Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr  McNamara, Cllr Gorrie and Cllr Williams. Attending in their place  as substitutes were  Cllr Allison,  Cllr Solomon and Cllr Diakides. The substitutes had  been properly appointed according to Committee Procedure rules 49, 50 and 51.

Apologies were also received from the non voting members of the committee:  Keith Brown, Roger Melling and Michael Jones.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late report in relation to the item shown on the agenda. Please note that under the Council’s Constitution – Part 4 Section B paragraph 17 – this being a special meeting of the Corporate Committee no other business shall be considered.

There were no items of urgent business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations of interest put forward.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29  of the Council’s Constitution.

No deputations were received.  The Chair had agreed that written comments from UNISON  concerning Agenda item 5,  Shared Services Preferred Partnership with the London Borough of Waltham Forest, be considered with this report.

To update the Committee on the development and implementation of the Shared Services Preferred Partnership with London Borough of Waltham Forest.

The Corporate Committee received an update on the development and implementation of the Shared Services Preferred partnership with the London Borough of Waltham Forest . A Memorandum of Understanding had been agreed between the two boroughs in December 2010. Members of the Committee were pointed to paragraph 7.2.1 of the report which set out the criteria being followed to assess whether a service was suitable for the two boroughs to share.  Paragraph 7.3.1 outlined the services actively being assessed as viable for a shared service . Finally paragraph 7.71 listed the resultant employment  issues to be addressed.  These were pertinent to the remit of this committee as these issues  would eventually culminate  into  proposed ways of working  for this committee to consider.

 The committee a number  of questions  and  the Assistant Chief Executive agreed to provide a written response on the following points:

1. The direct cost of facilitating the  shared service project, in terms of officer time , in comparison to the savings to be made .  Information sought on the in- house cost of the project team (In the main, council project management staff were undertaking this work with expert advice sought when needed.  However further clarification on the costs in response to this point would be provided.)

2. If the Council had identified an independent arbitrator.

3. If written notice was received for terminating the MOU, what was the timeframe for implementing this ?

4. More clarity  on the governance arrangements and how decisions are made on which services to share.

5. More information on the business case analysis on sharing of communications and legal services  which had shown that these two services were not suitable  as a fully shared service. This conclusion did not rule out  sharing elements of the service.  

6. Information on  existing joint  ventures with Waltham Forest on the  commissioning of goods and services.

There were questions about the choice of areas to enter into partnership with Waltham Forest and why bigger cost areas  were not being investigated as  these would have bigger financial savings for both boroughs. The Assistant Chief Executive explained the approach partnership working being taken. This  was to initially prove that the concept of working together as two boroughs can work . This was  through looking at how management will work together  and developing internal working relationships before then  tackling bigger issues as a partnership. In response to questions about the commitment of both councils to shared working when a clause was included to terminate the MOU  at the time of the local elections in 2014,  the committee noted that the overall aim was to have a long term partnership agreement . The two councils  would be seeking to share services that were broadly aligned  as set out in paragraph  7.2.1 . The MOU had the exit clauses to accommodate any eventuality  but the MOU also included the flexiability  for the partnership working to continue in the long term . Both councils were committed to only sharing services which had a cost benefit to both  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report of the Director of Corporate Resources – To provide an overview of the proposed integration and resultant structure of the Benefits, Local Taxation and Customer Services.

It was noted that 60% of enquiries to Customers services  were benefits and local taxation related . The proposals for the integarartion for these two services offered the opportunity to improve the relationship between these two services and reduce costs which were associated with delays in passing information between the two services.. Where there was in complete information collated  at the first point of contact with the service  it would result in delays and associated costs for the council.  In joining these two services  there had been an overall examination of how to utilise the first contact with the customer/resident to ensure that the transaction with the services was simple and  the full information collated . This would be achieved by adding back office expertise to the frontline contact with customers. Following the integration of the two services and further to  some staff taking up voluntary redundancy  there was a total of 14 posts to be removed from the structure. Members of the committee were asked to consider and agree in principal to the proposed integration and restructure  of the service.  An illustration of the proposed new restructure was set out in Appendix 4 for the committee to consider.  A period of staff consultation  would follow on the proposals and a final report considered at the September meeting of the Committee.

It was clarified that under the new structure changes to circumstances could be reported to the Council by telephone contact as well as in person at the customer service centres.

Understanding was sought on whether support with benefit claims included both council and housing benefit. It was reported that the restructure of the service had been done with the customer perspective in mind and the service was aware of the need to seek an update to a  housing benefit claims as well as receiving information on a council tax claim where required.

In response to a question about the future of the service and whether the restructure was being completed with a prospect of a shared service in mind, it was noted that there were no plans to share this service with Waltham Forest. The main focus of the service was to improve the servicing of calls.

Information was sought on the latest status of the council’s relationship with the Citizens advice bureau, a key local service which received benefit queries from residents.  It was noted that the good links with this service were maintained with meetings and information shared on the current trends in benefit queries. In response to an individual experience, of a query taking a number of months to resolve, it was noted that there were some exceptional and complex cases where sometimes an immediate resolution could not be reached.

In proposing to the committee that  the recommendations of the report be agreed, the Chair asked that  the follow up report in September  include information on: how the individual services/teams  in Benefits and Local Taxation and Customer Services were being joined up , how services will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Report of the Director of Corporate Resources – to update the Committee on the follow up review of the Use of Consultants Audit, previously reported to Audit Committee on 19 April 2011.

Following the presentation of an audit into the Council’s use of consultants to Audit Committee in April, the committee had requested a follow up report on the implementation of the audit recommendations.  To enable this follow up audit had now been completed by the Head of Audit and Risk Management. Although the council were not fully compliant at the time the reports for committee were despatched as of   the 20 July, the council were now 100% compliant with the recommendations from the original report.  This meant that all required documentation to recruit and employ a consultant was in place for all consultants in employment with the council. The committee noted the SAP system had been updated to ensure that   consultants without a contract in place would not be issued with payment.   The Chair and Chief Executive had spoken with the services that had some documentation outstanding at the distribution of the report

Clarification was sought on whether the audit had included employees contracted to work for the council that were self employed.  It was confirmed that these employees had been considered within the consultancy scope as it would be necessary to have safeguards in place because of the risk to the council, for example, if they gave bad advice.  The chair recommended the need to monitor the classifications around employee terms to ensure  that different definitions  of the term consultant could not be used to get round the compliance to the councils agreed policy and procedure for the appointment of consultants. It was suggested that the committee could receive a 6 monthly report on the council’s use of consultants and other employees which were contracted to work for the council.

It was noted that there were a total of 13 consultants providing services to the council.   There had been 52 in place in November at the time of the original audit and 18 in place in April 2011 at the time of the last Audit Committee. There was comment about how the use of consultants can also assist with risk reduction as well as a saving for the council with the expertise and experience they may provide when this is not readily available in the council.  It was also acknowledged the need to ensure that  when this expertise was employed it was in the short term or for the time required as it had sometimes been  perceived  by members  that contracts were frequently renewed.

RESOLVED

1. That  the report be noted
2. That there be six monthly report to the Corporate Committee on the use of consultants and contractors.

Report of the Director of Corporate Resources – To provide the Committee with an updated Corporate Risk Management Policy and Strategy for review and approval, and also a copy of the current corporate risk register for review.

Members of the Committee were asked to consider the latest version of the Corporate Risk management Policy and Strategy  for 2011-12 and  Corporate Risk Register June 2011. As agreed at the previous committee meeting  the changes to the policy were highlighted for consideration. The process and system for  recording and monitoring  risks was outlined as well as the latest version of the corporate risk register  for member consideration and comment.

Reference was made to  risk  concerning the lack of safety and well being for clients within child protection services.  It was  questioned whether the  salary for the Director of Children and Young people’s services could now be justified given the rag status of this risks was at amber instead of red. Also  understanding was sought on the  factors considered in  the assessment of this risk as although the positive developments for the service were recorded there was a  still a high scoring attached to the residual risk score.  It was explained that,  although a degree of calculation was required in the assessment of risk, this was also mainly a  judgement call.  The service  was  still subject to a  lot of external assessments  hence Council’s Management Board agreement   that the risk rating should remain high.

 Covalent was the electronic system used by business units to record risks  and comment was made as to why internal audit did not manage this process to monitor whether the actions identified, to manage the risks identified, were being taken. The Committee  It was noted that internal audit will use a range of sources to check what has been included in the risk register and how the actions relating to managing the risk can be part of an internal audit review.

Assurance was sought, from the Lead Office for Finance, representing the section 151 officer that business units were compiling their risk registers in accordance with the risk management policy.  This was given and explained to the committee that the absolute responsibility for each directorates   business units risk register laid the director of the service, and this was not done lightly.  It was in the director’s interest to ensure that all risks were included in the risk register as they would need to confirm this each year by physically signing off their risk register and providing this to the Head of Risk management and internal audit. It was confirmed that every business unit had a risk register in place and the Management Board of the council reviewed the risk register on a quarterly basis.

RESOLVED

1. That the updated Corporate Risk Management Policy and Strategy be approved.
2. That the information on the appended Corporate Risk Register be noted.

Report of the Director of Corporate Resources – To advise the Committee of the work undertaken during the first quarter by the Internal Audit Service in completing the 2011/12 annual audit plan and reports issued for outstanding 2010/11 audits, together with the responsive and housing benefit fraud investigation work, and to provide details of the work undertaken by Council’s Human Resources business unit in supporting disciplinary action taken across all departments by respective Council Officers.

 The committee were provided with information on the internal audits completed in the first quarter on the 2011/12 financial year  by Deloitte and Touche  on behalf of the council, progress with implementing outstanding internal audit recommendations(with particular attention to priority one recommendations) details of investigative work undertaken relating to Fraud  and an update on the progress of on disciplinary actions being taken by the council. The committee were asked to particularly note that  four  out of five of the outstanding recommendations had been  implemented.  Deloitte and Touche were reported to be content with the actions being taken to address the final outstanding recommendation.  The committee also were asked to  note that  council had been successful in recovering £29k through the Proceeds of Crime Act . The service would continue to use the 2006 Fraud  Act to seek recovery of funds obtained fraudulently through housing benefit claims and tenancy fraud.

 The low number of internal audits completed in the first quarter was questioned. In response it was noted that, as in previous years, the number of internal audits completed was usually low as in the first quarter as  the auditors would be completing work from the final quarter of the last financial year and undertaking a number of planning meetings to prepare the audits to be completed over the coming financial year.   The remaining three quarters of the financial year would see a higher number of audits being completed and completion of the internal audit plan. This first quarter had also seen the implementation of the re-organisation of the council and therefore some audit work had to be deferred to allow business units to reorganise themselves.  The committee noted that Deloitte and Touché did not receive advance payments for their service but were paid following the completion of each audit.

 In relation to the  information considered on staff disciplinary action the committee commented on the average number  of days that  employees were suspended for pending their disciplinary hearing.  There were three  significantly long staff suspensions listed. The committee learned that the Assistant Chief Executive had examined these three cases in detail and was satisfied  that the appropriate actions was being taken. The reasons for  the suspensions themselves was quite exceptional and the investigations involved seeking information from external sources .

In reference to the  number of suspensions related to behaviour , understanding was sought on the types of cases that fitted this category. The  Assistant Chief Executive agreed to provide committee members with a some examples.

In terms of health and safety , it was important to ensure that  there was , through a time of change in the organisation, a system in place to monitor how issues were identified were being progressed .  The committee noted that there health and safety forum in place which had this role  and issues should be monitored on a directorate basis.

 There was a question on whether the council recorded how  many employees sued the council.  It was reported that periodically the council will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability – to seek approval to establish the new Shared Economic Development Service for Haringey and Waltham Forest.

 Following initial considerations by the General Purposes Committee  in March 2011  and further to additional clarifications sought on  by the Corporate committee  at their meeting on the 20^th June 2011 a  report  which contained  updated recommendations on the staffing elements of establishing a shared economic service between  The London Boroughs  of Waltham Forest and Haringey  was considered by the Committee. The proposals for a shared service would see a core shared Economic Development service of 9 posts to cover both boroughs.  After discounting externally funded posts, between both boroughs there were 14 employees in posts and the resultant structure would see 5 employees redeployed or face compulsory redundancy. It was proposed that the head of economic development in Waltham forest, a former employee in Haringey, would be seconded to Haringey for 6 months as interim head of Shared Economic Development service to establish the service and develop the service for both boroughs. The proposals for the ring fenced recruitment into these posts were set out on the final page of appendix 1. It was clarified that the pay and conditions of each staff member would be based on who their employing authority was (this is the local authority that employed them prior to the partnership agreement).  This was an interim arrangement until the details of employment protocol were finalised and agreed by both boroughs. Employees in the new structure would be expected to hot desk and work in both boroughs. There was already  experience of the two boroughs economic teams working closely together on the Youth Enterprise bid, Regional  Growth bid,  and  on bids for town centres . It was explained to the committee that ,  if the arrangements were found not to be workable in six months time, the arrangement allowed for employees and managers to split back to their own respective boroughs.  However the shared service was aiming to build upon existing joint working relationships and the overall objective for the future of this shared service was for it to become a social enterprise that included more than two boroughs.

The grade of the Head of the Shared Economic Service was questioned and clarification provided on the duties that would be involved in this post to warrant this. This included making the shared service work and delivering a shared enterprise that could include other neighbouring boroughs. The grade of this post was decided   by examining similar posts in other boroughs, and evaluating the duties that would be involved.  Both boroughs operated the same HR policy of allowing an employee to be slotted into a post where it was one grade higher or one grade lower than their existing post.  This policy allowed or the Head of Economic Development at Waltham forest to be slotted into this post for a six month secondment . It was noted that the Head of economy post was currently vacant in Haringey.

 A question was asked about the work   implications for both boroughs respective directors for overseeing the development and delivery of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.