Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Khondoker and Ozdemir.

Councillor Hayes acted as substitute for Councillor Ozdemir.

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 5 December 2024 were agreed as a correct record and the chair was authorised to sign them.

The Chair thanked those who attended the special meeting on Thames Water and asked the committee to forward him any additional questions, asks or actions by the end of the week.  

The Chair also reminded the Committee a virtual evidence session, to hear from the Centre of Local Economic Strategies, on their scrutiny review into progressive procurement was scheduled for 6.30pm on the 3 February.  

Parkview Tenant and Resident Association (TRA) attended to ask a public question. It was highlighted that they were waiting for information on costings, block B and when the community facility would be accessible. They also asked for an update on the complaints process, following their question on 5 December, and whether there had been an update on two cases raised with the Chair. The Chair explained it had taken awhile to receive the information and he was working on providing a response before the next meeting of the committee. The Corporate Director of Community Wealth building would provide a response within 14 days.

The Executive Member for Finance and Performance introduced the budget proposals. The increasing difficulty of balancing the budget in the current economic climate was emphasised but the budget had been balanced, and no reserves were used.

The Executive Member commented that the aim of the budget was to protect frontline services and to create a more equal Islington. Difficult decisions had to be made but the focus was on the council’s five missions. This included ensuring people across the borough had a safe place to call home by investing £200 000,000 in homelessness support and prevention over the next two years; supporting an inclusive and fairer economy by enabling the delivery of 1,000 apprenticeships and putting 5,000 people into work; creating a greener healthier borough by continuing to invest in recycling and planting 600 trees in a year; making Islington a more child friendly place by providing a seamless offer of support to school age children; and empowering people across the borough by providing the right support and ensuring a quicker and more effective response to resident enquiries and by improving the council’s online service.

The Executive Member highlighted that the cost-of-living crisis, inflation and the long-term impact of 14 years of austerity had stretched council budgets across the country to the limit. It was essential that the council’s limited resources were focused on council priorities. The Committee also heard there were substantial staffing savings of £20,000,000 over the next three years to be made, which was necessary to protect frontline services.

Committee members raised and discussed the following main points:

·         The Committee discussed proposals for the reduction in the general fund subsidy for vacant places in council managed children’s centres with nurseries. They wanted assurance that provision would be available for families who needed it. It was explained that due to the falling birth rate and reduced demand it was important to reassess the provision. There would be a process to go through, and robust safeguards around the process. Its aim was to ensure that all provision was viable and there were enough places in Islington.

·         On page 48 – 4. Equalities Groups Impacted by Savings Proposals – Age. The report states: ‘Procurement of the reablement service externally to deliver the current output of the in-house service. OR remodel the reablement service to meet current delivery with reduced staffing levels.’ A committee member highlighted that the rest of the papers did not include the option to remodel the service, and this would be the preferred option due to its impact on older people and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. It was explained there was time to consider the options on this.

·         A committee member highlighted that on page 60 the report stated ‘there were no new savings proposals submitted for public health’ however it was proposed that the Bright Lives service would have two fewer members of staff. The Executive Member said this would be reviewed.

·         In relation to Appendix D1, Medium-Term Financial Strategy, a committee member queried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Committee received the annual presentation from the Executive Member for Finance and Performance. The presentation highlighted the key achievements, key challenges and next steps for the portfolio.

·         A committee member had heard some residents were not receiving a response after filling in safeguarding forms. The Executive Member said this was incredibly serious and should be raised with the Director for Adult Social Care.  He could also take it to the Resident Experience Working Group.

·         On a question regarding spending on legal advice, it was explained that the last three years of spending could be circulated to the committee, this would include a distinction between advocacy services and second opinions and information on whether the advice could have been provided in house.

·         On the relaunch of the Complaints Board and which officers deal with complaints it was explained that all stage two complaints were considered by a service director, and this was considered appropriate until there were improvements in the service.

·         A committee member asked what mechanisms were in place to hear back from residents and what checks were in place to ensure they received a quality service, aside from Let’s Talk Islington. It was explained that since the introduction of the new contact centre a star rating system was used to allow residents to provide feedback after calls. Further information could be provided to the committee on this. Managers would also listen to calls to ensure their quality as part of the Resident Experience Programme. Members had previously had the opportunity to listened to calls and this could be considered again. The contact centre had improved several elements of the service including waiting times and the number of calls dropped. It was highlighted that ensuring issues were resolved before a complaint was necessary was a key objective.

·         On whether there was a review board that looked at the root cause of complaints, it was explained that there was not a uniform approach across the council. The Executive Member said this could be included within the complaints review that was underway.

·         A committee member asked what resilience there was against errors and outages in services. The Executive Member requested any specific examples be brought to his attention.

·         A committee member asked how complaints were examined in order to reduce them and whether data was available on this.

·         A committee member explained that enhanced digital provision did not reduce the number of people who required face-to-face provision, instead a different cohort was reached, and asked whether a review had been carried out to check whether people were channel shifting or losing contact with the council.  It was requested that this information be bought back to the committee. It was explained that this was not under review as part of the Resident Experience Programme. The Executive Member said the channel shift work would be helpful. The aim was to ensure residents who wanted to access services online were able to and there was no expectation for more complex problems and those involving  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The committee received a presentation from the Corporate Director of Community Wealth Building and the Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Inclusive Economy, Culture and Jobs on the Q2 Corporate Performance for 2024-25.

The committee raised and discussed the following main points:

·         A committee member expressed their thanks to the Income Maximisation Team (IMAX), who were exceeding their targets. The committee asked whether it was possible to track if money claimed by residents was reinvested in Islington, e.g by residents paying their rent or council tax. It was explained that the programme was good value for money and there was a desire to expand it.

·         A committee member asked for information on how many apprentices moved into full time positions, which directorates offered the positions and whether there was information available on apprentices’ development into the future. The Executive Member explained it was reviewed whether apprentices were still in their roles after 13 and 26 weeks and the council were successful at keeping people in those roles. There was also work underway with Human Resources to ensure new roles were first considered as apprenticeships.

·         On life science projects, a committee member asked how residents were being supported to access opportunities. The Executive Member said they were promoting the different roles within the life sciences and the root into those positions.

·         A committee member highlighted that the council’s target of getting 5,000 residents into paid work had been surpassed and asked for reassurance this important work would continue. The Executive Member said the council received national government funding through the Connect to Work Programme and they were ambitious to deliver, and apply to be trailblazers nationally, for the rollout of employment support for care experienced young people. The Executive Member also felt it was important to break down employment statistics to see in detail who was being helped into work through support measures.

·         A committee member highlighted gaps in the information presented, for example the 2024-2025 quarter two indicators for the ‘number of homes for social rent granted planning permission’ was left blank. It was agreed that data would not be missing from future reports.

·         A committee member asked whether a review of types of workspaces would be carried out in light of changing market demands. It was explained that a review had been carried out and a report would be available shortly. 

·          The committee considered the importance of the voluntary and community sector in engaging underserved communities and the role of the Council in outreach work to engage them. The Executive Member explained there needed to be research into who Islington’s key communities were and a breakdown of which communities engaged well, and which required greater engagement. A committee member said leaflets that explained council services that councillors could hand out to residents would be helpful.

RESOLVED:

To review the report and challenge corporate performance for Q2 2024/25.