There were no apologies for absence.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2012 to be submitted and signed. (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2012 were submitted and signed.

To note the minutes of the following meetings –

·               Budget Panel 8 February 2012

·               Community Safety Partnership Task Group 30 January 2012

The Scrutiny Committee received a copy of the minutes for Budget Panel, which had met on 8 February 2012, and Community Safety Partnership Task Group, which had met on 30 January 2012.

RESOLVED –

1.         that the minutes of Budget Panel held on 8 February 2012 be noted.

2.         that the minutes of Community Safety Partnership Task Group held on 30 January 2012 be noted.

The document sets out the update on the outstanding actions which arose at the previous meeting.

The Scrutiny Committee received an update incorporating the outstanding actions and questions raised at previous meetings.  Responses were included within the document. 

Members considered the responses to each of the outstanding actions and questions.  They agreed which actions had been completed.

PI 13 – Town Enforcement Officer

The Scrutiny Committee noted the update from the Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head.

A Member asked whether the officer’s work would be extended to other parts of the town.

The Chair suggested that if Members considered that certain areas needed to be covered by the Town Enforcement Officer they should contact the Head of Environmental Services.

WP 8 – Community Safety Partnership Task Group (Provision of Drug Treatment)

The Chair of the Task Group advised that this had been added to the rolling work programme; however it had slipped from July 2012 due to other more pressing issues arising.

The Chair asked that Overview and Scrutiny Committee was informed when the meeting was due to take place.

WP 12 – Draft Commissioning Framework

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that she had spoken to the Community Services Section Head regarding the additional resolution at Overview and Scrutiny Committee in December 2011. 

It was suggested that a Task Group be set up in May to review the draft Commissioning Framework prior to public consultation in June.  If agreed by Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Committee and Scrutiny Officer asked that the membership be delegated to the Chair and Vice-Chair in consultation with the Head of Legal and Property Services.

Following a Member’s question, the Committee and Scrutiny Officer suggested that the membership for the Task Group should be in the region of five Councillors.

The Scrutiny Committee agreed to this proposal.

RESOLVED –

1.         that a Task Group be established to review the Draft Commissioning Framework.

2.         that all non-Executive Members be asked whether they wish to participate in the review.

3.         that the appointment of the Task Group membership be delegated to the Head of Legal and Property Services in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

4.         that the outstanding actions and questions list be updated as agreed.

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

No executive decisions had been called in.

Report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head

This report presents an update on the council’s key performance indicators (KPIs) as at the end of quarter 3 (December 2011) as well as other performance measures identified and agreed by Committee for scrutiny during 2011/12.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head including the performance of the eight key performance indicators at the end of quarter 3 (December 2011) and those measures identified by Members for scrutiny during 2011/12.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head highlighted some of the indicators in the report, including benefits’ statistics, waste and recycling, housing and the leisure centres.  She also referred to the annual indicators reported in quarter 3, voter registration and Rough Sleepers.

KPI 1 (Benefits processing) and KPI 6 (Households in temporary accommodation)

A Member commented that seven out of the 12 key indicators were below target.  He acknowledged the improvements in the Housing Benefits statistics, but he advised that he was still concerned about them, particularly with regard to change of circumstance applications.  He added that he had noted the number of families in temporary accommodation and had recently visited a family in bed and breakfast accommodation in Hemel Hempstead and another family in a Watford hostel.  He questioned whether the administration needed to put additional funds aside to cover the cost of temporary accommodation.  He hoped to soon see an improvement. 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained that some of the long term outstanding cases in benefits were gradually being completed and this had an impact on the indicator related to the length of time taken to process applications.

The Portfolio Holder further explained that as the long term cases were completed the processing indicator increased.  This was unsatisfactory as it did not show the direction of travel.  

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that as at 27 February there were 181 new cases outstanding for Watford and 72 for Three Rivers.  Over 100 cases were pending waiting for further information.  This was the lowest live figure for three years.  The outstanding change of circumstance applications were below the trigger level when SERCO would be engaged.

The Portfolio Holder added that it had been hoped that the self-serve function would be introduced this month.  Capita had produced a module for the whole country but it had crashed.

The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that the benefits processing had improved and the service was in a good position, which he hoped would continue.

Following a further question from the Member, the Portfolio Holder said that the service would be showing an improvement at the year end.  New claims were now being processed quickly.  The Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) was currently monitoring the service to check on the rate of progress.  The DWP would identify anything missing in the procedures and the service would take on board the suggestions.

In response to the comments about temporary accommodation, the Portfolio Holder said that previously the Council had used bed and breakfast accommodation for two weeks.  The service would prefer that bed and breakfast accommodation was not used.  The use of this type of accommodation was dependent on the amount of accommodation available for people to move to.  It was therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Report of the Head of Legal and Property Services

This report follows on from a referral by Constitution Working Party regarding access to meetings and papers in respect of Scrutiny Task Groups.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services which asked Members to consider the procedures for Task Groups, particularly in relation to access to meetings and papers by the public.

The Head of Legal and Property Services highlighted the suggested procedures which were set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the report.  She advised that the procedures were flexible in case it was necessary to set up meetings quickly.  Task Groups would be held in public unless it met the exemptions set out in the Access to Information rules in the Local Government Act 1972.  Task Groups would complete their review before the minutes were published. This would allow the reader to see the full review and how the Task Group had reached its conclusions.  Visits would be classed as informal meetings and would not be open to the public, as they were fact finding sessions.  When people had been invited to provide evidence to a Task Group these would be held in public unless it met the exemption rules.

The Vice-Chair welcomed the officer’s comments and said that it was important that meetings were open.  The County Council had very good practices in place.  He was concerned about the status of minutes.  The minutes helped the Task Group to look back at the earlier meetings and how it had come to its conclusions.  They should be a formal record.

The Head of Legal and Property Services said that she agreed with the Member’s views.  Each meeting needed to be minuted, but they would not be a verbatim record.  She suggested that they were formally published at the conclusion of the Task Group.

The Head of Legal and Property Services added that the minutes were there to provide a flavour of the discussion.  They enabled a person to read the nature of the discussion and the Task Group’s conclusions.  Not every Member’s comment would be included.  When people attended as witnesses and they were asked specific questions, those questions and the responses would be recorded as fully as possible.

A Member said that he welcomed the Head of Legal and Property Services’ comments and her interpretation.  In his opinion the purpose of Task Groups was a free ranging discussion.  He preferred a ‘looser-style’ of minutes.  He had been involved in two Task Groups and the minutes had been recorded differently.  He preferred the minutes which included less detail.

A Member referred to an email the Chair had sent to Opposition Councillors about the way he envisaged Task Groups should operate.  The Chair had appeared to have changed his view.

The Chair confirmed that he had changed his views about Task Groups.  This had occurred due to his discussion with the Vice-Chair and the Head of Legal and Property Services.  He agreed that discussions should be open, but he had been concerned about Members being quoted out of context.  The subsequent discussion had allayed his concerns.

Following a Member’s question, the Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

This report asks Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review and endorse the Task Group’s recommendations.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services including the Task Group’s draft report.  Members were also asked to agree the minutes of the Task Group meetings held on 9, 22 and 27 February. 

Minutes – 9, 22 and 27 February

The Vice-Chair apologised following the concerns raised about the minutes/notes of the 9 February and whether they were in an appropriate format.  Members should be able to trust the officer recording the meeting.  There could be times when Members requested something was not recorded.  He felt the first draft should be the ones which should be signed. 

The Chair replied that he was disappointed that the concerns had not been shared with him.  He said that the most important aspect of the review was the Task Group’s report. 

A Member commented that the Scrutiny Committee could not agree to a set of minutes that not all of the Members had seen.  This view was echoed by other Members. 

The Head of Legal and Property Services suggested that the original version of the minutes for the meeting held on 9 February could be circulated to the full Overview and Scrutiny Committee membership.  Those minutes could then be signed at the first meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the new Municipal Year or a special Task Group meeting could be set up before Council on 21 March.

It was noted that the minutes formed part of the Appendices to the final report, which was to be presented to Cabinet on 20 March.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Scrutiny Committee that Cabinet was more concerned about the conclusions and recommendations rather than the minutes.  The minutes were not necessary for the Cabinet meeting, as they were part of the background information.  He felt that it was therefore satisfactory if the minutes for 9 February were not signed until June.

The Scrutiny Committee agreed to the Head of Legal and Property Services’ proposal.

The minutes of the Task Group meetings held on 22 and 27 February 2012 were submitted and signed.

Task Group’s draft report

The draft report had been circulated to all Task Group Members and the Chair noted that the majority of Councillors had been happy with the draft.

The Vice-Chair said that he wished to thank the Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer for the amount of work she had done to support the Task Group.  He suggested the only question was whether the recommendations were appropriate.  He referred to paragraph 5.1.7 of the draft report and questioned whether this should be included as a recommendation.  The sentiment of the paragraph indicated that the Task Group’s view was that services should be retained in-house unless good reasons had been put forward to provide the service in a different way.  Another option would be to ensure that Cabinet’s attention was drawn to that particular paragraph.

A Member said that in his opinion the aim of reviewing a service should not just be about saving money.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Report of the Head of Legal and Property Services

The latest update of the Forward Plan since the previous meeting

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services setting out the changes to the Forward Plan since the previous meeting.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that one further item had been added to the Forward Plan and that it would be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 20 March 2012.

RESOLVED –

1.         that the additions and amendments to the Forward Plan be noted.

Report of the Head of Legal and Property Services

This report provides an update on the Green Spaces review recommendations which were last reviewed by Call-in and Performance Scrutiny Committee at its meeting held on 4 February 2010.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services.  The Appendix to the report included the original recommendations from the Green Spaces Task Group, the Portfolio Holder’s response to the Call-in and Performance Scrutiny Committee, a further follow up by Call-in and Performance Scrutiny Committee at a meeting held on 4 February 2010 and the latest update from Community Services.

Councillor McLeod informed the Scrutiny Committee that she had chaired the Task Group and not Janet Baddeley as printed on the update.

It was agreed that the Task Group’s original recommendations had been met and that the review was complete.

RESOLVED –

1.         that the latest update be noted.

2.         that the Task Group’s recommendations have been met and the review is complete.

Report of the Head of Legal and Property Services

This report provides an update on the current work programme for 2011/12 and the rolling work programme from 2012/13.  The Scrutiny Committee is also requested to consider the draft extract for Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s contribution to the Annual Report 2011/12. 

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Legal and Property Services including the updated work programme, the rolling work programme from May 2012 and a draft of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s contribution to the Annual Report. 

The Portfolio Holder noted the Affordable Housing Task Group’s recommendations included in the 2012/13 rolling work programme.  He asked how these would tie into the Housing Advisory Group.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer explained that the Task Group’s recommendation and the response from Cabinet would be forwarded to the Head of Community Services for a further update.  The Head of Service would take into consideration any relevant information in the response, including discussions at the Housing Advisory Group.

Annual Report

The Chair asked Members whether they had any observations for inclusion in the Annual Report.

The Vice-Chair said that he had not been completely satisfied with scrutiny’s performance this year.  Scrutiny training had been arranged for 13 and 26 March and he encouraged everyone to attend.  He had thought scrutiny would be involved with more strategic and commissioning reviews.  He added that it was important to ensure that scrutiny was reviewed.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that the new Task Group to review the draft commissioning framework, agreed earlier in the meeting, was more of a strategic review.

The Chair added that Overview and Scrutiny Committee needed more suggestions put forward by the Executive, officers and Members.  Members and officers had been learning the new structure throughout the year.  The involvement of the Managing Director and his scrutiny proposal regarding Council services had given the Scrutiny Committee an important status.

The Chair thanked the Scrutiny Committee for their work during this busy year.  A new form of scrutiny had been put in place.  He also thanked all the officers for their support.

RESOLVED –

1.         that the latest version of the work programme and the rolling work programme from 2012/13 be noted.