Agenda and minutes

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

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 Chairman 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.

It was noted that Councillor G Shiell was substituting for Councillor A Mitchell and that Councillor P Smith was substituting for Councillor B Rolfe.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 26 November 2013.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2013 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillor G Chambers declared a non pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda, by virtue of being employed by Barts Health NHS Trust. He advised that he would remain in the meeting for the duration of the item:

·         Item 11 - possible presentation by Whipps Cross Hospital

To receive a presentation from officers of the Essex Probation Service based in Harlow. They will be talking about “the Probation Experience”, which covers the kind of work that the Probation Service does seen through the eyes of an offender.

The meeting welcomed two officers from the Harlow office of the Essex Probation Service, Neeve Bishop and Adrian Saward. They were there to inform the members of the type of work that the probation service carried out. In order to do this they showed a film showing the journey of an offender through the probation system. It showed that probation was not an easy option to a custodial sentence. It showed the way they interacted with other agencies specialising in the reduction of the use of alcohol or who worked with people with anger issues.

The meeting noted that:

·         the average age of an offender referred to the probation service was 36, not the typical teenager that most of the public would imagine;

·         any reports on an offender was compiled by the probation officers in conjunction with any other agency that was involved with that person;

·         offenders can be given between 40 to 300 hours community service which was now called Community Payback;

·         the aims of Community Payback were twofold. As well as being a means to punish offenders it also literally forces an offender to pay the community back;

·         offenders had to attend regular appointed interview and/or support sessions, if they missed any one they had to provide reasons as soon as they could; and

·         a lot of this was also centred around the aspiration of what was termed ETE, Education, Training and Employment, essential for the rehabilitation of an offender.

Councillor Murray asked how they measured success; what were the criteria they used; what percentage was successful and why was the Government privatising this service. He was told that they were involved in a case from the start to the end of an order and also looked at the reoffending rates; they had about an 86% success rate. They could not say why the Government was privatising the probation service. 

Councillor Janet Whitehouse asked where did the probation staff came from. She was told that their officers came from a variety of former occupations such as social workers, musicians, bouncers etc.

Councillor Spencer noted that a lot of problems started at an early age; he would like to know what if anything they did at schools. He was told that this was the remit of the Youth Offenders Services, a separate body from the Probation people, but they did work with these child orientated agencies.

Councillor Murray noted as a teacher that there was a lot of specific work being carried out with pupils trying to identify possible future offenders and to work with them.

Councillor Jennie Hart asked what the percentage of reoffending was. She was told that they did not have those figures to hand but would provide them at a later date.

Ms Bishop and Mr Saward then tackled the questions sent in by Councillor Ken Angold-Stephens:

Q.           How many offenders are on CSO’s in the District at present?

A.            There are presently 350 in custody or in community service.

Q.           Do they have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 3 February 2014.

(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 3 February 2014 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at the Cabinet meeting.

The Committee then considered the Cabinet Agenda for their meeting to be held on 3 February 2014. Councillor Chambers commented, that under agenda item 12, Establishment of an Economic Development Strategy, where it talked of funds for health centres. He wanted to register that he was in favour of this.

Councillor Philip wanted to say that the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel fully endorsed the continuation of the consultation as outlined in agenda item 14, the Review of Licensing – Staffing and Budget report. He also endorsed item 16, the Historical Planning Records Microfiche Project. He noted that it was expensive but we had to do it now or lose access to the microfiche files.

He then went on to endorse item 22, the part two report on the Wide Area Network Contract Renewal, saying that the proposed route was the correct way to go.

Councillor Murray commented in relation to agenda item 20 – Council Budget 2014/15, recommendation 3(b). He wished it noted that he was in support of it.

(Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel – Councillor J Philip) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Philip introduced the report on Officer delegation. These now required amendment to reflect the new Directorate structure approved by the Council on 17 December 2013.

The new structure altered the number of Directors and re-allocated functions across the new Directorates and that this resulted in existing delegated authorities being exercised by different post holders. However, the scope of the delegation was largely unaltered although an opportunity had been taken to update electoral matters as some recent changes, including referendums, were not covered.

Attention was drawn to three positions, set out in recommendation (3) of the report, which could not be finalized at present pending the outcome of ring-fenced interviews to an Assistant Director position as part of implementation of the new structure. It was recommended that once an appointment to the position concerned had been made, the decisions of the Chief Executive and the Director of Governance on allocation of these roles be added to the schedule.

As always, those delegated authorities must be approved by either the Leader of the Council (Executive functions) or the Council (Council functions) before being published in the Constitution.

The Committee agreed the recommendations of the report.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the proposed alterations to the schedules of officer delegation reflecting  the new Directorate structure be approved with effect from 1 April 2014;

(2)          That the revised schedules be recommended to the Council or Leader of the Council (as appropriate) prior to publication in the Council’s constitution; and

(3)          Noted that the delegated authorities in respect of Deputy Monitoring Officer, Deputy Electoral Registration Officer and Deputy RIPA Officer could not be finalized at present due to pending appointments required under the implementation of the new Directorate structure; but that once an appointment had been made, the decisions of the Director of Governance and the Chief Executive be added to the schedule.

(Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel – Councillor J Philip) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel, Councillor Philip introduced the report on the annual review of Contract Standing Orders. The report dealt with the annual review of CSOs and Financial Regulations which included controls on contract procedures and provided for financial governance.

He advised the Committee that there had been a recent review by Internal Audit and this had resulted in the proposals set out in the report.  He emphasize that the suggested changes to CSOs were points of detail rather than major alterations, being designed to reinforce existing requirements.

The Committee noted the emphasis in CSO 35 on the need to seek at least one local tender if possible. Councillor Philip also drew the Committee’s attention to a typographical error in paragraph 5, it should have said £25,000and not just £25.

It was noted that the recommended changes required the approval of the Council prior to publication in the Council’s Constitution and in addition some clerical amendments to CSO’s and Financial Regulations were required to reflect the recent approval of the new Directorate structure. The Panel recommended that these be made by the Assistant to the Chief Executive when the approved revision was published.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the proposed changes to CSOs as listed below, be approved as set out in the report and recommended  to the Council for adoption and publication in the Council’s constitution:

(a)  CSO 35 (Local Businesses);

(b)  CSO16 (Tender opening)

(c)  CSO 19 (Acceptance of Quotations); and

(d)  CSO 12 (Contract Extensions)

(2)          That any further alterations to CSO’s and Financial Regulations to reflect changes arising from the recent Directorate restructuring be delegated to the Assistant to the Chief Executive for incorporation in the final version before publication. 

(Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel – Councillor J Philip) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Philip introduced the report that went to the Constitution and Member Services Standing Panel on the review and process of the nomination and appointment of the Vice-Chairman of Council. The review had been ongoing since May 2013, and included considering information regarding how other Local Authorities arrange their appointment process and the operation of the Point System used previously by this Council.

On consideration of the points system the Panel thought that this system had the effect of taking the control of the appointment process out of the hands of the members and secondly meant that no independent members would ever have been made the Chairman as it was based on group strengths. They therefore did not recommend its reintroduction.

They eventually made four recommendations that in summary were:

1.    A nomination needed the support of a quarter of the council;

2.    It was important that non-affiliated members had a role in this process as currently they did not;

3.    That the Full Council had the final decision; and

4.    That nominations and seconding of nominations were acceptable as an email.

Councillor Murray thanked the Panel for this piece of work. He agreed with the bulk of the report but did have one concern. In Paragraph 8 it mentioned cross party support, but this did not square with paragraph 9(i) that the nomination should have the support of at least 15 members of the council.  In practice this would put the nomination in the hands of one political group. He would like to add an amendment to say an amendment should have the support of at least two political groups, to offer some protection to the smaller parties.

Councillor Philip replied that his Panel did look at the group situation, at present there were only three groups in the council. To require having the support of two groups could discriminate against the third group. There was nothing to stop groups getting together and putting in a joint nomination. He believed that support of a quarter of the council was sufficient protection.

Councillor Jacobs said there were arguments on both sides. A quarter or a third of the council were both reasonable figures; but any proposals could be overwritten by a large majority.

Councillor Angold-Stephens noted that the appointments for Vice-Chairman had always been operated in a fair way, on a non-party political basis. Although, so saying, he would not want to go back to the points system. He had concerns about the 15 members figure; it was not fair to the smaller parties who might get enough support if it went straight to a full Council vote. Going beyond 12, potentially favoured the largest party. Also there were no criteria suggested for the selection of a Vice-Chairman. We should laydown some guideline such as having someone who was respected by all members and had some experience of the Chairmanship of Committees. There was a sort of job description in the Constitution that covered a lot of these points. Was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

(a)          To consider the updated work programme

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

(b)          Whipps Cross Hospital

Recommendations:

(1)        To consider if the Committee wish to receive this presentation at the February meeting; and

(2)        To consider whether they wish officers to arrange to pair it with item 11 on the work programme relating to the state of the Mental Health Services in the District.

Following the recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report into Whipps Cross Hospital the Head of Stakeholder Relations and Engagement at Barts. Hospital NHS Trust, Mark Graver has written to us asking if thought beneficial, they could send a representative to one of our meetings. It was made clear that this would be a one off appearance necessitated by the CQC report (background paper attached).

It should be noted that the on-going scrutiny of the hospital on behalf of Epping Forest residents is the responsibility of County Councillor Chris Pond and to this end if we wish to invite a representative from the NHS Trust we should also invite Cllr Pond.

(c)          Future Scrutiny Programme and Panels

Recommendations:

That a report be made to the next meeting:

(a)       on proposals for panels for 2014/15; and

(b)       to discuss emerging scrutiny proposals for the 2014/15 work plan

1.         (Lead Officer) At the last meeting the Committee agreed a report to Council on the future operation of Overview and Scrutiny. This was approved by the full Council in December 2013. At that meeting the Council also approved the restructuring proposals of the Head of Paid Service.

2.         Officers have has a preliminary discussions on the likely effects of both these items on the operation of Overview and Scrutiny. It is therefore intended that a report on the approach to members work programme and whether alterations to the terms of reference and responsibilities of Panels should occur to reflect changes to the Service Structure and other operational matters subject of the review. It is timely that these matters come before members before the end of the municipal year as changes are challenging to implement mid-year.

3.         It is intended that the discussion at the next meeting should also give weight to the proposals in the review for work programme creation for 2014/15. Members have reiterated their wish for the use of the PICK process. Any received proposals will be brought to members at the next meeting.

(a)          The Committee reviewed the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Deputy Chief Executive, Derek Macnab took the Committee through its current work programme noting that item 6 on their programme, the review of Epping Forest College, would be programmed into the April meeting of the Committee.

The item on the review of Mental Health Services in the district, item 11 of the programme, should be going to their February meeting.

Housing Scrutiny Standing Panel

The Vice Chairman of the Housing Panel, Councillor Shiell reported on their last meeting as she had chaired that in the absence of the Chairman, Councillor Murray, who was receiving a Lifetime Teaching Award at the first Essex Teaching Awards.

She noted that they had considered the proposed housing improvements and service enhancements for next year, also the review of parking enforcement measures on housing estates. The meeting noted that one of the enhancements they recommended on the housing improvements was the extension of the Housing Revenue Account funding for the Mow and Grow Scheme, operated by Voluntary Action Epping Forest for older and disabled council tenants. 

With regard to the review of parking enforcement measures on housing estates, this was a matter referred to the Scrutiny Panel by this Committee following a request from Councillor Helen Kane who was concerned about the damage to grassed areas on residential estates, due to unauthorised parking by residents.

The Panel were reminded by officers of the Council’s current policy which had been adopted following extensive reviews by the Housing Scrutiny Panel over three meetings between March 2008 and March 2009 and which was had been reviewed again – and confirmed again - in January 2011.

After a long discussion at their meeting, at which Councillor Kane had an opportunity to express and discuss her concerns, the Panel agreed that the current approach of undertaking enforcement measures on a “managed” basis should continue. However, they asked officers to provide all Members with information about the policy and actions that can be taken to respond to unauthorised parking in appropriate circumstances. 

A query was raised by Councillor Philip about a Panel’s report going directly to the Cabinet without coming first to this Committee.  This would be considered at the next OSAPG meeting.

Constitution and Members Service Standing Panel

Councillor Philip noted that their reports were at this meeting for the Committee’s consideration. He also noted that at a future meeting they would be looking at polling stations.

Safer Cleaner Greener Standing Panel

Noted that at their last meeting Mr Durrani took the Panel through the workings and responsibilities of the North Essex Parking Partnership.

Councillor Smith, a member of the Panel noted that there was a degree of frustration in receiving the minutes of the authorities that they were supposed to monitor as they were inevitably late, sometime by months. This led to just a noting exercise.

Councillor Murray noted that he was still waiting for an answer about Highways money to be spent in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.