To review and agree the panel report on the Haringey Development Vehicle.
To follow.
Minutes:
9.1 The panel received a presentation of the key findings from its work on the Haringey Development Vehicle. This set out the aims and objectives, the panel’s approach, key conclusions and outline recommendations.
9.2 The panel discussed the emerging conclusions and recommendations. Whilst it was clear that the panel had a number of significant concerns about the HDV, it did not wish to miss the opportunity to influence the governance arrangements that would be decided over the coming months with the preferred bidder.
9.3 Notwithstanding the above, the panel agreed that there were substantial risks associated with the HDV that needed further investigation. It was agreed that there should be further scrutiny of these risks ahead of final authorisation of the HDV, scheduled for April 2017.
9.4 It was agreed that the following wording would provide a primary recommendation which would sit as a preamble to the agreed report:
‘A balance has to be found in any venture involving public bodies such as the council, including not only decisions of the Cabinet but also the scrutiny function, with a responsibility to the public to be thorough and prudent. On the one hand there are opportunities and strengths within the HDV proposal and on the other there are risks and weaknesses. From what the panel has learnt through the work of this review, it was clear that very significant risks with the proposed HDV remain. What the Council, and by extension its tenants and residents, gain from the proposed HDV was far less clear than what it and they stand to lose. That was the picture that has emerged from the evidence that we have seen and heard during this review, and also from the inferences that have had to be drawn from the information that simply wasn’t available.
In terms of governance, there are a very significant set of issues, including:
1) A fundamental democratic deficit inherent in any such proposed structure and one of such size and scale;
2) The role of unelected officers joining a board in a voting capacity would supersede the role of elected councillors;
3) A lack of transparency with regard to meeting structures, particularly in relation to rights of attendance at HDV meetings, and whether reports and minutes would be publicly available;
4) The absence of any sufficient contingency plans to mitigate the risks of a scheme of such size and scale;
5) What, if any, role the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government has, or ought to have, in authorising a scheme of such size and scale.
On the basis that at present there are no governance arrangements that adequately mitigate the risks of this scheme, the panel has no other option than to recommend that the HDV plans are halted and that further scrutiny work should be undertaken.’
9.5 The report would be agreed and finalised by the panel and would be submitted to the Overview & Scrutiny for confirmation. Once confirmed, this would report then be presented to Cabinet in January 2017 for its agreement.