Introduction to the role of Overview and Scrutiny Committee by the Chair

The approved terms of reference are attached.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following the changes agreed by Council.  He informed the meeting that he considered there were three main areas for the Scrutiny Committee –

·              Co-ordinate and manage the Task Groups

·              Performance review

·              Call-in, when the Scrutiny Committee would be chaired by the Vice-Chair

The Chair suggested that initially until the new scheme of working had bedded down and demands on officer time could be assessed there should be no more that two Task Groups set up at any time.  This would exclude the Community Safety Task Group.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Greenslade.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To consider any Executive decisions which have been called in by the requisite number of Members.

No Executive decisions had been called in.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the Council’s performance indicators.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head setting out the outturn performance of the Council’s key performance indicators for 2010/11.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained the background to presenting performance reports to scrutiny.  The report included the 13 key performance indicators that had been agreed by Council and which Call-In and Performance Scrutiny Committee had been monitoring throughout 2010/11.  With the new scrutiny arrangements in place, the Chair had suggested additional performance information be included in reports to Overview and Scrutiny in order to provide a fuller picture of council performance.  This would not include finance performance information as this was already reported to Budget Panel. The Council complied with all the requirements of the national performance framework but the coalition government was keen to reduce the ‘burden’ on local authorities in terms of the amount of performance information it required them to collect and report.  This had meant the deletion of the set of national indicators and greater freedom for Watford Borough Council to decide what performance information it felt was important and supported decision-making.

One Member suggested that further information needed to be included in the report which explained what would happen once the performance information was known.

The Vice-Chair explained the format the Call-in and Performance Scrutiny Committee had followed when the performance report was reviewed.

One Member referred to the information supplied to the Shared Services Joint Committee and considered the details presented to this meeting to be too ‘light’.  He suggested that there should be some comparison to Three Rivers District Council and the necessity to look behind the figures.  The Chair commented that Members would not appreciate detailed reports on all the performance indicators.  Where the Partnerships and Performance Section Head could see areas of concern then this level of additional information added to the report would be appreciated.

Prior to the meeting the Chair and Vice-Chair had forwarded a number of questions to the Partnerships and Performance Section Head.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head responded to each of the questions and the responses.  The additional information has been attached as an appendix to the minutes.

Reviewing the performance of ES10 and ES9 on recycling, a Member asked for details of the impact the closure of Wiggenhall Recycling Centre had on the fly tipping and waste figures.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that she would arrange for feedback from Environmental Services and circulate this data.

The Chair also asked whether it was possible to find out if there had been a noticeable increase in fly tipping and the geographical locations of such incidents following the closure of the recycling centre.

Following a Member’s question, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head said that she would ask whether communal recycling facilities in flats were incorporated into the residual household waste statistics and the extent of communal recycling within the borough.  The Chair asked her to enquire whether the new green bins with locked lids and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review Cabinet’s response to the Voluntary Sector Task Group review.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services which incorporated Cabinet’s response to the Voluntary Sector Task Group report.

The Chair noted where the comments stated changes would be made to the next Funding Plan and that the Scrutiny Committee could seek further clarification once the review had been completed.

A Member referred to 2.6 of the Task Group’s recommendations and the nominal £1,000 for each of the 12 Neighbourhood Forums.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer explained that when this suggestion had arisen during the Mayor’s discussion with the Task Group, the Head of Legal and Property Services clarified how this would be arranged.  Members had been advised that £1,000 would not be added to each Neighbourhood Forum budget but that they would be able to submit an application from the Mayor’s Community Fund for up to that amount.  The Mayor had clarified this further at Cabinet as shown in the response.  The officer advised that she was unsure whether an application would require more than one signature, as was the case for applications from the Neighbourhood Forum budget.

Councillor Johnson, who had chaired the Voluntary Sector Task Group, said that the Mayor had stated at the Task Group meeting that it was £1,000 for each ward.  She had obviously thought about this further and had made this compromise.

The Chair suggested that further clarification was sought on the application process and how many Councillors would need to submit an application.

The Chair stated that recommendation 2.7, referring to property leases, was an important subject, which should be considered by a Task Group.

A Member said that when he attended Cabinet the Property Section Head had said that the work was already being carried out.

RESOLVED –

1.      that further clarification be sought regarding Members’ application for funding from the Mayor’s Community Fund,

2.      that further consideration be given to a review of property leases during the work programme discussions.

ACTION: Committee and Scrutiny Officer

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to agree the membership of the Community Safety Partnership Task Group for 2011/12.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Legal and Democratic Section Head setting out the names of those Members who had expressed an interest in taking part in the Community Safety partnership Task Group.

The Scrutiny Committee considered the number of Members who should be included in the Task Group.  It was agreed that seven Members would be acceptable.  It was acknowledged that the Task Group did not need to be proportionally representative of the make-up of the Council.

Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Conservative Group, noted that two of his group had put their names forward.  He agreed that Councillor Mortimer’s name could be removed from the list.

The Chair stated that the Task Group would need to elect a Chair at its first meeting.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that she would contact the Community Safety Manager and inform her that the new Task Group had been established.  She suggested that the first meeting should be an introduction to the role of the Community Safety Partnership, particularly as there were several new Members on the Task Group.  Further subjects for review could then be developed.  She added that she was aware the previous Community Safety Task Group had wanted a Police statistician to speak to the Task Group about crime statistics.

A Member said that there was other work which also needed to be continued from the previous year.

RESOLVED –

that the Community Safety Partnership Task Group comprises the following Members –

Councillor Karen Collett

Councillor Asif Khan

Councillor Ann Lovejoy

Councillor Helen Lynch

Councillor Rabi Martins

Councillor Kelly McLeod

Councillor Malcolm Meerabux

ACTION: Committee and Scrutiny Officer

This report updates the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the reports presented to Budget Panel.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services setting out the items which had been considered by Budget Panel at its meeting on 22 June 2011.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that Councillor Tony Poole had been elected as the Vice-Chair.

Councillor Johnson asked that his objection be noted as the role of Vice-Chair should have been held by an Opposition Councillor. The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that there had been two nominations, Councillor Poole and Councillor Meerabux, and a vote had taken place.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

In accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s terms of reference the latest edition of the Forward Plan is attached for Members to review.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services including the latest edition of the Forward Plan and changes since the edition published in May.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed Members that the Scrutiny Committee’s terms of reference required it to review the Executive’s Forward Plan.  The report would be a regular item and it would enable Members to monitor when it was proposed decisions would be taken; whether they were continually being deferred to a later date or deleted without any decision being taken. Members may then decide whether they wanted to seek reasons for postponements or deletions.

A Member asked for further clarification regarding the decision-maker for those items which had been deleted from the Plan.  It was agreed that the changes would be incorporated for the next meeting.

RESOLVED –

that the report be adapted as requested for future meetings.

ACTION: Committee and Scrutiny Officer

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the current version of the work programme.  It is also asked to consider whether any Task Groups should be established and to agree the terms of reference and scope for the review.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Legal and Democratic Section Head including the new scrutiny proposal form and details of five suggestions that had been submitted for review.

The Scrutiny Committee considered each of the suggested scrutiny topics and where available, the Head of Service’s comments.

Recruitment of ex-offenders and disadvantaged youths

The Chair noted the Head of Human Resources’ response.

The Vice-Chair suggested and it was agreed that the subject could be referred to the Community Safety Partnership Task Group to look into this from a general aspect and not just related to the Council.

Hospital Parking and its high charges

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that she was still awaiting confirmation of the response from the Managing Director.

The Vice-Chair suggested that the review could incorporate other modes of transport and alternative modes of transport for staff.  He did not think the scope should be too wide or too narrow.

A Member commented that this was a national issue and that the charges were not out of kilter with other hospitals.

Another Member said that the review could be carried out as a partnership scrutiny as visitors to the hospital were not only from the Watford area.

A Member said that the review should be carried out without delay by Watford Councillors.  The review should consider whether the parking arrangements took care of people’s needs.

The Scrutiny Committee then discussed the membership of the Task Group and the scope.  The Chair advised that he would work with the Vice-Chair on the scope, which would then be circulated to all Scrutiny Committee members.  The Committee and Scrutiny Officer would email all Councillors and ask them if they wished to participate in the review.  The scope and membership would be formally agreed at the next meeting.

A Member asked how many Task Groups it would be possible to have in operation at any one time.  The Democratic Services Manager replied that it was suggested that there should be no more than two Task Groups.  This would not include that Community Safety Partnership Task group.

The Chair suggested and it was agreed by the Scrutiny Committee that the second Task Group should be about property leases.  He would work with the Vice-Chair on the scope and this would also be agreed at the next meeting.

Bin Collection Service in narrow streets

One Member felt that the review was too narrow.  He was concerned about bins being left on the street throughout the day which was a security issue and affected all areas.  He did not believe that residents were not aware of the special assistance scheme.

The Vice-Chair suggested that a representative from Environmental Services could go to the Railway Terrace Residents’ Association’s meeting to discuss this matter.  The Scrutiny Committee could then consider whether to establish a Task Group once the Gladstone Road trial scheme had been completed and the Residents’ Association had talked to officers.

The Chair suggested that if Members were aware  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

·               Tuesday 26 July 2011

·               Wednesday 10 August 2011 (For call-in only)

·               Wednesday 21 September 2011

·               Tuesday 26 July 2011

·               Wednesday 10 August 2011 (For call-in only)

·               Wednesday 21 September 2011