Agenda and minutes

Apologies were  submitted from Cllr Gorrie, Cllr Watson, Cllr Khan

Cllr Egan , Waters and Solomon   were substitutes a  and prior notification  was  provided  in  accordance with Committee  standing order 52 and 53.

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.

The Committee received deputations from Sean Fox (Employee side representative) on: Agenda item 5) Pensions Reform DCLG  and Chris Taylor(Unison) Staffing Changes in Community Housing.

Details of their comments and representations are recorded under the relevant minute below.

The Committee will be asked to consider a  draft response to the DCLG consultation paper of 7^th October 2011attached as Appendix 2 to the main  report.

The Committee were referred to their terms of reference and asked to note that they were considering this report in both their capacity as an administering authority and as an employing authority.

The Committee were asked to consider a response to the DCLG consultation paper on pension’s reform.  The DCLG had issued this consultation paper in October 2011 on proposals to deliver short term savings in the LGPS (England& Wales). To limit the rise in employee contributions in the short-term, while delivering the required savings. There were two options put forward for consideration.  The first option  involved an phased increase in employee contributions  starting in 2012/13 of 1.5% and  a change in  the accrual rate  of 1/64  for service between April 2013  and March 2014  and to 1/65^th for each year of service  after March 2014. The second option, which was likely to be more acceptable to employees and the Council, was a phased increase in employee contributions equivalent to 1% and change in the accrual rate of a reduction in 1/67^th per year of service after March 2014. The Chair asked whether a response would now be needed as recent national news stories indicated that an agreed position had been reached between the Government and unions about contribution levels. The Head of Human Resources   advised that, as yet, there was no official confirmation had been received from the Government that an agreement had been reached and therefore a response to the consultation should be taken forward.

Understanding was sought on how many staff could opt out of the Local Pension Scheme and the financial impact of this.  The Committee learnt that there was no statistical information available on the number of calls made to the Council’s Pensions office but only first hand experience that a number of concerns were being raised. Employee side representative Sean Fox informed the Committee that a recent survey carried out by UNISON   and the PCS where 50%, of those responding to the survey said they would opt out of the scheme.  Whilst the Employee side agreed with the Council’s response to the consultation they highlighted that the Hutton proposals included the abolition of the ‘Fair Deal for Pensions’ this mechanism helped protect a local government employee’s pensions in the event of outsourcing. The Pensions Committee had previously considered an earlier version of the Hutton report and further to representation by UNISON had supported the continuation of this mechanism.  The Employee side had also previously responded on some key clauses in the Hutton report concerning career average scheme and retirement age which would also need to be reaffirmed in the response sent to the government.  The Committee agreed that the preliminary response to the Hutton review containing the information on the Council’s stance on fair deal for Pensions and the above mentioned clauses be appended to the consultation response.

 To understand the financial impact on the Local Government Pension Scheme   Members noted that the pension fund in the last financial year had   operated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Corporate Committee requested an addendum providing information sought on spans of control and workloads.

The addendum report contained detailed information on manager ratios, spans of control, impact of the restructure on workloads and responses to Unison comments as requested by the Committee at the previous meeting. The Committee were asked to reconsider the recommendations of the previous report and agree the proposed structure of the Community Housing Service as set out in paragraph 5.7 of the main report and appendix B.

The Committee learnt that the service was operating well within Rethinking Haringey guidelines on spans of control before and after the restructure, this was a ratio of 1 manager to 8 staff.   The Committee further noted changes to the recruitment of senior operational posts from an open ring fence to a closed ring fence following consultation with staff representatives and that a reduction of admin staff from 13 to 10 would be achieved through voluntary reductions in working hours. There had been further meetings with staff to share workload ideas and there had been a good response from staff on plans about how workloads would be managed. The Head of Housing Needs and Lettings post and Service Operations manager were still included in the structure and reasons for their recruitment were set out in the report.

There was concern raised about the capacity of the admin staff to cover their duties following the reduction in 3 posts and it was agreed to review their workloads after a period of 6 months and provide an update back to Committee members. The Chair recommended that the Committee should also consider   a review   of how the wider Council restructure had progressed.

The Chair asked the UNISON representative to respond to the report and Chris Taylor began by welcoming the positive negotiations which had taken place with staff following the previous Corporate Committee meeting. There were still concerns about the capacity of staff working in the temporary accommodation and homelessness teams with imminent national policy changes such as rent capping to be implemented and expected increases in homelessness.  UNISON still contended that the proposed reduction in 2 frontline posts   and the creation of senior operational posts was not required as this would take resources away from the frontline and they continued to advocate not recruiting to these two senior positions. They further questioned the need to recruit a service operations manager and Head of Housing Needs and Letting.

 The Cabinet Member for Housing attended the Committee to respond to Committee members and   UNISON’s concerns and provide assurance about the work of the Community Housing Team .He provided the reasons for not   immediately recruiting to the post of Head of Housing Needs and Lettings. He explained that the Mayor of London will not provide an estimate about the impact of the rent capping and therefore Councils were operating on a wait and see basis.   The Deputy Director of Community Housing added that the level of need was not known but what could be predicted was the   increase in   rents and temporary accommodation costs.   He illustrated the good work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

This report seeks to bring members up to date on a number of developments in the field of electoral administration including the 2012 Mayoral /GLA Elections, Parliamentary Boundaries, a review of Polling Districts , and the legislative proposal for Individual Electoral Registration (IER).

Members of the Committee considered information on the developments in electoral registration, review of polling districts and legislative proposal for individual electoral registration.

 Although this was a report for noting, the Electoral services manager was required by the Electoral Commission to report upon the polling district review and provide a committee minute of this.

 Members were particularly interested in the proposed change to electoral registration which entailed the individual taking responsibility for registration and producing a higher standard proof of identity such as a National Insurance number.   The Committee were interested in how this would be managed in Haringey, where there was considerable door step canvassing to get residents to register, and a wide range of languages spoken.  Members agreed that a report would need to be considered on the implementation of individual registration.

 RESOLVED

That the activities identified herein be noted and that any representations pertaining to the development identified herein are conveyed to the elections office.

To provide the Committee with progress on the shared service Employment Protocols being developed jointly with the London Borough of Waltham Forest to provide a framework for managing the employment issues that will arise from providing services jointly by two or more London boroughs.

The Committee considered information on the progress towards joint employment protocols with the London Borough of Waltham Forest which would provide the framework for managing the employment issues that will arise from providing services jointly by two or more London boroughs. There would continue to be engagement with the unions to better inform the protocols and gain their endorsement.

The Committee noted that key learning points from the extensive consultation and dialogue on the sharing of the economic shared service and Regulatory services had informed the protocols. Members noted that the report on the shared regulatory service would be considered by Corporate Committee in January and the staff number involved in this shared service between the two councils was 35.

Further key points raised by Members were to having an overall knowledge of the number of seconded and ensuring there is there is clarity on their role and status. Also monitoring the cost effectiveness of the shared arrangements.

 It was noted that the issue of Member panels would be discussed with the trade unions in the new year with a report back to Committee on negotiations.

RESOLVED 

That the report be noted

To consider any  exempt items  that are likely to be subject of a motion to exclude the press and public from the meeting as they contains exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972; Para 3 - information relating individuals or  to the business or financial affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

There were no items.