Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chapman and Convery.

None.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a) Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation
  carried on for profit or gain.

(b)   Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c)   Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d)  Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e)  Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or  
 longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

None.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 24 July 2023 be agreed as a correct record and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and highlighted the proposed review of the council’s scrutiny function, set out elsewhere on the agenda.

For members of the public to ask questions relating to any subject on the meeting agenda under Procedure Rule 70.5. Alternatively, the Chair may opt to accept questions from the public during the discussion on each agenda item.

None.

Councillor Kaya Comer-Schwartz, Leader of the Council, addressed the Committee and focused on the council’s agreed priorities in the new Corporate Plan, Islington Together 2030, and the challenges facing the Council.

The Leader highlighted the outcomes of the Lets Talk Islington engagement exercise; this survey of over 6,000 residents found that nearly half of respondents did not believe Islington was a fair and equal place to live, the differences in income and opportunities were the biggest sources of inequality, and affordable housing and safety were the top priorities of residents. These findings had informed the Islington Together 2030 plan.

The Leader highlighted three issues that were the root cause of inequality; poverty and affordability, quality of life, and power and agency. The Corporate Plan sought to address these through its five priorities; child-friendly Islington, fairer together, a safe place to call home, community wealth building, and greener, healthier Islington.

The Leader commented on the financial challenges facing the council following continued government austerity and noted that recent findings from the Housing Ombudsman and Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman had indicated where the council needed to improve services for residents. In particular, the Leader highlighted the impact of damp and mould in council housing, and the work underway to clear the council’s complaints backlog. Since the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s report found fault in the council’s complaints management, the council had invested in transforming its communications with residents, and call waiting times had been cut by 66%.

The Leader commented on the importance of the council’s Challenging Inequality programme and the need to embed this approach in all of the council’s activities to address inequalities head-on. The Leader highlighted several examples of the council adopting best practice, including the council’s pioneering approach to Community Wealth Building, its dedication to the natural environment and Net Zero Carbon, the council’s focus on health inequalities through projects such as the Young Black Men and Mental Health Programme, and noted that Islington led the way nationally in the roll out of school streets and encouraging sustainable transport. The council was also prioritising services to support young people and keep them safe.  

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·        Following a question on the role of Access Islington Hubs, it as confirmed that these Hubs offered advice for those experiencing financial hardship, provided by the council’s Income Maximisation (IMAX) team.

·        A member asked about the council’s support for those with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) and if the council was effectively communicating its offer in this area. In response, the Leader highlighted the importance of universal services, such as free school meals for primary school children, and noted that the size of the NRPF team had tripled over recent years. NRPF services were promoted through social workers and schools.

·        A member welcomed the council’s ambition but commented on the limited funding available to local authorities. It was queried what scope the council had to lobby central government for a fairer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

Councillor John Woolf, Executive Member for Community Safety, Besserat Atsebaha, Director of Community Safety, Security and Resilience, Daniel Lawson, Assistant Director – Civil Protection, and Rosalind Hick, ASB Programme Manager, presented to the Committee on the council’s response to complex ASB.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·        The Executive Member commented on the importance of getting the basics right in terms of case management and reporting mechanisms. It was important to remember that ASB was subjective and different activities may have different impacts on different residents. The council did not have the same powers to intervene as the police, but could tackle ASB effectively by having clear and consistent policies, procedures and practices. The Executive Member highlighted Islington’s commitment to early intervention, the need to take a contextual approach, and commented on the need for a zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour.  

·        Officers highlighted that responding to ASB effectively was a high priority for residents and was identified as the second highest priority in the recent Lets Talk Islington resident engagement survey. This priority was reflected in member casework. Service demand had recently returned to pre-Covid levels and the majority of reports related to noise nuisance and neighbour issues.

·        The majority of ASB reporting was now via the webform; this was a new trend, as previously the majority of repots were made by telephone. Reports peaked between 10.00pm and midnight when people were trying to sleep, and the summer was busier than the winter, as people gathered in parks and public spaces late into the evening.

·        Officers summarised the ASB Programme that was seeking to transform the way that the council manages and responds to ASB. This work included introducing a new definition of ASB. It was essential to have a clear definition of ASB so residents and partners knew what the council would and would not respond to. It was also important that ASB was dealt with by the correct agency; where ASB involved criminal activity this should be referred to the Police; ASB on social housing estates should be directed to the relevant housing provider.

·        The Committee noted the statutory Community Trigger process which allowed residents to call for a review of persistent ASB issues if they felt these were not being addressed sufficiently.

·        A new ASB case management system was being introduced to assist with monitoring and managing ASB.

·        The Committee considered a map of ASB “hotspots”. A hotspot was classified as an area with six or more reports of ASB. These changed frequently, however some areas were persistently classified as hotspots, particularly town centres, transport hubs, and parks during summer.

·        A new webform was being developed to support better reporting of ASB. The Committee asked for an update on when this would be available.

·        A member commented on the decrease in telephone calls reporting ASB and queried if the system had been designed to discourage people from reporting by telephone. In response, officers advised that there had been a corresponding increase in online reporting,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Finance, Planning and Performance, and Rachel Harrison, Deputy Director of Finance, introduced the report.

It was highlighted that there was an overspend of £12m in the general fund. A major factor was the availability of care beds and this was being monitored and challenged internally. The challenging financial position of local schools was also highlighted, with several expected to be in deficit in the next financial year. The Committee also noted slippage in the capital programme. The importance of robust financial management was emphasised, particularly following Birmingham City Council issuing a Section 114 notice.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·        Members asked why the council employed so many agency staff. In response, it was advised that several agency staff had been recruited to address the complaints backlog that had been subject to a review by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This was a short-term measure. The number of agency staff employed by the council was below the London average. It was accepted that there would always be a need to recruit agency staff to cover vacancies in front line services, but this should be kept to a minimum.

·        It was noted that further information on the unavailability of care beds was set out in the Exempt Appendix.

·        Following a question on the budget implications of having a relatively low recycling rate, it was commented that the council could take radical decisions to improve the recycling rate, for example switching to alternate weekly bin collections, but there would be wider consequences to this policy decision.

·        A member asked for further information on targeting capital spend on greening measures, for example implementing LED lighting. In response, it was advised that a full response would be sought from the Environment department.

·        A member asked about the overspend in Adult Social Care and what was being done to develop sustainable capacity in the service. In response, it was commented that Adult Social Care financing was a national issue, however a range of transformation measures were underway. There was a need for extra care beds  and this needed to be addressed through the planning system. There would be 60 care units accommodated on the new Holloway Prison development.

·        A member commented on the government’s watering down of net zero commitments and commented on the difficulty of local authorities delivering environmental improvements without financial support from central government. The Executive Member commented that retrofitting social housing with energy saving measures would help to save residents’ money on energy bills, provide higher quality homes, address persistent damp and mould issues, improve living standards, health and wellbeing, and boost the economy by providing new highly skilled jobs. However, it would be challenging to deliver the changes needed while the government did not prioritise these measures.

·        The Committee noted that £4.1m of the agreed £10.9m of savings were RAG rated wither Amber or Red. It was advised that an amber rating identified some level of risk, and it would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

Noted.

RESOLVED:

That the final report of the Cost of Living Crisis Scrutiny Review be agreed and submitted to the Executive.

The Chair introduced the report and advised that the Scrutiny Committee Chairs would review the council’s scrutiny arrangements. Any final proposals would be submitted to Council for approval.

RESOLVED:

a)     That the draft project plan, including the review terms of reference and timeline, be approved as attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

b)     To establish an informal member project board, chaired by the Chair of Policy and Performance Scrutiny Committee.

·       Council Forward Plan

·       Scrutiny Review Tracker

·       Responses from previous meetings

·       Verbal Updates from Committee Chairs

·       Work Programme

Council Forward Plan

Noted.

Scrutiny Review Tracker

Noted.

Responses from previous meetings

Noted.

Verbal Updates from Committee Chairs

The Chair of the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee advised that a task and finish group was being held on the inclusive economy.

Work Programme

Noted.

Noted.