To consider referrals from other bodies (e.g. Cabinet)

2019/20 Annual Reports from the Overview and Scrutiny Panels

Members considered the annual reports of the four Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

Councillor Werner commented that he had raised an issue at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel the previous day that scrutiny was failing to achieve all it could do. He saw from the reports that administration control of the Panels was absolute; the choice of Chairman was whipped and the agenda was completely controlled by the Chairman so that any issues the opposition wanted to raise were squashed. The report from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel did not include the opposition’s constant requests for close monitoring of the budget. As it was the opposition in previous meetings that had challenged the finances of the council, it seemed important to give the opposition the ability to insist on items appearing on agenda. Apart from a couple of notable exceptions, scrutiny was not working well. He would like to see a root and branch review of the scrutiny process and how the independence of the Panels could be secured going forward.

Councillor Davey highlighted a number of sections from the constitution:

·         A7.3 The Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Panels shall invite representations for inclusion within the Work Programme from the groups in A7.2 within 60 days of Annual Council. 

·         A7.2 In setting the Work Programme the Overview and Scrutiny Panels shall take into account the wishes of members & residents.

Councillor Davey questioned whether the current year’s Chairmen (Councillors Hunt, Bowden and Targowski) had invited representations for inclusion as the new year had started on 26 May 2020. Councillor Singh had reached out to Members across the floor for representation on 6 July 2020. He was aware of an announcement to residents the previous year and had been assured it would be done as a generic announcement by the Communications team.

Councillor Davey felt that residents would like to be reassured that the scrutiny panels, especially the Chairmen, did actually know and had read the rules in Part 4 of the constitution. They were after all paid for their service, the Vice Chairmen received no remuneration. It would be good to know that they were being professional in their approach and addressing the various points that had been raised.

Councillor Jones commented that Overview and Scrutiny Panels were able to instigate in-depth investigations into policy and performance issues. Topics were chosen in consultation with officers, partners and members of the public, with the view of making recommendations on a particular policy or service area. They had a scope, terms of reference, a final report and a response from Cabinet. The report from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel under ‘Topics Scrutinised’ just provided a link to the meetings of the Panel. The lack of scrutiny of topics was a concern of Councillor Jones. She would like to see a page on the website listing the scrutiny reviews and their outcomes. Haringey council had a very good template.

Councillor Price welcomed the change in the constitution requiring each of the four Panels to produce an Annual Report for Council to note.  This should enable Panels to improve their important role whilst ensuring all Members, as well as the public, appreciated their essential work.   She welcomed that the Members’ survey results had been published but was shocked that of the 20 Panel Members, fewer than 15 responded.  She questioned whether Members appreciated the importance of the Panels in effective governance.

Councillor Price wanted to highlight some points, drawing on the four individual reports, the survey results and her year’s experience of  being a Panel Member and attending and speaking at other Panels.   She highlighted the importance of receiving all necessary paperwork in good time to allow Panel Members to consider issues robustly.    This should happen without exception, but it had not, and has thus prevented the Panel from discharging its responsibilities in an effective manner.  To receive key documents merely hours before a meeting was unacceptable.  

She agreed that the Task and Finish Groups should focus on policy creation rather than simply receiving briefings.   There was a wasted opportunity highlighted in the Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Panel regarding the Homeless project, which was set up to look at good practice elsewhere but only received briefings from officers.     

She strongly supported improving chairing skills.  This was key for the Panels to operate effectively, and she believed such training should be compulsory, including a clear understanding of the terms of reference, and the importance of following the agenda.   She had been shocked at a Panel Chairman allowing a Lead Member to make a political speech of many minutes.  Chairmen needed to understand the role of and who were their co-optees. 

Councillor Price welcomed a Scrutiny Handbook so that best practice could be identified and followed.  She had formed the impression some Panel Members just did not understand the scrutiny process and seemed reluctant to ask questions or challenge. Scrutiny training needed to be delivered alongside the Handbook. Training on local government/council finances was also needed.  She noted that not one Panel appeared to have considered its constitutional responsibility in “assisting the Cabinet in the development of the Council’s annual budget and to review and scrutinise budgetary management”.   She urged Panels to consider this in the current year’s programme and report back. She supported the proposal for an exclusive meeting to discuss the Budget Report, together with the need to schedule more than four meetings a year. 

Councillor Price supported the recommendation for a separate Audit Panel, and if the Chairman/Vice Chairman did not have a financial background then training would become paramount to ensure they discharged their duties effectively.   The Chairmen and Vice Chairmen were voted in every year. She had not realised that there would be so many changes; only one Chairman was now the same Chairman as the previous year. Rather than relinquish responsibilities once the outgoing Chairman was informed they would not continue she recommended that the outgoing Chairman continued responsibilities until the new Chairman was elected, to ensure a smooth transition from one municipal year to the next.  

 In conclusion, Councillor Price commented that the Constitution laid down an excellent overview and scrutiny process; a ‘Ferrari’.   However, just like a Ferrari required a well-trained and experienced driver and a team of support, the council was bumping along  a bit like driving an ‘old banger’.  Training and a willingness to be self-critical was needed. She questioned whether the council would have ended up in such a dire financial situation if the Panels had been operating effectively over the previous years.

Councillor Hunt explained that she was now Chairman of the Adults, Children and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel. She referred Members to pages 91-122 of the constitution clearly stated everything to do with the Panels. As Chairman she would automatically send this to all Members before the next meeting as a refresh. This was something that had been done in the past.

Councillor Johnson commented that the role of Overview and Scrutiny was taken very seriously in the authority, especially in the post-CIPFA age. The CIPFA report and its recommendations, including those from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel, would be discussed by Cabinet later in the week. As Chairman of Cabinet he would reserve some of his responses to that meeting. Overview and Scrutiny had two key functions: to hold the administration to account and to develop policy ideas. He had seen some sparks of good ideas but he had not seen all that many thought provoking and innovative suggestions come forward. There was an opportunity collectively for Members to raise their game so that the council would be on the front foot and able to respond to the huge challenges that lay ahead in the post-pandemic world. The notion of training, which he was discussing with the other Group Leaders, was something that should be explored for all Members in terms of process and the duty to uphold the correct guidance to residents, particularly in relation to public health.

Councillor Baldwin commented that the point about training came up each year in the surveys that Members were asked to take. He was delighted to hear that the Leader of the Council was taking the issue seriously. He had attended Panels that had clearly demonstrated that all participants could be better trained.

Councillor Johnson responded that he was happy to speak with the other Group Leaders and the Managing Director in relation to what additional support could be put in place, including from the Local Government Association and other associated bodies.

Councillor Sharpe commented that he had attended Panel meetings in which there had been robust and challenging debate. He welcomed further training so that all understood the role of Overview and Scrutiny

It was proposed by Councillor Targowski, seconded by Councillor Sharpe, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the 2019-20 annual reports of the four Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

Counterparty List Addition

Members considered the addition of Leisure Focus Trust to the Council’s approved Counterparties list as recommended by Cabinet at its meeting on 25 June 2020.

Councillor Hilton explained that the maximum loan value would be £350,000. He commented that Members would be aware that Parkwood would cease to manage the borough’s leisure centres; all details were included in a Part II report to Cabinet on 25 June. That report proposed that management should be taken over by a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) to be named Leisure Focus.  The initial contract was on a 2-year plus 1-year basis. Detailed advice was taken at the time on the structure and a council officer would sit on the board.

The proposal of a loan of £350,000 for one year would provide the trust with sufficient working capital. It would be subject to a legally binding loan facility and monitoring by the S151 officer and would be subject to interest charges.

Councillor Del Campo commented that given the council was asked to agree a new credit line, it would be good to understand the governance arrangements. The governing documents allowed for a maximum of six trustees with only one appointed by the council and five community trustees appointed by the charity. There was therefore room for three more. It would be helpful if Members could be advised on plans for recruitment of additional trustees, especially those with a strong background in finance.

Councillor Knowles asked if the buffer fund had been based on previous cashflow and was it economically sufficient given very little income would be forecast.

Councillor Rayner explained that four trustees had been appointed to the trust including Sue Anstis who was prominent in the world of women’s sport, Adrien Moorhouse, a well-known athlete who also ran a management consultancy, Toby Wheeler, a local resident and the Director of Place. The trustees had a range of expertise to take the project forward. The sum of £350,000 was based on the cashflow projection by the trust.

Councillor Baldwin commented that the administration was placed in a near-impossible situation by circumstances entirely beyond their control. Officers in a very short period of time did an incredible job on behalf of residents. He commended their work.

Councillor Johnson thanked Councillor Baldwin for his positive comments. Officers and Lead Members had indeed done fantastic work to turn the situation around. He hoped the new entity would be a success. In the long term he believed it would be but commented that the duty fell on everyone to encourage people to use the facilities, within public health guidelines.

Councillor Hilton wished all leisure centres well; he hoped the prospect of Braywick on the horizon would encourage people to use the facilities. He thanked Councillor Baldwin for his kind words that were very apt. He also thanked Councillor Rayner who had demonstrated that she was on top of her brief.

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Rayner, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and endorses the actions proposed:

i)     Approves the addition of Leisure Focus Trust to the list of the Council’s approved Counterparties with a maximum sum to be lent of £0.35m.