Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet and will be archived for later viewing. Copies of recordings may be made available on request.

By entering the chamber’s lower seating area you consenting to becoming part of the webcast.

If you wish to avoid being filmed you should move to the public gallery or speak to the webcasting officer”

The Assistant to the Chief Executive reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs J Whitehouse had substituted for Councillor D Jacobs.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 24 January 2012.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 24 January 2012 be agreed.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

Councillor Janet Whitehouse declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 as she was a member of Essex County Council.

Councillor Ray Gooding, the Deputy Portfolio Holder for Children Services, Jenny Boyd, the West Director of Local Delivery and Lonica Vanclay, Head of Locality Commissioning will attend the meeting and will focus on Essex County Council's responses to the recommendations to the Children's Services Task & Finish Review.

A copy of the Task and Finish final report is attached for reference along with the updating report submitted to the O&S meeting in October 2011.

The Committee received a presentation from County Councillor Ray Gooding, the Deputy Portfolio Holder for Children Services, Jenny Boyd, the Director of Local Delivery West and Lonica Vanclay, Head of  Locality Commissioning. They were there to speak about progress made by County on the provision of children services and to respond to the recent District Council’s Task and Finish Panel’s report on children services. A copy of their presentation is attached to these minutes.

The Committee noted that in recent years ECC’s Children’s Social Care was characterised by high levels of unallocated work; the use of high numbers of agency staff; they were risk adverse with a process led and procedure driven culture, which was managed from the centre. This tended to lead to high numbers of children in care and subject to child protection plans, with a significant number of serious case reviews with a high spend on legal services; this resulted in defensive or reactive practices. Essex County Council reacted by putting in a strong and robust improvement plan which resulted in an improved Ofsted inspection (in September 2011) of an improved rating to “Adequate” from “Inadequate” in previous years. They have now moved into phase 2 of their improvement plan.

A new senior management team and a new quadrant structure had been put in place to bring practices in line with the principles of the Munro review of child protection.  They aimed to invest in staff, improve supervision and support for social workers, improve social work practice, use social work skills to work with families to bring about change and build resilience. They were also building strong relationships with key partners to enable collaborative working and an integrated approach to providing help to families.

Each of the quadrants would cover the whole portfolio of operational Children’s Social Care, with the commissioning budgets and associated decision making devolved down to each quadrant. The quadrant directors would hold strategic county wide leads and be responsible within the locality partnerships for all Social Care quadrant delivery.

Achievements in the West / Epping Forest District included bringing down the number of unallocated cases; completing the number of assessments within the timescale; the number of children on a child protection plan was down considerably; and many families were now supported at an earlier stage. It was also noted that a professional disagreement process was adapted with West contacts.

County were developing a single strategic commissioning approach across children’s and adult services and wanted to work with partners for smarter commissioning with reduced duplication and costs.

They were reviewing what they would deliver directly and what they would commission others to deliver. But, as with all public bodies they were bound by procurement regulations on tendering. They noted that there were advantages in up-scaling and that some commissioning would be County wide and some local. Although EFDC’s Task and Finish Panel had recommended that the District Council take over most of the local youth services, County were bound to go through the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

To receive a presentation on the upcoming health reforms and in particular the role of Health and Wellbeing Boards from Malcolm Morley (Chief Executive Harlow Council), Councillor Ann Naylor (County Council Portfolio Holder Adults, Health & Community Wellbeing) and Clare Hardy (Senior Manager, Adults, Health and Community Wellbeing – Essex County Council).

The Committee was due to receive a presentation from Malcolm Morley (Chief Executive Harlow Council), Councillor Ann Naylor (County Council Portfolio Holder Adults, Health & Community) and Clare Hardy (Senior Manager, Adults, Health and Community Wellbeing at ECC) on the upcoming health reforms. However, neither of these people could attend and gave their apologies. In their place we had as a last minute replacement, Lynn Seward, Harlow’s Head of Community and Customer Services. She noted that the link between public health local authorities went back to 1864. There were now statutory duties placed on District Councils regarding public health and community safety. Local authorities were required to tackle the causes of preventable ill-health and inequalities; support individuals in making healthy lifestyle choices; support community development and a sense of wellbeing; hold others to account for ensuring appropriate access to health services; and act as an advocate/ lobby for investment of resources for improvements.

District Councils will have three important roles in Health and Wellbeing especially as they have local knowledge, both at officer and member level. The roles being:

1)                  holding others to account for their contribution to improving health and wellbeing;

2)                  co-ordinating own services, commissioning  and provision of services, partnership working; and

3)                  input into and influence of the Health and Wellbeing Board, West Essex and the local partners.

Presently the Health and Wellbeing Boards sit at County level and currently exist only in shadow form and are looking for district representatives.

The Acting Chief Executive, Derek Macnab, commented that there were two Chief Executives on the shadow board and we could feed in concerns through them.

The Chairman asked how the board would commission services and was told that it would probably be through the Clinical Commissioning Groups via local GPs. The Health and Wellbeing Board would look at the need of the District and feed it to the clinical commissioning boards.

Councillor Wixley asked how she saw the Public Health Landscape developing over the next 5 years. He was told that the landscape was changing; they were looking more to preventing rather than treating health problems.

Councillor Wixley then asked what role the District Council could play. Ms Seward said they were looking more at prevention. An example would be that the District Council could look to use planning and licensing laws to tackle obesity by not allowing fast food outlets. The Council could also play a key role in smoking prevention and teenage pregnancies.

The Council could prepare for the Health and Wellbeing Boards by giving them easy options by preparing some strategies that could be presented to them for their adoption.

The Chairman summed up by noting that the Health and Wellbeing Boards were coming, with details to be finalised; there was a need to work closely with our partners to make sure we were actively engaged with the best outcomes for our residents.

(Director Environment and Street Scene) to consider the attached Government Consultation. This items has been considered by the Safer Cleaner Greener Panel on 21 February 2012 and their comments will be reported back to the Committee.

The Chairman of the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel, Councillor Sartin, introduced the consultation report on waste related penalties. The Standing Panel had received this report at their February meeting.

The Committee noted that that the government wanted to review waste related law on the premise that too many local authorities were unnecessarily penalising residents for what was seen as trivial offences.

The government had now come forward with its proposals for changing the law. It presented two main options:

(1)               the creation of mainly civil sanctions, but with the retention of some criminal sanctions; or

(2)               the removal of all criminal sanctions.

The government’s preference was to decriminalise, and the Council generally agreed, but with some caveats.

This Council had always strived not to apply sanctions to householders but to educate and cajole them into behaving reasonably.

The Panel had considered the second option as the preferred way forward, but questioned whether the current civil enforcement laws were sufficient to deal the problems which arose. It was thought important however, to ensure that the criminal powers which remain are fit for purpose and enabled councils to take action where appropriate.

Officers were of the opinion that option 2 was preferable but considered that the “harm to the local amenity” was unnecessary and overly constraining. The council must maintain an ultimate sanction of a criminal offence where appropriate.

The Committee agreed with the Standing Panel’s comments and endorsed the officer’s response.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel’s comments, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee endorsed the draft response to the Defra consultation on waste related penalties.

(Councillor D Stallan – Chairman of Constitution and Members Services Standing Panel) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Stallan, introduced their report on officer delegation (2011/12 review). The Committee noted that each year a cross-Directorate Working Party of Officers carried out a review of Financial Regulations, Contract Standing Orders and Officer Delegation.  Every second year a review of contract standing orders was also undertaken.  These reviews are designed to keep these documents up-to-date and to reflect current statutory requirements and operational needs.

Such delegated authorities are agreed in one of two ways:

            (a)        approval by the Council in respect of Council (i.e. non-executive and regulatory) functions; or

(b)   approval of the Leader of the Council for Executive (or Cabinet) functions.

The only new change in delegation relates to the detailed wording on tree preservation.  The Standing Panel recommended this for approval by the Committee and Council.  The remainder are executive delegations and have already been approved by the Cabinet and/or Portfolio Holders and will be incorporated in the Constitution once the Leader of Council has reviewed and approved the overall schedule.

The Committee agreed with the Standing Panel and approved the recommendations in the report.

            RESOLVED:

(1)        That a report be submitted to the Council recommending that the schedule of changes to Council delegation (at Appendix 1 of the report) be approved;  and

(2)        That the changes to executive delegations be incorporated in the Constitution, once these have been signed off by the Leader of the Council.

(Acting Chief Executive) to consider the attached report.

The Acting Chief Executive introduced the report on the Equalities Act (2010), replacing the previous anti-discrimination legislation. The Equality Act consisted of a ‘general equality duty’, and a new Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which requires public authorities to at all times have due regard to the need to:

·                 eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation;

·                 advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and

·                 foster good relations between different groups.

The setting of specific equality objectives was intended to help public authorities to better perform the general equality duty, focusing on outcomes to be achieved. 

In order to meet the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) the Council must:

(a)          annually publish sufficient information to demonstrate that it has complied with the general equality duty, including:

·                information on the effect that policies and practices have had on employees and people from the protected groups;

·                evidence of the analysis undertaken to establish whether policies and practices will (or have) furthered the three equality aims in the general equality duty, and details of the information used in that analysis; and

·                details of engagement undertaken;

(b)          publish information about the engagement it has undertaken, including that used in the development of equality objectives;

(c)          analyse and publish the effect of its policies and practices on equality, and evidence of equality analysis and details of information considered when carrying out analysis; and

(d)          prepare and publish appropriate equality objectives by 6 April 2012, and at least every four years thereafter.

Of the five objectives identified, the fifth one on procurement had not been written as yet, this would be brought forward in the near future as part of a review of the objectives.

Councillor Stallan asked that the procurement objective reflect the council’s position on making payments in certain timescales; that is, within 20 days for local suppliers and 28 days for other suppliers. This was agreed and would be added to the objective on procurement.

Councillor Mrs Whitehouse noted that objective 3 had one of the protected groups as ‘age’. Was there a specific age group this covered? She was told that a specific age had not been specified as it would depend on what services the person was accessing.

Councillor Mrs Whitehouse said that there was nothing in the report about practical ways the council could help people in need, such as the use of brail or sign language. She also noted that the report said that Epping Forest had the second highest number of Black and Multi Ethnic (BME) residents in Essex. But, she was told at a recent meeting that we had the highest number of BME residents. Which was right? She was told that it would be looked into and clarified. Also, she was right that the Council had various things in place to help people in need and they would be referenced in the report.

Councillor Smith asked if this Equality Scheme was the same as the council’s own equality policy. She was told that it captured the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

(Councillor D Stallan – Chairman of Constitution and Members Services Standing Panel) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Stallan, introduced their report dealing with the council’s annual review of Financial Regulations which was conducted by a cross-directorate Officer Working Party. The report contained a recommendation for one change to Financial Regulations and a consequential amendment to the Budget Procedure Rules in the Constitution.

The proposed change related to virement limits, a virement being a transfer of funding from one budget heading to another.

The current Financial Regulations set out the arrangements for approval of virements against certain financial limits:

            (a)  Up to £5,000 –      by Directors subject to no virement between portfolio budgets, to the virement being within the Director’s own budgets and to the transfer being within “cost centres”;

            (b)  Up to £10,000 –    by Portfolio Holders, subject to the budget concerned being within the portfolio and to the other conditions as set out in (a) above;

            (c)  £10,000-£100,000 – Cabinet approval;

            (d)  £100,000 – Cabinet and Council approval

All virements are supervised by the Director of Finance and ICT.

The only change recommended for the procedure for virements up to £5,000 should be that the term “Cost Centre” should be amended to “Budget heading under the same budget page”.

This would allow officers a greater degree of flexibility in managing their budgets.  The current restriction of increments to within cost centres only was felt to be overly restrictive and necessitated Portfolio Holder involvement for insignificant changes to budgets.  Expanding this to budget headings under the same page ensures that the money was still used for a similar purpose.  A wider expansion of movement of funding within a directorate as a whole was not proposed as this would allow funds to be used for very different purposes.

            RESOLVED:

That a report be submitted to the Council recommending that the schedule of amendments to Financial Regulations set out in Appendix 1 to the report be approved and pages G9-11 be deleted from the Constitution.

(Councillor D Stallan – Chairman of Constitution and Members Services Standing Panel) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Stallan introduced the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel’s report reviewing two aspects of the terms of reference of the Housing Appeals and Review (HAR) Panel.

The first aspect that was reviewed was the order of business for presentation of cases to the Panel. The current order of business for consideration of cases by the Housing Appeals and Review Panel provides for the applicant/appellant to present their case and answer questions first, followed by the appropriate Housing Officer presenting his/her case and answering questions. Whilst this followed the order of most appeal proceedings it was considered that it did not lend itself particularly well to meetings of the Housing Appeals and Review Panel.

As a result, since an applicant/appellant had to present their case first, the HAR Panel felt that many struggled to follow the procedure and present a reasonable case. The Panel has said often that it was not until replies were given to questions from the Housing Officer and members of the Panel that the full extent of the applicant’s/appellant’s case became apparent.

The Panel therefore asked the Standing Panel to consider changing its terms of reference so as to change the order of proceedings, with the Housing Officer presenting his/her case first.

Councillor Smith wanted to know what was the latest time to agree who went first. Councillor Stallan said that no particular time had been stipulated, so it could be up to the time of the meeting. As long as they knew that they had the right to ask for this change before the meeting. In order to help this, a new recommendation 2 could be added saying “That the applicant be informed prior to the meeting of their right to change the order of presentation if wanted”. This was agreed.

The second part to the report dealt with revising the appeals against the banding of an applicant.

Since May 2010, the Panel has considered nine appeals about the banding of an applicant including seven appeals since August 2011. In all cases the Panel had upheld the officers’ decisions and dismissed the appeals. In such cases the role of the Panel was restricted to determining whether an appellant has been placed in the correct Band of the Allocations Scheme by officers having regard to the facts. The majority of these appeals concern priority given for medical conditions and as the Scheme specifies that medical priority is determined by the Council’s Medical Adviser, the Panel had little discretion.

The Housing Appeals and Review Panel have advised that in their view banding appeals should not be dealt with by them and that the right of appeal should end with one of the Assistant Directors of Housing. The Standing Panel agreed with this and on consideration so did the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

            RESOLVED:

(1)        That a report be submitted to the Council recommending that the existing order of proceedings at meetings of the Housings Appeals & Review  Panel be retained but a new paragraph (to be numbered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

(Councillor D Stallan – Chairman of Constitution and Members Services Standing Panel) To consider the attached report.

The Committee received a report from the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel on their review of the operation of the new Appointments Panel set up last year. This report reviewed the experiences of last year together with some issues requiring decision on the future operation of the Panel.

Last year the Council operated the Appointments Panel for the first time. As envisaged, documentation was circulated by officers prior to the election period. This information comprised:

(a)        A pre-election pro rata exemplification table;

(b)        A pro rata advice sheet;

(c)        Counsel opinion on calculating pro rata;

(d)        New Group Constitution Forms;

(e)        Individual group member forms;

(f)         Terms of Reference of the Panel;

(g)        A blank Committee nominations sheet (showing previous years nominations);

(h)        A blank outside organisations sheet for council appointed bodies; and

(i)         Vice Chairman nomination forms (as appropriate).

The Standing Panel had taken comments of members and took the view that the Panel operated successfully last year and should continue this year and had recommended accordingly.

It was noted that the allocation of Chairmanships and vice-chairmanships and outside organisations was suspended for the period of one year (except for sections 6(a) to (c)) to allow the new system to operate. The Standing Panel was asked to review this element in the light of operational experience and had taken the view that, as they were recommending the continuance of the Appointments Panel, the suspension of the protocol (in part) should continue for a further period until a review could be undertaken in the following year. This would enable officers to bring forward proposals for rescinding of the protocol linked to the inclusion of a ‘statement of principles’ within the Panels Terms of Reference of the Appointments Panel which would have the effect of limiting the scope of its recommendations to Council on Chairmanships, Vice Chairmanship and Outside Body positions.

The Standing Panel noted that the appointment of the Vice Chairman of Council was governed by Article 5 of the Constitution. Last year it was agreed that no changes would be made to the nomination process save that nomination forms would come to the Appointments Panel.

The Standing Panel also suggested that two dates be set aside for the Appointments Panel, Thursday 10 May and Tuesday 15 May 2012 and had recommended accordingly.

The Committee accepted the Scrutiny Standing Panels proposals as set out and commend them to Council.

            RESOLVED:

(1)        That the Appointments Panel continue to operate without changes to its terms of reference and continue in operation thereafter until any further review was necessary;

(2)        That the protocol on the Allocation of Chairmanships and Vice-chairmanships and Outside Organisations (except for sections 6 (a) to (c) in the protocol - the provision for pro-rata for Chairmen) be suspended for a further period of one year and then reviewed;

(3)        That Article 5 of the Constitution (in relation to the nomination of the Vice Chairman appointment to Council) be amended by the inclusion of the following words at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

(a)                 To consider the updated work programme

The current Overview and Scrutiny work programme is attached for information.

(b)        Next Year’s Work Programme

The work programme for next year will be considered at the April meeting of this Committee. Members should start thinking of any work they would like the Committee to consider to go into next year’s Work Programme and bring it to the April Meeting. A request form is attached

New Item for Work Programme - Councillor Angold-Stephens has submitted a new item of work (attached) for the Committee to consider. The Committee should note that this is also a part of the Local Council’s Liaisons Committee programme.

Work Programme

(a)       Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Item 12 – Review of the Police and Fire Rescue Service – the Committee thought that the two services should be separated out. It was noted that as the Police and Crime Commissioner would only be in place in November 2012 they should be reviewed in 2013.

The Fire and Rescue service would fit more aptly into the Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel and it was agreed that they should go to this Panel after the Olympics were over. A note is to be put n the Members Bulletin to advise members when they are coming so that non-Panel members could attend.

(b)       Standing Panels

(i)         Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel

It was noted that they had completed their work programme for the year. Items 16 and 19 are to be considered next year and their work programme for next year was full.

(ii)        Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel

At their last meeting they received a presentation from Essex Police on their ‘Blueprint’ and had Councillor Anthony Jackson there to talk about the upcoming Police and Crime Commissioner election. They noted that an EFDC member was to be appointed to the Police and Crime Panel at the annual council meeting.

It was noted that the review of the Fire and Rescue Services was now on their work programme. To be reviewed after the Olympic Games.

(iii)       Planning Services Standing Panel

It was noted that they were now using their revised work programme.

(c)       Next Year Work Programme

New Item – Councillor K Angold-Stephens had put in a request for the Committee to consider a new item for their work programme. He requested that the County Portfolio Holder for Highways, be invited to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to speak about the changes that have been made in the past year and how they saw it turning out for the future, particularly the relationship between Highways, the District and the Public. He would also like comments on the current and future funding situation.

The Committee agreed that this item should be added to their work programme. They would like:

• to have this as soon as possible (June/July if possible);
• they would like to discuss and confirm the questions to be asked at the meeting before;
• they would like information on how the Highway contractors would work; and
• how they could be contacted.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 12 March 2012.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). Under the Overview and Scrutiny rules the Committee is required to scrutinise proposed decisions of the Executive. The Chairman is also required to report on such discussions to the Cabinet.

The Committee is asked to consider the 12 March 2012 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at the Cabinet meeting.

The Committee considered the Cabinet agenda for their meeting to be held on 12 March 2012. Members wanted to know how long the whole process would take for the sale of Leader Lodge (item 8 on their agenda).