of the costs to LBTH of the Board Chair and how is this bench marked.

 

Agenda Item 5.13 – Transparency Protocol: A Transparent Mayor, an Open Council

 

Committee asked for details regarding the publication of data under the Transparency Code.  He wanted to know if Tower Hamlets had reached the standard of three stars in relation to the openness of the formats that we use to publish data, as per the LG Transparency Code.

 

Reponses to the above are set out in the attached Appendices A; A1 and A2

 

 

To consider any other unrestricted business that the Chair considers to be urgent.

 

Nil items

 

The agenda circulated contained no exempt/ confidential business and there was therefore no requirement to exclude the press and public to allow for its consideration.

 

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the restricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 5^th October, 2015.

 

Nil items

Nil Items

 

Nil items

 

To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet.

 

(Time allocated 15 minutes).

Nil items

 

To consider any other exempt/ confidential business that the Chair considers to be urgent.

 

Nil items