Agenda item

The Committee received a report which provided a performance update against the 2019-23 Borough Plan. The Committee noted that, following the local elections in May, a new performance framework was being developed as part of the ‘Haringey Deal’ and to deliver and track the implementation of the Manifesto commitments The report was introduced by Margaret Gallagher, Performance Manager and Claire McCarthy, AD for Strategy, Communications and Collaboration as set out in the agenda pack at pages 83-94. The following arose as part of the discussion of the report:

1. The Committee sought clarification around the pursuit of London Living Wage (LLW) employer status for LBH and requested further details about how far this extended. The Committee questioned the extent to which the Council was requiring bodies with whom they held contracts, to provide LLW to their staff. How was this monitored? The Committee also sought clarification around the extent to which the Council still had legacy contracts that were not paying their staff LLW. The Committee was also keen to understand what the Council was doing to encourage other employers to sign up to the scheme. In response, officers advised that they would ask the service to provide a written response to these questions. (Action: Margaret Gallagher).
2. The Committee also sought clarification about the extent to which procurement and commissioning were ensuring that contractors were paying the LLW. Would, for instance, the Council refuse to use a particular contractor if they used zero-hour contracts. In response, officers advised that being a LLW employer was part of the procurement evaluation process and that this would be looked at in the round when awarding contracts.
3. The Committee sought clarification around the metric that showed Haringey having delivered 3005 new homes and whether this related to all homes delivered in the borough, rather than Council homes. In response, officers confirmed that this number related to the total number of homes delivered in the borough. Officers agreed to look at the wording of this going forwards. Officers advised that this metric formed part of the government’s housing delivery test.
4. The Committee noted concerns that the domestic violence metric was showing as green, despite being higher than the London average. Officers acknowledged this concern and advised that the metric was an answer to a specific question but did not give a complete view. Officers reiterated that this was the last time that they would be reporting on this package of metrics as they looked to refresh the performance framework going forwards.
5. In relation to a question about the citizen’s panel, officers advised that this was made up of a group of 1700/1800 residents who had agreed to be part of an engagement group for the Council. Some of these had been recruited on the street and others had been recruited online. The nature of the engagement to date had been largely based around surveys, but officers were looking at how best to take this forward.
6. In relation to a question around connected communities, officers advised that a review of the service was underway and that this included looking at staffing levels as well as continuing to monitor outcomes.
7. The Committee queried why the Council was using the government’s housing delivery test as the basis for its own internal performance indicator, given that it was a flawed test that the Council had failed due to know fault of its own, because developers had not built enough houses. In response, officers advised that Outcome 1 had three indicators below it, one of which was the total number of homes built in the borough. Officers advised that they would be looking at trying to ensure that indictors were meaningful going forwards and that, where possible, they reflected the council’s actual performance. 

RESOLVED

      I.        The Overview and Scrutiny Committee noted the high-level progress made against the delivery of the strategic priorities and targets in the Borough Plan as at the end of March 2022.

     II.        The Overview and Scrutiny Committee also noted the fact that future performance reports to the committee were likely to take a different form based on a new focus following the elections. An update would be provided to the committee on what this will look like as soon as possible.