| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith (Chairman), Councillor Cathryn Henry (Vice-Chairman), Councillor John Booth (substitute), Councillor Jean Green, Councillor John Harris, Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor David Kearns, Councillor Ben Lewis, Councillor Sandra Lunn, Councillor Gerald Morris, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mike Rice and Councillor Adrian Smith (susbstitute). |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Liz Green (Head of Policy and Community Services), Steve Crowley (Contracts and Project Manager), Helen Rae (Children's Services Manager), Brendan Sullivan (Scrutiny Officer) and Hilary Dineen (Committee and Member Services Officer). |
| ALSO PRESENT: | |
| Meeting attachment |
Agenda Front Pages |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 15 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bill Davidson, Frank Radcliffe and Deborah Segalini. Having given due notice, Councillor John Booth advised that he would be acting as a substitute for Councillor Bill Davidson. Having given due notice, Councillor Adrian Smith advised that he would be acting as a substitute for Councillor Frank Radcliffe. |
Noted | ||
| 16 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 June 2014 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and be signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 17 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No other business was submitted for consideration by the Committee. |
Noted | ||
| 18 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The advised that, as requested by this Committee, at the close of the meeting there would be a question and answer session for Members regarding Safeguarding; (2) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and are required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest which requires they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, can speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote. |
Noted | ||
| 19 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no presentations from members of the public. |
Noted | ||
| 20 |
URGENT/GENERAL EXCEPTION ITEMS No urgent or general exception items were received. |
Noted | ||
| 21 |
CALLED IN ITEMS Since the last meeting, no decisions had been called-in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. |
Noted | ||
| 22 |
MEMBERS' QUESTIONS No questions had been submitted. |
Noted | ||
| 23 |
RESOLUTIONS OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Resolutions List The Scrutiny Officer presented the report entitled Resolutions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and drew attention to the following: MINUTE 11 - JUNE 2013 - SAFEGUARDING The Chairman had agreed that, rather than providing evening training, which may be difficult to attend, a briefing note had been distributed to all Members which would be followed by a question and answer session at the close of this meeting. RESOLVED: That the actions resulting from the resolutions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review and monitor the progress of resolutions made. |
Agreed | ||
| 24 |
ANNUAL SAFEGUARDING PERFORMANCE UPDATE FOR APRIL 13 - MARCH 14 Report The Childrens' Services Manager presented the report of the Head of Policy and Community Services entitled Annual Safeguarding Performance Update for April 13 - March 14 and drew attention to the following: - This was the third annual report on Safeguarding which this year referred to both children and vulnerable adults; - Section 7 of the report detailed the background regarding Safeguarding; - Section 8 of the report detailed the rates of referrals for both children and vulnerable adults and the developments which had taken place in NHDC regarding Safeguarding. Members asked how referrals regarding Children and Vulnerable Adults were received by NHDC. The Children's Services Manager advised that all cases in the previous year had been referred through NHDC staff who had concerns. Referrals by other organisations were made directly to Hertfordshire County Council Members discussed that both District and Parish Councillors came into contact with children and vulnerable adults whilst undertaking their constituency or civic duties and queried whether all Members of District and Parish Councils should have Disclosure and Barring Service Checks. They acknowledged that on many of these occasions they were accompanied by other adults, however there were times when this did not happen. They also recognised that there were costs associated with the checks and that there could be problems if the checks revealed negative information about a particular Councillor. They agreed that a briefing note considering the value and necessity of Disclosure and Barring Service Checks and possible associated costs would be useful. RESOLVED: (1) That the content of the report entitled Annual Safeguarding Performance Update for April 13 - March 14 be noted; (2) That the Head of Policy and Community Services be requested to provide a short briefing note considering the value and necessity of Disclosure and Barring Service checks for all District and/or Parish Councillors and possible costs associated with this, to the next meeting of this Committee, due to be held on 16 September 2014. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that regular corporate reviews of NHDC statutory and lawful obligations in respect of safeguarding are undertaken. |
Agreed | ||
| 25 |
GRANTS POLICY REVIEW Report The Head of Policy and Community Services presented the report entitled Grants Policy Review. She advised that the report outlined the review of the Council's Grant Policy and incorporated proposals from the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group on the Grants Process and Related Community Benefits and the Shared Internal Audit Service. The Head of Policy and Community Services drew attention to section 6.4 of the report which detailed how the recommendations of the Task and Finish Group would be addressed and Section 7.1 which gave a summary of the recommendations and update arising from the Shared Internal Audit Service. She gave an overview of the responses and actions underway or completed, as detailed in Section 7.2 of the report, including that of devolving responsibility for awarding grants that had evolved through custom and practice although there was no specific authority for this and there were risks involved in doing so. A review of the Fast-track grant applications had demonstrated that these were often being used inappropriately, rather than for urgent matters that could not wait for the relevant Committee meeting. Therefore this type of grant would no longer exist except for truly exceptional circumstances. It was also proposed that minor Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) cease post 2014/15 and that Major MOUs be reviewed during 2014/15 with the view of formalising the process. Members debated the report and asked several questions as follows: RESPONSIBILITY FOR AWARDING GRANTS Members were keen that the individuality of each Area Committee be maintained and this should include how they managed their budgets and awarded grants. They felt that certain Area Committees benefitted from Ward Member budgets and these should be continued The Head of Policy and Community Services explained that there was technically one budget per Area Committee and that the devolving of responsibility for parts of that budget had grown through custom and practice and there were not, at present, the correct authorities in place to do this. FAST-TRACKING OF GRANTS Members were concerned that Fast-track Grants would be discontinued and that the proposed emergency grant procedures did not include any Ward Member involvement The Head of Policy and Community Services reminded Members that there was no specific delegation powers for the current method of a Chairman of an Area Committee fast-tracking grants and assured them that emergency grant award procedures remained in place, however delegation for this currently sat with the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance. If Members wished to continue with the current system the Constitution would need to be amended in regard to delegation of powers. It was proposed and seconded that the Fast-track Grant method continue and that the maximum grant available under this method should be £250 MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING Members asked for clarification regarding the difference between major and minor MOUs and grants. They were concerned that the award of Major MOUs appeared to have little Member input. The Head of Policy and Community Services advised that MOUs were granted over three years in return for a service and that the type of MOU was determined taking into account the level of the award together with the area of the District that would benefit and service it provided. A grant was funding given on an ad-hoc basis. She advised that she was undertaking a benchmarking exercise regarding Major MOUs and that many of the existing Major MOUs now constituted contracts and would be negotiated and managed as such in the future. It was proposed that, as Major MOUs were generally awarded to organisations that provided services to the whole District, or large areas of the District, these should be renamed "District Grants" and that they should not be considered as part of the grants process. SUMMARY GRANT AWARD MATRIX Members considered the Summary Grant Award Matrix and were concerned that there should not be a maximum award allowed, but accepted that Officers could be limited to the amount they could recommend. It was proposed that the second column of the Summary Grant Award Matrix be re-titled "Maximum value that can be recommended by Officers" OTHER ISSUES Members asked about how the Parish Challenge and Rural Grants Funds were decided. The Head of Policy and Community Services advised that there was a Panel that reviewed all applications, made up of members from urban areas to ensure independence, which made the decisions about which applications would receive funding. RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: (1) That it not be prescribed as to whether Area Committees can split their budget, including into Ward or Member budgets; (2) That fast-tracking of urgent grants continue up to a limit of £250 (3) That Major MOUs be re designated as District Grants and not be considered as part of the grants process; (4) That the title of the second column of the Summary Grant Award Matrix (Grants Policy - Paragraph 7) be re-titled "Maximum value that can be recommended by Officers"; (5) That, on condition (4) above is agreed, the Summary Grant Award Matrix (Grants Policy - Paragraph 7) be supported; (6) That there be two distinct types of grant called "Area Grants" and "District Grants" REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the Grants Policy Review prior to consideration by Cabinet. |
Agreed | ||
| 26 |
TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT PARTNERSHIPS IN NORTH HERTS Report Appendix A - T&F Group Report Appendix B - SMT Comments Prior to the item being discussed Councillor Henry declared a disclosable interest as she was a paid employee of North Hertfordshire College. She stated that to ensure transparency she would take no part in the debate or any vote and would leave the room for the duration of the item. Councillor Muir, Chairman of the Task and Finish Group on Employment Partnerships in North Herts, presented the report. He advised that it had been a very useful group, which demonstrated that the Job Centres and North Hertfordshire College worked well together. Members debated the report as follows: RECOMMENDATION 2 Members queried whether conditions or Section 106 agreements on planning applications could be sustained in Planning Law and asked that the Scrutiny Officer investigate this. The Contracts and Project Manager reminded Members that the Council needed to be considerate of legal and procurement issues and follow relevant guidelines. RECOMMENDATION 11 Members acknowledged that creating an Enterprise Grant Scheme would require considerable funding and/or resources and agreed that the Local Enterprise Partnerships could be approached regarding providing grant for business locating or re-locating to Hertfordshire. RESOLVED: (1) That, in respect of Recommendation 2, the Scrutiny Officer be requested to investigate whether conditions or Section 106 agreements on agreed planning applications could include the requirement to employ a prescribed percentage of local people; (2) That the Chief Executive be requested to discuss with the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership whether grants could be made available by them to businesses re-locating to Hertfordshire; (3) That Recommendation 11 be amended to read: "The Council should consider creating an Enterprise Grant Scheme of the type run by Bassetlaw District Council, which provides grants for capital expenditure of up to £1,500, or £2,500 for businesses seeking to locate, re-locate or expand within North Hertfordshire. This money can be used to support the employment of people with disabilities." (4) That, after consideration of (1) and (3) above, the recommendations of the Task and Finish Group on Employment Partnerships in North Herts be supported. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider and comment on the report of the Task and Finish Group on Employment Partnerships in North Herts. |
Agreed | ||
| 27 |
HEALTH SCRUTINY Report Appendix A - HCC Work Programme Appendix B - NHDC Responsibilities The Scrutiny Officer presented the briefing note on Health Scrutiny and drew attention to Section 7 and Appendix A which gave details of Local Authority Health Scrutiny and Section 8 which outlined the responsibilities of District Councils regarding public health. RESOLVED: That the briefing note on Health Scrutiny be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is kept appraised of the work of Hertfordshire Health Scrutiny and the role and responsibilities of the District Councils. |
Agreed | ||
| 28 |
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME Report Appendix A - Programme for Meetings Appendix B - Forward Plan Appendix C - Parking Scope The Scrutiny Officer presented the report entitled Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme and drew attention to the following: WORK PROGRAMME The Scrutiny Officer advised that the agenda regarding the meeting due to be held on 16 September 2014 would include two further reports entitled " Asset Disposal and Community Asset Transfer Policies" and Wilbury Hills Cemetery, Letchworth Garden City - Crematorium Proposal". The Chairman asked that parties that may be interested in Asset Disposal and Community Asset Transfer Policies be invited to attend the next meeting of this Committee. Members asked that the Portfolio Holders responsible for these additional reports be invited to attend the next meeting of this Committee to give a presentation. FORWARD PLAN Members considered that the report entitled "Thomas Bellamy House, Hitchin" may be of interest to Hitchin Committee and should be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Hitchin Committee. TASK AND FINISH GROUP ON PARKING SERVICES The Scrutiny Officer advised that he had consulted officers regarding which area of parking services would support the current officer review. The Officer view was that de-criminalisation would be a worth while area to focus on. The Contracts and Project Manager advised that NHDC only undertook enforcement where there was a Traffic Regulation Order in place and that there were some car parks in North Herts that were not covered by a Traffic Regulation Order. He also informed Members that in 2013/14 the de-criminalised enforcement regime broke even and advised that any surplus made from on street parking had to be re-invested into that area, whereas profits from off street parking could be used by the Council for any purpose. Members suggested that a key question should be whether de-criminalisation be of benefit to the local economy. A Member suggested that there should be a blanket Traffic Regulation Order across the District to protect verges, RESOLVED: (1) That the Scrutiny Officer be requested to invite parties that may be interested in the report entitled "Asset Disposal and Community Asset Transfer Policies" to attend the next meeting of this Committee due to be held on 16 September 2014; (2) That the report entitled "Thomas Bellamy House, Hitchin" be brought to the attention of the Hitchin Committee Chairman; (3) That the Scrutiny Officer invite the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs and the Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment to present to this Committee at the meeting due to be held on 16 September 2014; (4) That, in respect of the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group on Parking Services, the following is added as a key question: Would decriminalisation be of benefit to the local economy"; (5) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to plan and carry out its workload efficiently and effectively. |
Agreed | ||