There were no apologies for absence.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2012 to be submitted and signed.

All minutes are available on the Council’s website – http://watford.moderngov.co.uk/mgListCommittees.aspx?bcr=1

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2012 were submitted and signed.

To note the minutes of the following Scrutiny Panels and Task Groups have been published since the last meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee –

·               Budget Panel – 11 September and 23 October 2012

·               Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel – 18 September 2012

·               Community Safety Partnership Task Group – 10 October 2012

All minutes are available on the Council’s website – http://watford.moderngov.co.uk/mgListCommittees.aspx?bcr=1

The Scrutiny Committee was asked to note the minutes of the following Scrutiny Panels and Task Groups which had been published since Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s last meeting –

·               Budget Panel 11 September and 23 October 2012

·               Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel 18 September 2012

·               Community Safety Partnership Task Group 10 October 2012

RESOLVED –

that the minutes of the various Scrutiny Panels and Task Group be noted.

A representative from the West Herts Hospital NHS Trust will be attending the meeting to provide an update on the Task Group’s recommendations.

The Chair introduced Eric Fehily, the Associate Director of Infrastructure for West Herts Hospital NHS Trust.  She invited him to respond to the Hospital Parking Charges Task Group’s recommendations.

Mr Fehily explained his role at the Trust and that he was responsible for services at the three hospitals within the Trust.  He confirmed that he would be speaking to the Scrutiny Committee about the Watford site when responding to the Task Group’s recommendations.  He informed Members that the funds had been confirmed for the new access road to the hospital and that a preferred bidder for the development had been agreed.

Recommendation 1 – Information on concessions to be made clearer and available in an information booklet

Mr Fehily informed the Scrutiny Committee that prior to his attendance at the Task Group he had received complaints from visitors about the information available on concessions.  Since that meeting work had been carried out with the Patient and Liaison Services (PALS) to improve the information on the Trust’s website.  Details were included on noticeboards in the hospital’s wards.  Staff were aware of the procedures.  Since his attendance at the Task Group he had not received any complaints.

Recommendation 2 – Parking charges to start at £2.50 for a two hour stay

Mr Fehily said that there were significant difficulties with this recommendation.  The car park was managed by a contractor on behalf of the Trust and the parking charges had been agreed.  The contract had a further 18 months to run and it was not possible to change the pricing structure.  If the Trust had introduced this lower charge it could not afford to run the car park and NHS funds would had to have been used.

Recommendation 3 – Stakeholders to be surveyed prior to increase in parking charges

Mr Fehily informed the Scrutiny Committee that this was an agreed procedure by the Trust.  He added that there were no current plans to increase charges.

Recommendation 4 – Vouchers to be offered in the event that visitors park for longer than their anticipated stay

Mr Fehily stated that the actual cost to administer a voucher scheme would be too costly.  He explained that the Trust took a ‘softly softly’ approach and that penalty notices were mainly issued to staff for incorrect parking. 

Recommendation 5 – Pay on exit scheme to be introduced

Mr Fehily explained that as part of Watford Health Campus a new multi storey car park would be built.  This would increase the number of spaces for all users.  The recommendation would be introduced with the new car park.  At the present time it would be too costly to introduce as it would require the installation of four gates and barriers and the required equipment.

Recommendation 6 – Signage and information on the free ’30 minute’ bays to be improved

Mr Fehily confirmed that the signage was in place; however, the spaces were currently available to all users.  The reason for this was that due to the increase  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

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 outstanding actions and questions from previous meetings.

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. 

PR 5 Neighbourhood Forums – articles in About Watford 

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that she had had further discussions with the Communications Team regarding articles in About Watford relating to Neighbourhood Forums.  She advised Members that the Communications Team would shortly be contacting all Councillors with details of the publication deadline for the next edition of the Council magazine.  Members would be able to have articles highlighting projects in their wards, including pictures, and publicise any forthcoming Neighbourhood Forum meetings.

RESOLVED –

that the outstanding actions and questions' update be noted.

This report sets out the performance data for the second quarter of 2012/13.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head setting out the Key Performance Indicators and the second quarter performance measures for 2012/13.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head highlighted some of the key aspects of the report.  She reminded Members that benchmarking information could be provided if required. 

In response to a question from the previous meeting, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head confirmed that Environmental Services took the service lead for all complaints received by the Council.  It was no longer covered by Corporate Services as this service no longer existed within the Council.  The figures in the report were therefore for the whole of the Council.

ES9 (percentage of the total tonnage of household waste arising which have been recycled)

Following a question from Councillor Bell, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that she understood that due to the poor weather it was difficult to keep the garden waste down.  This was likely to have an impact through the year.

Councillor Khan noted the high level of wastage.  He asked whether the Council had considered a weekly collection. 

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that the Council needed to collect 40% of recyclables in order to receive recycling credits and it was currently on target.

Councillor Rackett said that it was important that the Council considered the feasibility of a weekly collection and what this would do to the recycling rates and the cost of providing the service.  He was aware that in many terraced areas the recycling boxes were full after one week and residents then put their recycling into the household waste instead. 

CS13 (KPI6) (number of households living in temporary accommodation

Councillor Bell noted the target and actual data for this measure.  He asked whether officers expected this figure to rise due to the impact caused by changes to housing benefits.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head informed the Scrutiny Committee that officers were working with the private sector to find accommodation.  The Housing Team’s structure had changed during the year.  One team concentrated on the supply of accommodation.  This included properties with Registered Social Landlords and the private sector.

Councillor Bell said that he was aware of the budget of £150,000 to pay for bed and breakfast accommodation.  He asked whether it was likely that more resources could be required.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that she would contact the service for future projections.

HR1 (KPI8) (sickness absence – working days lost)

Following a question from Councillor Khan regarding sickness absence, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that the statistics in the report did not separate the short term sickness and the long term sickness.  The Council had implemented new management procedures for short term sickness.  For example a letter was sent to the employee by their manager on the second day of absence.  For those on long term sickness there were other procedures in place including occupational health advice.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

This report explains the improvement in Performance Indicators for the Benefits Service and explains the background to the statistics.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Revenues and Benefits which provided an explanation of the improvement in Performance Indicators for the Benefits service and the background to the statistics.

The Head of Revenues and Benefits explained the procedures that had been implemented to meet the service’s increasing workload.  He assured Members that when people were asked for additional information it did not affect the start date of their claim.  The claim began from the first date they approached the service. 

The Head of Revenues and Benefits informed the Scrutiny Committee that the Shared Services Joint Committee had agreed that external sources could be used to help reduce the backlog of claims.  A review was carried out of the external provider’s quality of work.  In some cases the service made a complaint and some of the external provider’s agents were removed from the work.  The Council also monitored the workload of its own staff.

The Head of Revenues and Benefits referred Members to paragraph 3.2 of the report and the performance data for each month from April.  He advised the Scrutiny Committee that if claimants informed the Council of a change in their circumstances they were allowed one month to provide all the relevant information required.  This delay added to the average time taken to process the changes and was reflected in the performance indicator.

The Head of Revenues and Benefits informed the Scrutiny Committee that officers were aware of the request to report on the number of cases outstanding rather than the number of documents.  The software had been amended and in the future officers would be able to provide information based on the number of cases.

Councillor Bell acknowledged the improved performance indicators and that help had been provided by two external companies.  Additional funding had been granted to carry out this work.  He said that external companies did not have face to face contact with the public whereas the Council staff did.  He said that he felt this was more stressful for the internal staff and asked whether this was taken into account when monitoring their work.  In addition he enquired how the forthcoming benefit changes would affect Watford.

The Head of Revenues and Benefits advised Members that he was aware of the face to face and telephone contact the internal staff had with the public and this was taken into account when monitoring them.

In response to the second part of Councillor Bell’s questions, the Head of Revenues and Benefits explained that the changes would begin to be introduced in April 2013.  The first change related to a reduction in housing benefit for social housing tenants if their property was deemed to be too large for their needs.  Tenants would still be able to claim housing benefit but might not receive the same amount.  There was potential for people to be at risk of not paying their full rent.  Discussions were taking place with the Housing Team.  Officers were working with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

This report sets out details of the review carried out on the scrutiny structures introduced in May 2011.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Committee and Scrutiny Officer setting out details of a review of the scrutiny structures introduced in May 2011.

Executive Decision Progress Report

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 and how it affected scrutiny.  She explained that the Forward Plan was no longer required and instead the Council had to give 28 days notice of any executive decision.  The notices were included in one document, which was similar to the Forward Plan.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that prior to the new regulations she had been working with the Democratic Services Manager on a new way of reporting relevant information about the Forward Plan to Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Following the introduction of the new regulations the new reporting mechanism had been developed further and was attached to the report as Appendix 1.  The new document would be built up over a year from May and would form a comprehensive list of decisions which had been proposed and completed or withdrawn.  Explanations would be provided as necessary.  The document would also highlight where the item had not met the 28 days deadline and that the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been informed.  It would also report on items where the Chair had been asked to agree whether a decision could be classed as urgent and then exempt from call-in.  Officers were required to provide a reason an item was urgent which would then be explained to the Chair.

As part of the new Regulations, if the Scrutiny Committee believed a non-key decision should have been classed as a key decision it could ask for a report to be submitted to Council.  The document would also make it clear whether an item was key or non-key.

Councillor Khan advised that when Members received notification that a new plan had been published, it only referred to the Intranet and not the Internet.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer asked if the Councillor could forward the email to her and she would investigate the matter and amend it as necessary.  She assured Members that the notice was published on the Council’s website.

The Chair said that she felt the document was much clearer and Councillor Bell said that he was pleased with how it was set up.

Revised Scrutiny Proposal Form

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that the revised Scrutiny Proposal form would become a complete record of a review.  She explained that additional information had been included to assist people when putting forward suggestions.  It would also record Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s decision and the agreed membership.

General comments

Councillor Rackett stated that scrutiny was the main way other Members could hold the Executive to account.  Under the previous structure there had been two main scrutiny committees and various Task Groups.  He said that he was frustrated with the way  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the latest update on recommendation 2 from the Affordable Housing Review.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Committee and Scrutiny Officer including an update on the second recommendation of the Affordable Housing Review.  The recommendation had last been reviewed in July 2011. 

RESOLVED –

that the latest update be noted and that it be further reviewed in October 2014.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review Cabinet’s comments and consider whether it wishes to review the recommendations at a later date.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Committee and Scrutiny Officer which provided an update on Cabinet’s response to the recommendations originally agreed by Call-in and Performance Scrutiny Committee in February 2011.

Cabinet’s response and its minutes were attached to the report.

RESOLVED –

that the latest update be noted.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to review Cabinet’s comments and consider whether it wishes to review the Task Group’s recommendations at a later date.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Committee and Scrutiny Officer including Cabinet’s minutes from the meeting on 8 October 2012. 

Councillor Aron informed Members that, as Chair of the Task Group, she would be working with the Portfolio Holder and Head of Community Services on the criteria for the small grants fund.  She agreed to report back to Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the outcome.

It was agreed that an update report would be presented to Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting in June 2013.

RESOLVED –

1.      that the Cabinet’s decision be noted.

2.      that an update be provided in June 2013.

A scrutiny suggestion has been put forward by Councillor Martins.  The suggestion is attached and the Committee and Scrutiny Officer is waiting for a response from the Head of Planning.  All non-executive Councillors have been emailed to ask them if they would be interested in taking part in this review should it be agreed by Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The Committee and Scrutiny Officer will provide details of interested Councillors at the meeting.

The Scrutiny Committee to discuss if they have any other suggestions for scrutiny topics.

The Scrutiny Committee received a scrutiny suggestion from Councillor Martins to review the management of disabled parking bays and parking by Blue Badge holders. 

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that she had received a response from the Head of Planning, a copy of which was circulated to the Members.

Councillor Martins explained why he had put forward the suggestion.  He felt that the Head of Planning assumed that there was not a problem that needed to be resolved.  He said that he was aware of problems related to local residents’ disabled bays.

Councillor Rackett said that he supported this suggestion.  He would also like to suggest that a Task Group could be set up to look at the Property Review.  Previously Members had been told not to commission a Task Group.  He had been told that the review was under way.  He felt that there was some work for scrutiny to do.  Councillor Bell agreed that this review needed to be carried out.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that a scrutiny proposal form had never been completed for the Property Review.  She added that Budget Panel would be receiving a presentation on the subject of Property at its meeting in February.

Councillor Rackett returned to Councillor Martins’ suggestion and the Head of Planning’s response.  He felt the Head of Service was stating that there was no evidence of any problems.  He received complaints from residents.  It had also been commented on how long it took to get bays removed when they were no longer required.  He agreed that this was a topic to be done.

Councillors Hastrick and Khan agreed that Councillor Martins’ concern was valid.

Councillor Khan said that he would also like to propose a topic for review on the Housing Trust.  He commented that between 40% and 50% of his casework related to the Housing Trust.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer stated that she would forward the new scrutiny proposal form to Members for completion.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Scrutiny Committee that only one non-executive Member had responded to her email asking for volunteers for the Task Group should it be agreed.  Councillor Brandon had expressed an interest in taking part in the review.

Councillors Bell, Collett, Martins and Greenslade said that they were interested in taking part in the Task Group to look at disabled parking bays.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer advised that she would transfer the proposal on to the new template and circulate it to all those interested in taking part.  The first meeting would be arranged as soon as possible.

RESOLVED –

1.      that a Task Group be established to review the management of disabled bays and parking by Blue Badge holders.

2.      that Councillors Bell, Brandon, Collett, Greenslade and Martins be appointed to the Task Group.

3.      that the Committee and Scrutiny Officer circulates the Scrutiny Proposal form to those Councillors interested in putting forward topics for future review.

·               Thursday 20 December 2012 (For call-in only)

·               Tuesday 15 January 2013 (For call-in only)

·               Wednesday 23 January 2013

·               Thursday 20 December 2012 (For call-in only)

·               Tuesday 15 January 2013 (For call-in only)

·               Wednesday 23 January 2013