Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Tower Hamlets Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday, 17th December, 2024 6.30 p.m.
December 17, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
Wow, cool coming up. Good evening, everyone. And the recycle team. Good evening and welcome. Apologies for the delay. So my name is Asma Islam. I'll be chairing today's meeting. Can I remind everyone that this meeting has been filmed for public viewing on the council's website. Those participating in the meeting will be included in the footage. If there are any technical issues, I will decide if and how the meeting should continue after taking advice from officers. Thomas, do we have any apologies? Good evening, Chair. No, we have no apologies bar one vacancy. We have a full committee tonight. Thank you. Can members declare whether they have any disclosable pecuniary interests and indicate which aspects of the agenda this relates to? Can you state whether your interest is of personal or prejudicial nature? Any declarations? None. Thank you. So the minutes from our meeting on the 15th of October 2024 have been circulated. Can the members who were present confirm these are true and accurate records? Agree? Agree? Agree? Yes. Perfect. Okay. I'm going to take a few things now so that we're able to conclude the meeting on time, which is scrutiny lead updates are for noting. Agreed? Agreed. And we've got pre-decision scrutiny questions that's been circulated. Can you agree them? Yes? Yes? Thank you. And we have executive forward plan, which is for noting. And if you have any suggestions about how that affects our work plan, you may do so through email. Is that okay? Perfect. Thank you. The action log is within the papers with responses from services and officers. By way of an update from November on OSC's involvement with target setting, we have now received an update. The service will be putting on a KPI and target setting session on the 12th of February 2025 for scrutiny members. I will strongly encourage you all attend this as you've asked for these changes. Do members have any comments at this point? Thank you. Thank you. It says 10 minutes, but I don't really want to give you 10 minutes because we've got a packed agenda. But as quick as you can make it, but we have read the report. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just very briefly, I apologise for the fact that I haven't been able to put it on screen, but I've made some copies of a very brief PowerPoint presentation I was going to give this evening. But I do want you to take advantage of the fact that we have Clive here and it might be appropriate for him to talk about his experience and say you've got the opportunity to ask him questions. Can I come back and say, apologies, I've made a mistake. I'm following my script and I'm not very well, but I should have welcomed the Mayor. Thank you very much for joining us. I was waiting for your part of the agenda, but thank you for joining us and I'll bring it back to Clive. Okay, so I'll just give you an update. By now, part of the reason that I wanted to come to overview and scrutiny committee and every opportunity was to update you with any confirmation or correspondence we've had with the Ministry. And I can tell you that we've had none. So since the last time I was here and we had received the draft best value notice, there has been another meeting with the Minister. But in terms of taking the best value notices forward, we haven't had confirmation of anything. The representation period finished on the 25th of November. And all I have been able to do in the meantime is make as much preparation as I possibly can. And I did just want to update you on that. So where we are is that on the second page of the PowerPoint presentation I've handed out, and once again I apologise for the technical difficulty, we have now had correspondence or have received correspondence from the department where they have highlighted in summary the five key issues that they've identified or isolated in the best value report. They are detailed on that slide. They are around political leadership, governance and decision making, the culture of the organisation, working effectively in partnership, and our use of resources, continuous improvement of service delivery. And I suppose the point I wanted to make to over you and scrutiny tonight is, I, the executive and the corporate leadership team, accept the criticism of the report. I know I keep saying it, but I want to keep making that point. We accept them, we take them seriously, and we've got to take them forward. However, I'm very conscious of the fact that I need to take them forward in partnership, not least of which with the envoys, and we don't know who the envoys are yet. I'm advised that it's likely now that I will receive confirmation of the minister's deliberations in the middle of January, which suggests, if that timetable is correct, that we won't have any practical manifestation of the notice until February. So we have a little way to go. However, I can make some preparatory steps. So very quickly to go through this before I hand over to Clive, I have now met with a range of partners. I've met with the Transformation Advisory Board, as it's currently called. I've met with a range of chief executives that have been through intervention, and I'll come back to Clive in a moment. I've met with over 1,500 staff now and presented to them. I've also been talking to the Local Government Association about a member development programme, which is to address the political challenge point. But we've also, as part of the council's MTFS preparation, and the mayor may want to make comment on that, allocated funds to ensure that we can resource the continuous improvement programme. And so the MTFS includes a sum of £6 million over a three-year period to make sure that we have not only got the resource and capacity to deliver the agenda, but that we do it as speedily and as quickly as is practicable possible. We're determined to make this work. We're determined to make sure that we not only seem to take it seriously, but that we do. The next slide, I'm on that one now, areas for improvement identified in the BVI report, simply touches upon the key themes that have come out of my discussions with the Minister. The Minister make it very clear that this has to be locally led, and they have to be local solutions, and they categorise them into those three areas, organisational integrity and governance, embedding co-production with partners, and improving staff experience and dealing with the challenging political environment. I'll leave you to go through what we've achieved and what we're doing moving forward. I did just want to make the point before I meet with Clive, I've had conversations with members, and it's my intention to develop an improvement plan that we work with overview and scrutiny with. So I am suggesting this evening that we meet early on in the new year on an informal basis to have a briefing around how we can compile the improvement plan, that we come back to overview and scrutiny at your request, as and when you think it's appropriate as a result of compiling that improvement plan, and that over a period of time, you may want to undertake some deep dives into aspects of it. But we are determined and committed and of resource to working in collaboration with overview and scrutiny so that we are co-producing the solution. On that, and looking forward, which is what I said we would be doing this evening, with the agreement with the Chair, Clive is here this evening, just to give you a little bit of his background. Clive has been in local government and public services for 42 years, 28 of those at executive level. He's never taken authority through intervention, but has worked with Birmingham, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, and, latterly, Middlesbrough, to aid their exit from intervention. And that's the point. In his most recent role at Middlesbrough, he's successfully navigated the Council out of its best value notice and children's statutory intervention. And Clive is here tonight to share some of his thoughts about what our priorities should be, and to answer any questions you might have. Clive. Thank you, Steve, and thank you, members, for inviting me this evening. Steve has given a potted history of my career, and I've spent quite a lot of time with local authorities who have been in trouble, trying to get them out of trouble. The good news is that best value in intervention always comes to an end. You will get yourself out of trouble. The question is how quickly and how painfully, or less painfully, it is done, in my opinion. And I can touch on some of the experiences in the Birmingham's and the Nottingham's and Northamptonshire's, but just to say that in Northamptonshire, I saw the most extreme of intervention in Northamptonshire, which was full commissioners. And full commissioners means that control of the authority was taken away from its members, and all the decisions were taken by technocrats. So you are appointed as members, you're elected as members to serve the people of Tower Hamlets. With commissioners, you lose the right to do that, and technocrats come in and run the organisation and take those decisions. You do not want that. So my first advice is make sure you go nowhere near getting deeper into intervention. I'll often describe the intervention journey as being a bit of a ladder, really. You can get on the first rung, which is a best value notice. You can climb further up and get an improvement board. You can climb further still and get a mandated board with powers of direction, and you can end up right at the top of the ladder with commissioners. And the aim has got to be to get off the ladder as quickly as you possibly can do. So hopefully tonight I can give you a few thoughts. I joined Middlesbrough. I'm going to focus on Middlesbrough. Please ask me questions later on about any of the other roles. I joined Middlesbrough 20, 21 months ago. Middlesbrough was in some difficulty with a best value notice. It was essentially around culture, member-to-member, member-to-officer relations, poor relationships, poor social media, and that was being picked up as well. Poor leadership of the officer corps as well. That was right at the heart of the organisational problems. And in Middlesbrough's case, a financial position which was untenable. I know your financial position is much stronger, and you've been well led in terms of your finances, which is great to hear. The first thing the members really wanted to talk about was how do we get out of this situation as quickly as we possibly can. And to do that, we first of all embarked on a series of member development sessions to help members understand the roles and responsibilities of members versus officers. So again, I can't comment here. I don't know you well enough. But at Middlesbrough, there was confusion between the role of members and the role of officers treading into each other's territory. And we had to make sure that both understood each other's roles. Local government works because both parties work closely together, work in harmony, but they have very different roles and very different things to do within good local government. So we had to have that understanding. We brought in the local government association to work with the members collectively as a group, but also with individual groups as well. So we had the independent group lead, the conservative lead, the Labour lead, come in and work with all of the groups to think about how they should play their role within good local government and what good governance looks like. One of the things to bear in mind, and you'll know from tonight, is that once you're in intervention, the eyes of government are upon you on everything you do and everything you say. Everything you say tonight, everything you say on social media, everything that gets reported in the press, government will be watching and taking note of. So unfortunately with intervention, you do things in a goldfish bowl, in a spotlight that you wouldn't do for any other organisations. And I often had members say to me, you know, why is it that we can't do such and such a thing when another council can? And the answer is because you have a best value notice against you and because governments are watching your every single move. Just a reflection at Nottingham where we talked about the difficulties of creating a four-year budget at Nottingham. I know it's not your problem, but just to give you an example. And the chair of the panel said to us, well, other authorities don't need to do it because they're not under the spotlight, but my task is to make sure that we do a four-year plan here. So that's what we're going to do, however difficult it is. So it changes the way that we do things, and government's eyes will be upon you very definitely. So one of the things is about how members work with one another. We had to work at Middlesbrough on respect, on dignity. I'd say to the members quite often that, by all means, have political debate. It's really good that you have good, honest, open political debate and political differences, but do it in a way that's got dignity, that's got respect, that shows respect for one another and each of your views. And that will come through then in terms of the social media. And what we saw at Middlesbrough was a slackening off then of some of the quite negative social media stuff that was going on member to member. And that was really important to do. And we also saw there's quite a few attacks from members and officers in Middlesbrough as well. Officers became part of the public game, if you like, of playing that. And that had to stop as well. Officers do their job and advise they don't have a right of reply. And it wasn't right when members were attacking officers in that way. So we had to work out how we can work better together. We did a lot more around group leaders meetings and working as cooperative groups. We did budget working groups together where we've got all of the political groups working together on the budget throughout the year, talking confidentially about budget proposals, budget options, and not running off to social media to try and say we don't like what one group is doing, but actually working together in that more collaborative way. What we also did was we worked very closely with MHCLG. We developed an absolutely close relationship with them so that we had openness all the time. I met with them on a monthly basis along with the other statutory officers, with the monitoring officer and the section 151 officer. And we'd have that really close working relationship so that they know that they could ask us any question, we would give an honest answer. And indeed sometimes we'd be upfront to say we think you ought to know this piece of information, rather than find it out further down the line. And what came back to us at the end of all of this was that they felt that by having that open relationship with us, they had a chance then to really understand what we were trying to do and portray that back to ministers as well. So I'm getting the nod on time. Nearly done, nearly done. So I think that open relationship is a really important one. A look at the roles and responsibilities, as I said, but that also meant a deep dive into the constitution, financial regulations and the scheme of delegations, both the elected mayor's delegations, which we also had in Middlesbrough, but also the officers' delegation scheme as well and how much officers were trusted to get on with their job. That became quite important as well to CLG and the way they looked at it. And the relationships with partners became critical as well. So greater working with the education sector, greater working with the health and police sector, particularly over the riots in Middlesbrough. We had riots in the summer, quite serious riots, and our ability to work with the police and show that kind of progress was excellent. So these are the kind of things about this open approach with government, making sure they understand what's going on, openness of data and sharing of data. All of that got us out. And overall, that journey took us around 20 months from going into Best Value to coming out of it. We were also in children's statutory intervention for five years. And again, the progress we made in terms of good leadership, officer member working relations, the conversion of interim staff to permanent staff was also what got us out of children's intervention as well and put us into a better position. So there's some of the... I could probably go on all evening, Chair, but I can see you smiling at me and saying, giving me the nod to stop talking now and take some questions. Thank you. That was very interesting. And maybe if we need to have another session, maybe we can invite you over again, because this is very interesting. Do members have any... I have one, but do members have any questions so I can write your names down before I ask... Okay. Okay, five. I'm going to start off with my question first, if that's okay. My interest is around overview and scrutiny. A lot of what you've said relates back to some of our experiences here in Tower Hamlets, but how can ONS engage in this improvement plan? And what are your experiences that you've had and what kind of tools and skills you've learned throughout that's helped councils improve their scrutiny function? And while you're answering that question, I'm going to knock down some of the names that are asking you the next set of questions. Okay. So we work with the Centre for Scrutiny Studies to work on a good practice model for scrutiny, because I believe that a proper scrutiny challenge is critical to any authority. And again, when I worked with MHCLG, they were looking for proper challenge, open challenge from overview and scrutiny towards that process. We also set up an independent improvement board, so a board made up not of any councillors, not of any officers of the council, but people who had achieved in local government, a former chief executive who'd achieved, a former section 151, a former monitoring officer, and a support for the directly elected mayor. We brought in the mayor of Doncaster as well as being a political support as well, which proved to be useful. That board also engaged with scrutiny very directly on their findings, the progress that we were making, and reported both to scrutiny and to the executive and to the council on a regular basis. So councillors were fully aware of that journey based on independent assurance, and that proved to be very valuable. Both the scrutiny committee and the audit committee both called in the plans at regular intervals to have a briefing on where we were, the progress we were making, and what we were doing about any barriers and blockages that were happening. So that really active engagement was a key part of it. Thank you. So the next set of questions are going to come from Councillor Abdi Mohamed and then Councillor Amy Lee. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that. Really helpful. And I think it's very helpful in the sense that Middlesbrough is also directly elected mayor, so there's real applicability there, so that's really helpful. One of the things that the best value identifies is kind of weak governance, or lack of governance, and the lack of due process. So I wonder if you could speak briefly about some of the lessons that we can learn, how you strengthened that due process. So, for example, with officers, we sit on committees. I sit on the HR committee, for example, which is a non-executive committee that's set... For the past year, there's been four meetings where papers have come late, which kind of ultimately bounces councillors into a finance decision about interim cover, for example, and that obviously isn't proper and effective governance. So what more can we learn from Middlesbrough as directly elected to strengthen senior management to be able to kind of learn a lesson? We look very closely at our forward management or forward plan as to how we projected that and how we've talked to members about what that forward plan and the reports look like. So by better early engagement in the plan, we looked at the whole clearance cycle so that members were involved, and particularly members of the executive, were involved in understanding those reports at a much earlier stage and had the chance to discuss them long before they got into that report stage. So it's about starting things earlier, planning things for longer and taking them through on a more structured way. It doesn't mean we got everything right. We still didn't. I think the elected mayor would still say there are times when we got a few things wrong. But nonetheless, I think, you know, by and large, we took that through. The other thing with officers was about the ability to speak truth to power. So Middlesbrough had had a few occasions where the previous mayor and the previous chief executive had demanded things of officers, and officers had just said, yes, I want to keep my job, I'll just do as you say, when actually the answer is you need to speak truth to power. You need to be saying your professional opinion. Officers are engaged to put a professional opinion out there. You need your professional opinion out there, and let's get debate going about what the alternatives and options are. Because although you might not be able to do something one way, there's usually an alternative way to do it, and that means early discussion and early feeding into the committee process then for better governance. As I said, we also looked at the constitution, the financial regulations and the delegations to make sure they were fit for purpose as well, as well as enhancing the member development programme. So it was a range of fronts on which we improved that governance process. Always learning that constitution is never quite right. Even today, there's still things we change about it, but it's a whole lot better than it was 20 months ago, and it's working much more smoothly now. Thank you. Just coming to my colleague here, the sovereignty and the independence of the ONS, the duties they discharge in oversight and scrutinising the executive and the mayor is so important, it's inherent in the democratic process. So in that respect, I encourage my cabinet members to attend over and scrutinising members on a regular basis, and I do my best to also attend before this committee. It's putting ourselves forward to questions like accountability to scrutinising is healthy for our organisations, and also healthy for what we're doing in the Council. Yes. To have a second opinion, and colleagues who are independent of the executive to question myself whether our policies are correct or not, or if they have a look, we need to have a look at that policy. It's important. It's really important. I agree. I agree. Thank you. I'm going to take two questions now, if that's from two different councillors. Councillor James King and then Councillor Amy Lee. Thank you. Wasn't it Amy first? Okay, you did. I've got a supplementary to my question, if that's okay. I'm sure I will. So first question is for Mr Halsey and the mayor. So the mayor's office is reducing from 36 to nine staff. Where are those staff going? Are they going elsewhere in the organisation, or? This is about the BVI? Yeah. You're relating it? Yeah, it's in the presentation. Okay. Okay. That was it? Do you want to ask it now? Because I'm going to do a set of questions then. Okay, Councillor Amy Lee, do you want to come in and then I'll come back to James again. Yep. Thank you. My question is about culture. So I'm just referring to the presentation. It talks about, particularly talking about the staff. So, just particularly the words intimidation, bullying and harassment. And I think the thing that stands out to me, there was an example in the report that was given of members of staff who were taken to one side after their meetings with the inspectors and told to write down what questions they've been asked and what answers they gave. To me, that's quite extreme. These are quite extreme examples of harassment, intimidation and bullying. So I just wonder if you have any advice on how that can be resolved. Because to me, that's not just a bit of an unhappy team culture. To me, those are quite extreme examples of something rotten. Can I give it? I'm sorry. First question. In relation to the first question, we're on a journey to conclude the restructure of the mayor's office by the end of March, which is what I reported last time I was here. The caseworkers will be moving to customer services. The extent of the customer services work that they do to support all members, caseworkers, will be subject to review, which is subject to consultation that we're currently going through. The cabinet support officers will be moving to democratic services. There's a consultation process to go through there because we need to make sure that in all of those movements we're getting value for money. So, because it's subject to consultation, because there is a process that we're currently going through, and because the council currently has the opportunity for staff to apply for early retirement or voluntary redundancy, individuals may be affected in a different way. So, although I say there will be nine in the mayor's office, that doesn't necessarily mean that 24 will all still be working for the council in those places that I've highlighted. There are also mayor's advisers. Mayor's advisers' roles will be moved where it's appropriate and where there is need to the appropriate directorate. The question is, so, thank you for that answer. It was noted in the best value inspection report that they noted that that was happening, but then there was concern amongst staff that, da-da-da-da, we understand that tasking operations will be similar with direct access to the mayor, but different line management. This structural change is seen by a number of officers as not sufficiently addressing the route of concerns, leading to confusion, et cetera, et cetera. So, as part of this process, what are you doing to allay that fear outlined in the best value inspection that former members of the mayor's staff will be integrated completely within to the council and structures and accountability processes? Thank you for the question. So, the council has proper procedures and policies that we adhere to in going through any reorganisation, the perception of staff or that they are concerned that although, so all staff at any point we work under an executive mayor model can have a conversation with the mayor. It's perfectly appropriate. It's perfectly logical that they would do so. That is different to having a perception that they are being line managed by anybody other than their line manager. And it's that type of cultural perspective that we need to get through and we need to change the message, we need to change the optics and people need to clearly understand. I would also make the point that part of the discussion we've had with the department and the minister is rebasing some of this stuff. So, we know, for example, that we employ, I think we've discussed this before, we employ nearly 10,000 staff, 5,000 directly if you exclude schools. And we need to make sure that we reach as many of those people as is practically possible in rebasing some of this perception stuff. Because there are perceptions out there that are valid. If one person feels that they're being bullied to arise, then that's one too many. But we need to get to the bottom of where that comes from and how much that impacts upon the perception of the mayor's office, given the fact that there are only going to be nine people in it. Amy's question, Clive. And Councillor Lee. So, a healthy organisation is one which has a positive culture where everybody feels they can speak their minds, say what they want to say, when they want to say it. And it's up to management and leadership to make sure that they're comfortable with people doing that. So, I have always created the forums for people to be able to speak, either through teams meetings, through face-to-face meetings. Often teams meetings will be 1,000 people on the call and asking me questions. I've set up forums for people to ask me those questions confidentially. The elected mayor of Middlesbrough has sessions where he has come and meet the mayor, lunches as well, and they're very open sessions. So, we encourage people to speak without fear or favour. You can speak your mind. You know, there aren't consequences for doing that unless you do it in a malicious way or something that's, you know, clearly out of line. But that tends not to happen because people feel they're able to do that. Although Middlesbrough has been through a really difficult period of nearly two years now of recovery and some really difficult financial decisions, staff morale has remained at a reasonable level. It's not as high as I'd like it to be. But as we now move into what we call the reset phase of the agenda, come out of recovery and into resetting for the future, we're starting to see now staff morale start to lift a little more. We also, as Steve alluded to policies and procedures, we have policies in place like whistleblowing policies as well that people are able to use and they're used reasonably. But our level of grievances and the like is quite low because people feel they can engage with us. And that's right at the heart of a really good organisation. Can I just add to that, Chair? Sorry, I'll be very quick. It's part of the journey that we're on. We've had conversations with chief executives like Clive and we have done, you know, the road shows, the 1,000, 2,000 staff that have come in to talk to us. The mayor hosted a staff Q&A online for about 500 or 600 staff that turned up for that. So, we are learning from others. That's just the point I wanted to make. And we are looking at independent systems for whistleblowing to build on what we already have. So, there's a learning journey and we're learning from people like Clive. Thank you. A set of three now. So, naturally first, then Bodo Bayu and then Monan Bird. Thanks, Chair. Okay. So, I have a comment and a question for Clive. My comment is that this is the second time we've discussed this in an overview and scrutiny meeting. And last time we had a late report come to this meeting, we had a late letter sent by you, Stephen. And this is a PowerPoint that I only received five minutes before the meeting. I know it's only a simple PowerPoint, but it still gives us time. I'm someone who processes information internally. So, I really, really appreciate having information before the meeting. The question for Clive is my concern mainly from the Best Valley Report is around political culture. It sounds like you've done some really amazing work in Middlesbrough. But I also think that there's a way that we need to go as a council to get to a place where we can trust each other as political members. So, what advice would you give us, as councillors, to be prepared to go through that process, to do it in an open way? Thank you, Chair. My question to Clive. Thank you. How long is the process, obviously the invoice coming in January or February, how long would that process take? And how often would they review how well, as a council, we're doing? If you could give me a bit more insight. Thank you. I think just to touch on the question of Natalie, a report mentioned to the Clive, thanks for coming over. A report mentioned on toxic politics exists on both sides of the party platform. What advice or experience can you share where all parties are engaged and learned within our role as the ONS? Also, my secondary question is, within the members and staff, the moral was, like, they're not on the right, same platform. How did you, did you have similar experience in Middlesbrough and how did you engage them to bring the same platform, so therefore residents outside, we can serve the residents rather than having internal, like the staff has a different role and political councillors have a separate role as well, but they have to work on the same platform so they can serve the community outside. Did you have a similar problem like that? And if there is, how do you solve it? Thank you. Thank you for giving us answer these three sets. So, really taking the first and third questions or the first parts together, the toxic politics was there in Middlesbrough as well. It was very definitely part of that Middlesbrough culture. And what we tried to encourage, well, first of all, we had a set of values that we asked members to work to as well. It was well understood by staff and I think most staff could reflect on those, but I guess quite a number of members couldn't and didn't work to those. So, we spent a bit of workshop time with members on those values and how the values are brought out and the Nolan principles and how they work through as well. But we also encourage members to find forums where they could work together in a more collaborative way rather than in a challenging way. Because quite often you come up against each other in political debate, but actually it's probably more common ground than you think when you start to sit down and work through policy decisions, policy issues, budgetary issues, etc. So, we encourage members, you know, so the constitution working group was a cross party group, the budget working group was a cross party group. So, really try to encourage that cross party working to bring some of that respect back into the politics. And by and large, it worked out. I think, you know, Middlesbrough has found that that's been a successful recipe. That doesn't mean to say there aren't occasions when the members fall back again into some of that toxic culture, but it's far fewer occasions now. And it's at the level now where MHCLG were looking and saying, okay, that's normal politics now. We expect a little bit of that going on from time to time. But by and large, you're back again on a normal route now with normal political debate and discussion. So, I encourage you to find those areas of common ground, those areas of working together where you can get cross party working and you can get agreement. You'll find that works wonders when you start to do that. In terms of the envoy position, the envoy is an interesting one because that envoy model is a new one. It's not come out before, so we've got no direct experience of what an envoy will look like. What we did was bring in the improvement board, which is the similar model, if you like. It was a wholly independent board of, in the end, five people or six, if you include the local government association on it. But they report, that board reported on a regular basis into executive on a quarterly basis and into council onto a half yearly basis and took questions. That group also met with group leaders, it also met with staff groups, it met with partners, a whole range of things. So, we encourage that wider working of the whole group so that everybody in the system was well aware of what was going on. And I think, again, using the good offices of the improvement board, and you might think about the envoys in the same way. If you can use them and engage with them, that gives assurance both to you as members, but also back up to MHCLG as well about the progress you're making. So, I'd encourage you to try to use them in that way, but it's a new model, so we're not quite sure how that's quite going to work yet. Was there another question in there? Okay, so thank you very much, Clive. Really appreciate you coming. Steve, do you want, we are definitely coming back in January to have that conversation around, because you want to work in partnership, and you want us to be part of the co-design of what the improvement looks like. Is there a role for Clive and us in the future again, or is this it? So, part of the discussions that we're having with the government are how we can learn from best practice. So, Clive is here this evening. I've already had a conversation with Clive about his continued involvement, as and when that's appropriate, and we have others as well. I've had conversations with the chief executive at Liverpool, who Clive and Andrew know each other well as well. So, there will be, not a suite, but there will be a number of people that we'll engage with, and at the appropriate time through a discussion with yourself, we'll bring them back to those sessions. I think we could usefully discuss that at the first meeting we have in the new year on a more informal basis, so that we can work out an infrastructure to making sure the committee is fully involved in co-production. Thank you. Through you, if I may say, you're doing the right things in the right way. My encouragement is you keep the pace going. When I've seen intervention be stretched out in local government, it's usually the word that's used most often is a lack of pace. That comes out most times, so I'd encourage you to do that, and if I can help in any way, I'll offer my services. What I want to see is good democratic local government, and I want to see you get back to where you belong. Thank you very much, and I think we're all on the same page when it comes to the pace, so thank you. I'm going to move on to our next piece of agenda, which is a focus on flood risk management. I'm aware that our borough has experienced some flooding, and some committee members have also undertaken a site visit to understand the situation better. I welcome members to share their experiences and observations from this as part of our discussion. Before we begin, can I quickly thank Nicholas McCalf, who joins us from METIS Consultants, and will be lending his expertise to the committee to help us with some of the technical aspects of this item. We've had a conversation in the pre-meet that this will be an ongoing conversation. We might not be able to resolve our next steps in this meeting, but for sure we'll keep you engaged in that. Can I quickly thank Councillor Shafi Ahmed, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Emergency, and Ashraf Valley Injury Director of Public Realm for joining us on this item. Please take this paper as read, and is it okay if I give you three minutes to quickly give us an introduction, and then I'll ask members if they've got any questions. Thank you, Chair, and good evening all. The flood risk presentation outlines the Council's approach to mitigating flood risks in the borough. It discusses current frameworks, and identifies key risks and challenges, and presents strategies to ensure resilience, improve service capacity, and address full statutory requirement. As you mentioned, Chair, it should be a red report. Council officers are here to answer any questions that the members may have. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councilor Nathalie Benfit, do you want to go first? Because you've led on this quite a bit. Sure, Chair, thank you. And thank you very much, Councillor Ahmed, for being here in person. I really appreciate it. So, I wonder, so, is there space for the officers to sit a bit more centrally, so we're not kind of craning our heads? Oh, we're going to take the report as read. Yeah, and if you can do, members haven't indicated they've got any questions, so if you can do a quick fire round, you're the only one that's got questions, and then we can get to a recommendation stage. All right, great. So, is it all right if I start questions? So, the reason that I came to this is because we had a flooding event in Fish Island earlier this year, and we've been on a site visit to Fish Island to understand why that was. And I understand the report is coming out, and that's been to do a full investigation, but one of the key risks that was potentially identified from that investigation was our relationship with key strategic partners, such as Canal and River Trust. We are reliant, are we not, on their funding position to maintain their infrastructure that affects us. Do you identify any risks in our communication with those organisations? Hello, nice to meet you. I'm Thomas Bayford. My initial response to that would be that the Canal and River Trust do not, at the current stage, fall within the risk management authorities that are responsible for flood risk. They are designated as a trust, so they do not have a risk management authority statutory role. We do liaise with them. We have been, with regards to the flooding that did happen at the beginning of this year, and we have undertaken a section 19 flood investigation to identify what caused the flooding, and it was identified it was a failure within the canal system itself to manage the water levels, that we were in direct communication with them as we sort of did the investigation, and I'm pleased to present them issues that were failures that happened in their side has been resolved, so the flood risk in that area should now be mitigated. Can I just add, just so introductory actually, Thomas is actually a flood engineer, so his expertise in that field. In addition to what Thomas says, as a flood authority, obviously we've got responsibility to work with partners, including Thames Water and the Canal River Trust. So there is a forum that local authority oversees and engages with our key partners in and around flood areas, so there is ongoing discussion and dialogue with Canal River Trust, and ensuring those actions that have been highlighted in the report is carried out, so we will have that responsibility to oversee, and where there is a support is required to support the Canal River Trust, we will do that, including working with Thames Water to ensure a lot of the drainage, drainage and infrastructure in place to mitigate some of those flooding. Alright, thank you. So another issue that was identified in that flooding event is that we didn't respond as quickly as we could have done as a council, so that is something that you've mentioned in your report as one of your recommendations, so I wonder if you could talk more about what need there is for like a civil contingencies response, like a flood risk response that's needed. Thank you. And with that, can I just get Councillor Manan to come in as well with his question, if that's alright? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, me and Natalie visited the place a month ago, and a few things have been highlighted. The Canal River Trust, the automated systems wasn't working, and it's not a priority for them if there's an emergency, they just come as a go to open it. If that system doesn't work, there are more than 1,000 houses in there, which easily get flooded. So, can we be able to find a way to mitigate the rigs, there's some sort of communication between the Canal River Trust and the council, so anything happen in the future, there will be automatically someone to respond. The reason that flooding happened is because people did not respond, nobody knew who are the responsible for the overflowing of the gate. It's not just because of the extensive rain, it's the automatic system did not work on that day, and therefore gate did not open to let the water out. And that could happen any time, again. So, I just want to highlight, that was the main reason, was flooding, it's not because so much of the rain came through, it's the system did not work. Okay. Fair on the system. Thank you. Thank you. So, that's, Thomas, to come into the specifics on the technical of the gate, when it was working, but just going to point the Councillor Benfied about communication, you're absolutely right. There are lessons that have to be learned in terms of how we communicate, and faster response to our residents and businesses that are affected should any of these situations arise. We've reviewed, working with our business continuity team to actually review the whole process and sort of make improvements, how we can actually faster communicate to our residents that are directly affected, how we can actually respond to our third-party contractors to ensure getting sandbags and other aspects of it a lot more quicker, and reduce the risk of further escalation of flooding. So, there are lessons to be learned from that, and we've taken that in the report, it's been highlighted, and that's what we embed in our process going forward. But more specifically about the gate in itself, which is a third-party ownership, they have that responsibility and there's ongoing dialogue with that, looking at how we can actually improve the actual operating of the gate of that. But maybe perhaps Thomas could highlight a bit more. Yeah, I can jump in on that. So, the incident that happened in January was a direct result of three of the four sluice gates around Old Ford Dock failing. They're on an automated system that basically, when the water level reaches certain points, it's meant to then activate the opening of the sluice gates, which then manages the water level. Unfortunately, three of them failed. Two of them were a year before and one of them was on the event that happened on the flooding. Like I said, on the back end of that, the Canal River Trust and the Environment Agency done a big program of works over the summer to rectify all the failures within the systems themselves. And we were in direct communication with them as they were doing that. So, I'm pleased to present now that they've mitigated them risks, so the sluice gates are active. Okay, did you have a follow-up, quickly? Sorry, Asma, there's a big question mark on this. The Canal River Trust, the people who work at their voluntary basis, they're not paid work. So, when they mention that, I think that's what they're saying. There's no one taking serious responsibility for it. So, that could happen again. Yeah, and it doesn't take away from the fact that it's still a third-party responsibility, and therefore it places difficulties with the officers and the council. Remember, you took them three hours' response. That's a long time for somebody to come to open, to manually open the gate. I think, coming onto that topic, the responsibility falls for the Environment Agency, because the Environment Agency are due to respond to fluvial flooding, which is canals and rivers overtopping. So, part of the response is when the level reaches a certain point, it activates an automatic response that there's an issue with the system, so therefore manage it. But as them sluice gates failed, the response and the emergency response went out to the Environment Agency, and it took them a while to get back to site to open the gate. So, the initial responsibility of that is down to the Environment Agency, not the council. The council ourselves are responsible for service water flooding, groundwater, and ordinary watercourses, but we're not directly responsible for third-party assets, and that includes the canals. Okay. Okay. Can I take two more questions, Councillor Chaudhry, and then, if you want to go next, after. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the Cabinet Member, or the Officer could answer this. Can you provide us with a timeline and a budget for implementing the proactive maintenance system that is in place, and the proposed CCTV system, and the gully sensors installation, to improve the overall resilience of the drainage system that we have, which is very poorly? Thank you. Thank you. I'll answer that question. Oh, is it me? Oh. Yeah, I do. Thanks, Chair. So, my question outside of the incident that's happened, the flooding, standard flooding response services that we already have, well, we don't seem to have anything outside of the at our normal hours. So, what, in comparison to other local authorities, what's the balance there? How do we mitigate against out-of-hours flooding or some sort of incident? How do we challenge, how do we resolve that? Or could you answer that, please? Thank you. First of all, I may go back to Councillor Chaudhry's question in terms of some of the funding and all that. In terms of the drainage and cyclical cleaning, that's already a baseline existing programme, so that's frequently, we have a programme of cleansing and looking at the drainage on a cyclical programme, so that's already in place. The additional measures where we're looking at best practices, learning from other local authorities, some innovative way of improving the drainage system, so like CCTV survey. That's an ongoing programme that we're looking at funding from externally, from government, grant and other sources. In terms of the suds programme, where more drainage and sustainable urban drainage system, we're trying to embed by looking at our existing capital highway schemes. So as part of ongoing programmes, we'll be trying to put a part of those programmes to deliver some of those suds, which will help some of the drainage and gullies. So whilst this is ongoing, this was a discussion that's happened with the Councillor Benfita over the last several months, putting in some recommendation what we'd like to do. So it's going to be an ongoing programme we do, but some of the stuff we've highlighted is going to be part of the existing programme. So a more specific timeline can be provided in the near future. Going back to, in terms of the out of hours programme, we don't have a dedicated office of just specifically around flooding. This is obviously high sort of probability of cost effectiveness. So actually we look at out of hours of other aspects of work. So in terms of out of hours of RTA, road traffic accidents happen. So there are officers and contractors available to actually undertake some of those works. So there are processes and procedures in place to report any incidents that takes place in the borough. Whether it's emergency, road accidents or flooding, and there are contractors in place to carry out those activities. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. I'm going to take another two and then I want to finish, close this off here. Councillor Khan and then Councillor Mohammed again. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee Member Shafiam for your reports on flood risks. We're just talking about the fish island tonight, but I'd like to know is there any other potential flood risks into our hamlets? And if it is, then what is the Council doing about it? Thank you. Thank you for that to the officers who kind of report this. I think it's really helpful and the report is really helpful. With the examples, the most recent example, the faculty example, it'd be helpful to understand how much we worked closely with our kind of, you know, business resilience. And the minute it happened, so the fire brigade obviously take over and do emergency services, but say if it was a fire, for example, there would be, you know, hotels put on or a gym or whatever would have taken over and our contingency planning as a council would have kicked in. So how much do we factor that in with flooding? Because while it doesn't happen often, when it does happen, it can be as devastating or it can be as potentially dangerous. So it's helpful to understand how strong our plans are in the immediate aftermath of flooding. And if not, are we planning to review that to ensure it's as strong as it can be? On the councillor, in terms of the areas, in the PAC presentation, it has a map of showing the risk areas of the borough. Whilst Fish Island, northern of both part of the area, not in the high risk area, but it happened because of the canal there. The risk area is, the high risk area within the borough is around Poplar and South into Isle of Dogs. So that's the most risky in the part of the borough in terms of flooding. And there are programmes in place in terms of, we actually do a cyclical cleaning of our drainage. There are more frequency of cleaning takes place and there are other suds programmes in place to actually alleviate the high risk areas of flooding. So there are programmes in place and there will be continued monitoring of those risks. Councillor Mohamed, in terms of your question in terms of emergency, there isn't specific to flood. All emergency is treated. There is a business continuity plan that deals with any emergency and all the emergencies. And there is a PAC, I don't know the detail of it, but it's in our website, but I'm happy to get the detail of what they actually do in terms of an emergency. So whether it's flooding or whether it's road traffic incident or even in a fire. So there is a guidance and programme for our emergency team, which is dispatched to residents and businesses in the area. Thank you. And we've had one request from our guest that he wants to ask a question. If that's OK, I'm minded to take it. Do you want to ask now? Sure. Yeah, thank you. There's been reference to a suds programme and how we're trying to embed suds within highway schemes. I was just wondering if officers could expand on how existing data is being incorporated into modelling and mapping to ensure those sud schemes are suitably targeted to areas at risk and maybe what parameters are being considered within that modelling and mapping. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I can answer that. So, currently, we've implemented 55 rain gardens and suds features around the borough. But at the moment, in the present time, we're scattergun sort of approach where we're putting them in and retrofitting them to other highway schemes. Currently, we don't have a dedicated flood alleviation programme in place looking at high-risk areas. One of the recommendations was to sort of build a programme of areas and schemes that could potentially benefit from implementing suds within them. So, one of my sort of answers to that would be to get a list of sort of 20, 30, 40 areas that need it and then sort of go away and design, implement them schemes and get them ready for any funding that's available or schemes that come along in them areas that we can sort of retrofit on to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, thank you very much for your help with that today. And we look forward to engaging with you in the future. And thank you to Ashraf and Councillor Ahmed for all your help today. What we're going to do is we're just trying to work out how we work with this in this committee. Um, we've got some ideas of recommendations. Um, is it okay if we are able to communicate that through our offices and then we can, if need be, we can bring it back. It seems like a piece of work that will fit in probably with housing regeneration. The ONS lead member is happy to take that on board. And also the sustainability part of council, um, and building new homes. So, if it's okay, if we can leave that for the future, some parts of it for the future agendas. It's okay. But we really appreciate today's work and thank you for coming and reporting to this committee. Thank you very much. Uh, Councillor Ahmed, do you want to come at the front? So, as part of the new changes, uh, to this committee, we'll be taking our next two substantive items together. So, this is the strategic performance and delivery report in quarter two for 2024 and 25. And the budget monitoring report for quarter two, 24 to 25. This will give us a good opportunity to consider how our performance relates and impacts our budgets. So, again, I'd like to welcome the mayor, um, exec, um, Stephen Halsey, John Ashworth, the senior performance and improvement analyst. And I'm aware that we've got lots of senior corporate directors and divisional directors here to take some questions as well. Um, I also note, um, can I also please welcome Councillor Syed Ahmed, cabinet member for resources and cost of living, along with Julie Lorraine, the corporate director for resources. Right. So, what I'm going to do is give you, we've, we've read all the papers, um, but we're happy to give you some time to present. But I'm more mindful that the mayor, Billy, uh, speaks at this committee. So, I'm happy to take yours and everything else I think we can take as noted. Thank you and grateful, uh, thank you to all the members, uh, and the officers for the role that you discharge in the overall scrutiny. Uh, and I do very much, uh, respect your, your role and your job. Uh, can I say, just want to say a few words and I'll bring, uh, Syed in, uh, if he wants to compliment what I've said. I mean, I've said this here before, that our residents come first to all of us, whether you are elected members or the officers. All of us are here to support and deliver high performing services to our residents. And that's what keeps me up during the night. That's the passion that drives me. And not a week goes by or a moment goes by when I speak to Steve or the corporate management team. When I don't talk to them, uh, and we have a, a, a, a challenging session about performance, performance. You know, whether it's in cabinet or whether it's in other, other areas, it's about how can we accelerate performance? How can we make sure that we are performing, we're delivering excellent services to our residents? Uh, that's very important to us, to all of us and, and to yourselves, uh, members. Uh, and over the last two and a half years, you would very much know that we have reinvested a substantial amount of money in public services. I'm not going to list all of them, but you know, whether bringing timeless homes in house. Uh, a couple of, uh, cabinet meetings back, we agreed a sum of 140 million pounds, how to, uh, refurbish, uh, our housing stock, how to deal with, uh, money to deal with the regulatory stuff. Uh, to bring our housing stock, uh, to bring our housing stock to a safe and a good condition. 145 million pounds, we've done that. Townsend has come in house successfully, but it's a long way to go, and I'm grateful to the officers, uh, for the work that we do. We have self-referred ourselves to the housing regulator because we want, we, we, we accept that there are some shortcomings. We want to work with the housing regulator, uh, to see how we can work together to ensure that our housing stock is in a good condition. Also, we've brought, uh, in house, uh, the leisure services, which wasn't part of my manifesto pledge. We have invested and agreed an investment in the leisure services, uh, more investment in necessary St. George's, which, uh, you know about. Some of the targets, uh, investment and the work of the officers is, is, is paying dividend. We can see the improvement coming on board. The youth service, which you know, uh, 13.7 million pound, uh, that we have, uh, we've allocated additional money each year. 16 of the youth, uh, centers have already been, uh, 16 wards have been rolled out. Uh, thank you, Steve and your team, uh, the, uh, the director and the lead member for more wards to go. And I think, uh, you're in the process of recruiting the officers to, to those posts in the meantime. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm quite confident we'll get the youth service up and running in due course. Our youngsters need a place to go to. Uh, the five million pound in the waste service, uh, the cleanliness of the borough, uh, is very important to us. We want to see a clean borough. Uh, the team, uh, both Simon Ashraf and that team and the lead member are working hard to make sure that money is used, uh, constructively used. Solely for, for cleanliness. And as, uh, the mayor and, and the executive, for every single penny, we are holding the officers accountable. Recycling absolutely is an issue in the borough. Uh, and again, uh, an improvement plan like the waste improvement plan has, has been enacted. Uh, and we're beginning to see nowhere near where we should be, beginning to see a, a, a slight improvement. You know about our investment in young people. The free school meals, the education maintenance allowance, the university bursary. Some 22 million pound of investment has gone into young people alone. I'm not going to go through all of them. Uh, St. George's Baths, you know how much money we have put aside. 30, about 30 homes, three, four bedroom council homes will come on the site. Uh, uh, a state of the art wet and, uh, dry facility. The council tax, we froze it for the first year. The second year, in accordance with my manifesto pledge, I clearly said for those earning, on low income, we'll freeze council tax. The 49,500, uh, pound threshold, uh, means that if people apply and they can demonstrate their income is below that, at or below that, they will not, the increase will not be passed onto them. The five resident hubs, the idea store, Watney Market, we have, we have, we have reopened it. Community safety, we have invested, uh, a lot of money. Uh, once we've finished the full recruitment, we'll have 72 peers on our streets. Uh, money in CCTV cameras, in control rooms. We want to see a safe borough for our, for our folks, people visiting the borough, living in the borough. Uh, and for our, our sisters and our mothers. Very important. The free home care will be delivered next, from next April. There are other stuff, capital projects, which are in the pipeline. I'm not going to go through all of them. There'll be another opportunity in the future, where, when I can list the projects, which you know, which are in the pipeline. But for today, uh, just in addition to what I've said, is that, you know, quarter two of this ambitious four-year strategic plan, the overall picture is positive. But I am not happy, nor is the executive, nor are you happy with just a ticks, just a green. We want to ensure, overall, that we are doing well. On a positive note, of the 56 strategic performance measures, 32 are green at the end of quarter two, up from 24 last quarter. Four previously red measures have improved to green. I'm not going to go through all of them, which you know already. Five previously amber measures have improved to green. And the key achievements are, uh, we want to promote healthier communities and reduce health inequalities. The council's be well leisure centers launched, uh, free swimming for women and girls aged 16 and over, uh, and for men aged 55 and over. The program has resulted in over 10,000 new membership for women and girls alone. And at the end of September, 2024, 71% of leisure center members were female. The results of this year's annual resident survey are positive for the council, with almost all perception ratings seeing statistically significant increases compared to last year. Residents continue to view Tire Hamlets in a positive light. Uh, 84% are satisfied with the local area as a place to live. And 90% believe people of different backgrounds get on well together in Tire Hamlets. There are challenges, uh, which you know. There are a number of red and amber measures in this report, which is disappointing. And, and corporate directors and the leading members know very well, uh, my sentiments, uh, sentiments. Uh, at the, uh, at the end of quarter two, uh, July to September, 2024, 56 performance measures are reported in seven categories as follows. Thirty two have met and exceeded their target green. Five are between target and minimum target amber. Unfortunately, four are below target red. Uh, one is missing data for quarter two. Ten are data only contextual information, uh, in the pack. Three are reported annually. One is reported termly. Of the four red measures, uh, uh, corporate doctors may want to come in. If I just point them out. Uh, they all matter to us. But one of them is very dear, uh, to me, uh, especially because of the vulnerability of the youngsters. It's the KP 1 0 21 percentage of education, health and care assessments completed within 20 weeks. Now, our youngsters are important to us. We see how under pressure our parents are. And I'm going to ask Steve to come in and do course on that, please. Yeah. Yeah. And, and we've had a chat, Steve, and you and the deputy mayor. Uh, the KP 1, uh, O 2, uh, O 26. We're doing well, but there was a technicality because of which becomes red. And, uh, I'll ask Steve to explain that. Percentage of young people that reoffend. KP 1 0 4 6 level of household recycling. I'll ask, uh, Simon to come in. But again, we have put in a lot of money in that area. A partnership with the community, with the schools, with the NGO organizations is in place. And it's, uh, education program is in place too. Uh, and we're quite confident that we will see and already, already experience an upward trend in that area. Uh, uh, then KP 1 0 5 4 percentage of tenants satisfied with the overall, uh, service. Uh, David is there and you know our views on that, David. And, uh, you are developing team to get that right. Uh, can I, I'm not going to go through each one of them. Uh, uh, each one of them. All I want to say is that we are the, the, the chief executive, the corporate management team and their executive. The lead members are very mindful that improvement is a continuous, uh, agenda endeavor. Uh, just because a matter is green, we don't take our eyes off it. Just because a matter is amber, we can't say we've done it. We've done it continuously. We've got to make sure that we are driving up performance. We're delivering, continue to deliver a high performing service to our residents. Those that are red, we've got to do our best to make sure they are improving quickly and rapidly. And this is not want of investment. We have put more money into, uh, the send service. We have put more money into recycling. We have more put more money into, uh, when it comes to young people, uh, and tenant satisfaction. We have put more money into more, more workers for our, whether the housing, uh, housing options team or the housing team generally. I'll ask Julie and other teams to come in, please. Steve, you want to come in on your, on your first one, please. Yeah. Two. Okay. The chair allows. I think we should take questions from members of the committee. If you're okay with that. And then what we'll do is, um, if the question hasn't come up, I'll come back and give you an opportunity at the end to come back on that. Because very likely it's been coming up in every single meeting when it, when it has come to performance. Members have been asking about this. So I'll allow them to, uh, ask the question in their own words. So, Halima, you want to go first? And then Amy next. Thank you, chair. Um, so mine is, mine is around the KP, KPI, uh, 021 about the EHC plan. I mean, assessments. Um, this is quite concerning because it's been up, been below, uh, target, uh, last quarter. And it is significantly low again. Uh, please, can you tell us what steps you are taking to address this as we have been told many times that it's been, uh, due to the lack of resources. Um, so just to understand what the, uh, the reasons are really. Thank you. Um, that was going to be my question. As you know, we, we've raised this at every time this comes because it is consistently in the red, unfortunately. Um, I realize it's a difficult one, but Halima was right. I think we're sort of told improvement is coming and we're still seeing it down there. Um, but, but, um, instead I'm going to ask about free school meals. So we had a bit of discussion about this last time that, uh, percentage of, uh, primary school pupils receiving free school meals was actually going down, which was a bit of a surprise to us. I think we had a discussion about a site visit, uh, because, uh, there's a bit of concern that this is coming, uh, from an issue of quality anecdotally, um, from residents. Uh, a lot of us as counsellors are being told that the quality of the food is poor and the children don't want to eat it. Um, so, has anybody got anything to say on that? Does anybody want to join us on a site visit to go and try some free school meals? I did try and tempt Councillor Ahmed last time, but I don't think he was interested. Um, but there's something not quite right, uh, so it would just be good to understand what's going on there. Um, should we let, um, them answer the question and come back? So there's two set of questions there. Can I, can I just touch on it? I'll ask, uh, corporate I should come in. Uh, like yourself, uh, Halima, I'm also concerned with, uh, the, the 20 weeks milestone. And I've made my views very clear. We have set aside quite, uh, substantial amount of money into the service, which was lacking. You know, to make sure, a want of resources that we're not failing our kids, we're not failing the vulnerable kids in our community. And I'll ask Steve to come in to explain how, uh, what kind of money has gone in and what the improvement plan is, please, if you can. On the, on the free school meals, I agree with you, Councillor Amy Lee. I've had kids tell me that the choice isn't good enough. Uh, they don't like, uh, some of the choice that's been put before them. Uh, and on particular days in some schools, it's the same thing again and again, which doesn't meet their needs or the cultural needs of some of the kids. And I've made that known to the lead member, uh, to the deputy mayor and to Steve. Uh, so I'm requesting that we talk to work with our schools to make sure the choice is much more extensive, uh, and that the take-up improves. Please, yep. The money is there. We're set aside to the schools. We want to see kids are taking advantage of that. Over to you, Steve. Please, yep. And, Chair, I don't know if Councillor Manon wants to comment as the scrutiny chair or leading a piece of work on scrutiny on school meals. Did you want to come in on that? Do you want to come in? Yeah. Thank you, Asma. Uh, since, uh, Amy, you raised the question on 17th of January next year, uh, I was going to invite all the ONS, uh, members to come in. There will be parents to be coming in on our, uh, council. Uh, we can talk about openly with the parents about the preschool meal and, and so on. So there's a stream line of work coming in January, February, leading to March. I'll update you, all of you, on, on an email on this. Unless you want to share anything else on top of that? Me and Steve have been working closely on that, with, uh, on, on the subject, uh, about preschool meal. I think, um, it's important to say as well that there is a bit of a dip in the data, uh, depending on the time of year. So we should see it recover, um, more in, in the winter. But I, like yourselves, I've heard some of the anecdotal feedback. So we do need to, um, as we've said, as part of that piece of scrutiny work, actually go out and see it ourselves and speak to young people, uh, to make sure we can improve the, the offer, uh, and get the figures back up. Okay, um, I know Councillor Chaudry has done some work around this, um, last year as well as part of, uh, the work plan here. And actually this is a really good exercise in the place that we are politically. This is one thing that we all agree on about getting right. And it's, uh, like the mayor said, it's not lack of resources. It's about making sure we get the, the sort of contracts right and what the children want. And we're happy to help and be part of that, um, that journey of improvement to try and see what it is that's going wrong and what the kids want. And I think that's a really good way for exec, if the mayor agrees, for the exec and this committee to work together in order to make sure we're able to provide the information and come up with some recommendations and suggestions. And I'm sure, Mr. Reddy, you'd appreciate that help. Absolutely. Absolutely. Very happy for, uh, for, uh, members to join in and so those visits. Um, just to also say there's been a bit of screening work done on the child healthy wage strategy. And some of that is linking across into the, uh, what's happening with school meals as well. So it's, it is captured in that action plan that we've had an update to our committee on as well. Right. The next set of questions. Can I take Councillor James King and then Councillor Abdi Mohamed? My question has been asked, actually. I'll just reiterate the point about the EHP, um, failures. Um, failures that last quarter when I raised it, it was a 44%. Now it's a 24%. So almost a, you know, 50% decrease in the same time. I think Steve, you asked the question for me last quarter where you said that there'd be a range of things, including training to reiterate the, um, importance of putting these in time, more resources being put in place. So if, uh, in answer to Halima's question, just talking about what has happened this quarter to address this problem. Um, and what are you going to do differently to tackle it? Councillor Mohamed. Um, thank you, chair. Um, I think leading off from what the mayor said about not taking an eye off the ball when it comes to green KPIs. And so I'm referring to, um, KPIs 16, 17 and 18 around youth service. So I think hopefully that the, um, exec director for children services is here. So as we move into, and the mayor spoke about, um, his changes to the youth service, how are we ensuring we're keeping the KPIs and the performance green? Because as we move to a new service, regardless of whatever it is and the political ambition around it, there's always problems in the short to medium term where, especially we've got commission services. So a fantastic service of spotlight, for example, in popular does some fantastic work and, you know, helps us achieve this kind of green. As we move to move it internal and the council delivering it directly rather than the commission. The worry I have is the medium, the short to medium term where I think there will be slippage. I think I saw an ad recently of hiring 75 new youth workers. So if all the staff aren't in place, it's just helpful to understand what the plan is around the short kind of medium term. Because that's where I think there will be people falling through the cracks. I'd like to take it directly from the corporate director. Yeah. Can I, thank you Councillor Mohamed. Can I, can I just say, uh, it's, we brought it in house. A lot of money has been set aside for the youth service because that's where we're young, young borough. Uh, we need an expanded. Uh, and I believe, I always believed in, and I did this when I was the leader of the council then, Subtangli Mayor and in-house youth service. However, we need to also work with our partners. We can't do this on our own. There are good, uh, volunteer organizations out there who also deliver, uh, good, uh, work with the youngsters. So our approach is a, yes, substantially it's an in-house youth service, but there is a element of it that will deliver commissioned work with those volunteer organizations. Uh, we want to make sure that, in fact, with the investment that's going in, uh, and, and, uh, the capital investment and the revenue investment, we should, should, we should see a much more expanded youth service. But I agree with you. We can't take our eyes off the ball. Youngsters gotta, they need to attend those sessions. They need to fill their peers. People are working with them and they need to engage with the service. Very important. Please, uh, Steve. Um, uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I think the, the reality is, as you said, that the current targets are being met, but we're rolling out a bigger service. So we will. And I think we mentioned earlier in the meeting about, uh, target setting. And, and certainly as the service rolls out, there's more investment, more places, more recruitment. We'll have to review those targets. So that's the first thing in terms of volume and capacity and, and make sure we adjust the targets to, to be really ambitious there. The other thing we're doing is that the, the, the, the, the quite basic measures at this stage. So we're working with the service also taking advice from national youth organizations around what information we want to collect and what targets we're going to set around that in terms of the quality of provision as well. So not only will the volume of service delivery and how we track that and what targets we set, but actually bringing in some additional measures as well. As well, listening to what young people say, that's all going to be part of the rollout. And just to support the point, uh, we've been really clear that, um, we'll be retaining some of the, uh, commission services, because as you say, some of their, their outcomes they deliver is really positive in the borough. So we've made a commitment and the mayor and deputy mayor's made a commitment that we'll keep a proportion of commission services. So I'm not quite sure either answered my question there. Sorry, I appreciate that. That's really helpful. And I think the commitment from the mayor was quite clear. I mean, I'd say throwing a tonne of money at you is not always a solution, but I think that's, that's an answer. I think my question to you is in the short to medium term where you said some commission services will remain, there'll be others that aren't. So how are we making sure children and young people aren't falling through the cracks in that period of upheaval where you're moving from commission based to partial commission based and, um, partial, uh, council based. So it's that period in the middle where I continue to worry about. And I think how I'm not sure I've got any reassurances from either answers about how we're catching that. So I think we're obviously we have the information from commission services about which young people are engaging. So we'll ensure that the offer about the in house services is made very clear to those young people and make sure that they're encouraged to attend. And I guess one of our primary drivers here is listening to the young people and listen to their views about what we're offering and delivering. And, you know, that's, that's, that's what's going to drive, uh, what we'll offer them. Hopefully we'll retain those young people that have been accessing a different service. Thank you. So can I bring in Councillor Manan and then Councillor Knightley, please? Okay. He didn't. Okay. Councillor Knightley. And then Councillor Charlie, did you put, have your hands up or you want to retract your case? Okay. Thanks. So, uh, my question is about, uh, KPI zero four four six, which is the recycling rate. Um, my particular question. So I have a question for the mayor. I didn't realize that the mayor was going to be attending today and we put submitted a pre-decision question, which is this, but if, if you're willing to answer it today, that would be fantastic. Um, and then a question for the officers. Um, so the question for the mayor is, um, we're obviously, um, the five million pounds investment is going to come to an end at some point, um, in the next few months. Um, how are you, um, prioritizing, um, what your, what to fund going forward? Um, and how are you thinking about the sustainability of the improvement plan? Um, and then the question for officers is, um, actually based on the report for cabinet tomorrow, there's a very concerning, um, point about our contract with Biwalt. Um, having a, um, a decrease in the tolerance for contamination. Um, what, what impact do you think that will have on our recycling rates? And also have we put in, um, contingency for, um, the costs that it might bring the council to have more contaminant, like a lower, have we thought about the cost? Okay. And I'm going to bring in Halima and then we'll take them both. Thank you, uh, chair. So mine is, um, around the recycling. Um, it's good to see that, uh, there's a lot of communication out there. Um, I've seen stuff, uh, on social media. Uh, just want to know, has there been an impact? Are residents engaging? Um, so yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll answer the first one and I'll ask, uh, Simon to come in on the recycling one, the impact. There has been an impact, uh, continues to be an impact. Uh, he'll come in detail. Can I say, uh, absolutely. Uh, absolutely. With the five million pound in this investment and the Wasting Improvement Plan, we want to get our streets, our estates to a certain level. Uh, and we're looking at how do we, how we sustain that. No good getting to that level, then we go back again. You know, it's about sustaining. But we don't have an infinite pot of money, uh, and, and, and to splash out. We've got a very, uh, sustainable council financially, but the good work has to continue. I just want to say that. And you will see, going forward, you will see some commitments, how we sustain the work. We're not there yet. It's going to take a few years and months, you know, months and years to get to a position that we're more or less satisfied. But we need to sustain that. I agree with you. You want to come in, please? Yeah. Um, thank you, members. Um, I suppose I should firstly apologise for my time, because I'm still on jewelry service, even from last week, and that continues. So, I would be in a suit otherwise, so accept my apologies. Um, we've done a presentation to, um, ONS, about three weeks ago now, um, where we gave an overview of, of, of the improvements in the service area. And one of those areas was, um, recycling. We are, we've got committed, um, to eight extra outreach workers. Um, dry recycling is going up, which is really good. Um, contamination levels are going down. Um, and our recycling rate is actually going up. It is, I think, is where I've got here. It was 15.38. It's now heading towards 19. Um, though it doesn't reflect it in this quarter's report, but it is actually going towards 19. We are seeing increases. And some of that's down to, um, the outreach. Some of that is down to the investment. Some of that is down to the social media work that we're doing. Um, but also the work we're doing with the RSLs and, um, other, other private landlords. So it's a combination of, um, lots of good things happening at once. But I can't get complacent because, you know, these things are variable. Um, and, um, we are working hard to ensure that we get as close as we can to the target that we set ourselves. So that's the first thing. There's this, your point of Bible, just the, the waste market is, is complex. You know that. Um, and it, you know, you're a very knowledgeable councillor of these waste issues. But the, the waste charges, be it landfill or, or incineration or recycling is, is, is, is vulnerable. Um, it's one of those things I always sort of spy to, to have our own waste transfer station, but that could be a long way off. Um, so we have factored it at the end to our budget. Um, the contamination levels, but I think actually, I believe we have. Um, the thing that we need to do though is get the contamination down, down, because that's, will save us money. Um, contamination is, is, is reducing. So that's a good thing. But, um, with the Biowaters contract, um, they are, they are harsh on us. Um, because it's, they're the only player in town, unfortunately, in, in this borough, or anywhere near East London. And it's your part of the East London Waste Authority. So it's a difficult one to manage. Um, but again, it gives an incentive to reduce contamination, which we are slowly doing. Thank you. Um, I'm mindful that the committee hasn't asked any questions around the budget monitoring. Councillor Ahmed, can I ask you to do a quick, uh, headline? And then if, after that, if committee members don't want to ask any questions, I can end it. Otherwise they might, this, you might help probe them. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Um, so the Q2 general fund forecast outturn position for the year is a forecast overspend of 18.4 million at the moment. Well, when the report was reported. And, uh, this position continues to be significantly impacted by the nationally recognized pressures in homelessness, adult social care, and SEND. Um, we also have, um, the underspends in Q2 somewhat mitigating the overspends, um, mainly from the Young Tower Hamlet services. Um, the forecasts will continue to be monitored, reviewed, and challenged, um, including focus on specific drivers and, uh, financial challenges in a planned and measured way. Um, and the DSG has a, uh, outturned forecast of, of overspends. A forecast of, of overspend of 2.7 million pounds, largely due to pressures in high needs block. The HRA has a overspend of 5.1 million pounds, um, which is a ring-fenced account. And this overspend, um, needs to be funded from the HRA general fund, um, general reserves. Um, on savings, uh, there is an 18.2 million pounds, uh, savings that has been reported, um, already achieved out of the 37.4 million pounds. 12.7 million pounds savings are on track, and 6.4 million pounds savings have some risks involved, but there is generally high confidence that it will be delivered, uh, with only 40%, which is, sorry, which is 40K, which is around 1% of the savings reported to have some delays. Um, I'll skip general fund for, um, the capital and HRA capital, which I believe would have been already noted in the report. Uh, I just wanna sort of highlight the, around the overspends. Uh, we have corporate directors here, um, who will talk to the strategies that have been implemented, um, to mitigate the overspends. Um, as lead member, and, um, I can reassure the committee here that, myself and the mayor, we hold weekly, um, star chamber sessions to, with departments to identify, um, and, uh, to, we go through a zero-based approach to identify how we can mitigate the savings, mitigate the, uh, overspends, to find the, uh, right strategies in place. Uh, that also doesn't help for future budgets, but it also helps, um, ensure that India's spends are under control. And this also helps departments to keep the pressure on that, that sort of, um, of forecast. Again, we say it's a forecast, which is an actual spend should come under control. Um, if we have a comparison with other local authorities, um, we are around the halfway mark, um, in terms of the overspends reported by 29, um, um, authorities out of the 30s that have already reported the forecast position at Q2. So, it's very important to understand that although we want to be, we want to be accurate in forecasting, but it's also, um, very crucial to be prudent to make sure that we have enough buffer to make sure that what we're reporting, um, is sustainable. But I just want to touch on one last point, that this time last year, we also did report an overspend, but we ended the year at three, 0.3 million under spending. So we will, I will request the corporate directors to talk on those three main areas, on how we're going to mitigate those pressures. But like last year, I'm confident that we, by Q3, we'll have a better position to report by the end of the year. Thank you. And taking into account settlements coming in a couple of days, settlements coming in from government in a few days, yep, which means hopefully some good news for the budget as well. Um, I'll hand over to Julie to sort of, um, give us a further update on the latest position. Um, yeah, so I think it's, it's always difficult, isn't it, timely reporting for you. So you're looking at a picture that officers sat there and drafted at the end of September, looking forward to the end of next March. But of course, we've got real time reporting into our Hamlets. So even though we haven't closed the period for quarter three yet, I and the team have a very good oversight as to what the position is. Um, and the audit committee, any of you that were at it, um, will see that they approved a windfall, um, at audit, which will eliminate the overspend on the HRA that's forecast. And in addition to that, uh, Abdul and I have been looking at these figures this morning, and I believe I can confidently tell you we will end the year, um, with at least 50%, probably more of that forecast overspend, not materialising. And we've got a risk reserve of 18 million pounds. So I just want to draw that attention to where we are today. The budget will be based on the Q3 position. Thank you. That's helpful. Any questions from committee? Yep. Okay. Councillor Manan and then Councillor King. Thank you, Chair. Uh, to say what the specific action will be taken as part of the zero, uh, based budgeting approach to mitigate overspend in sand area? And my second question is, how will the funding from the independent review of the overall sand transport service influence budget planning and operation efficiency? Uh, I can certainly take the first one. I might have to ask you to repeat the second. Um, so you're asking, uh, how will the zero based approach help us with mitigating with overspends? Um, well, the reality is some of the overspends will be mitigated because the new government will, as the council put out, actually put financing in that meets the pressures. We can't mitigate demand in a lot of those areas. And the three big pressures are demand led housing, adult social care, and special educational needs. Same as nationally. That doesn't mean we sit back and do nothing. We have to look at which areas in the council are underspending. So we allocate the money we have spare, which is the process that may have described to the right place, usually enabling us to fund investment, particularly for children's and adults in technology that will enable new ways of working, speedier processes for assessment. So, so what we do is we don't wait until, uh, a proposal. We don't wait until the new budget before we do it. If we can identify an opportunity to reduce costs, the members will take the decision to do that in year. Um, and that's how we mitigate some of those overspends. Could you repeat your second question, please? Influence budget and operational efficiency. So basically is, we do use a lot of agencies for taking children and so on. So, uh, uh, spending a lot of money on this. So, so what we do, we're quite prudent when we set budgets, which is why I think we emerged well in the best value reporting on finance. And the reason we're prudent is, if I can't see it and Abdul can't, can't see it, we don't count it, councillor. So yes, there is an independent review. Community transport, Steve and Simon are both engaged with that. It hasn't concluded. Those directors haven't been certain as to the savings that will likely be put forward. So we haven't included them as being banked. Does that help? Thank you. Uh, councillor King and then Jordan and Natalie. Thanks. I've got two questions from the HRA. First one about, could you give us more detail about what the section 20 notice, uh, write off, uh, for leaseholders is, um, how much is it? It's about 3.2 million pounds. It's quite significant. Um, and indeed as councillors, we all get details of, uh, leasehold charges that, uh, um, are disputed. Uh, we try and get to the bottom of them. And indeed, I'm aware of, you know, leaseholder, um, groups taking the council to court. So if you can tell us about that and give us reassurance or tell us what you're doing to get to the bottom of, uh, the way the council gets, um, uh, does its leaseholds and charges its leaseholds in a fair way. And then secondly about voids, what, can you give us more detail about what measures you're taking to tackle voids, which again, uh, in the housing, um, in, uh, housing, which has brought quite a lot of work. Um, large, um, overspend Maltingham Brewster house, which is in my ward, um, is cited as an example. Now there's 36 voids. I don't think they're all vacant voids, but there's 36 there. Um, and that project has been going on for years and years and it's every six months, it's pushed back another six months. So that would be, I'd love for you to tell me that you're going to get on top of Maltingham Brewster house project as a way of tackling voids in the first instance. But if you can give us more detail on what you're going to do to tackle voids to get on top of that overspend and indeed bring more council housing back into, uh, use quickly. Thank you. Oh yes, indeed. I am at our Hamlet's homes leaseholder. Yes. And I do, I do, uh, I do challenge my lease, not as, but it's not as bad as other leaseholders. Okay. Thank you. I want to take one more question. I'm going to go with Halima and then you can take them as a block. You don't have one now. Okay. It was Natalie. Um, you mentioned Steve, that there's a 6 million pound, um, pot for, um, the best value improvement plan. Um, where is that coming from? And it's a huge amount of money. Is it reasonable? Can I take the housing questions first from Councillor King and then we'll, then I'll let you come in. Yeah. So on, I think the question about tackling voids is a really important one. So, um, in, in terms of general voids, when properties become available, we have sort of an end to end turnaround period. And as part of the repairs, end to end service review, we are looking at that, how we maximum, maximize efficiency is how we look at the lettings part of it as well, not just the repairs to the property. So that it's available, um, to, to that. So that is very much part of the overall kind of review of the repair service. Um, and we are really focused on it. Obviously the example that you gave is, um, related to a major works, um, process around the sort of strengthening works to those blocks, which is why we've decanted them. Um, those examples are rare, but we obviously have to get on top of that by minimizing the amount of time that we've got properties decanted by really kind of, um, ensuring that the projects run as, as quickly and as smoothly as possible. As you've alluded to, there have been some delays with that project, um, which have, have impacted the length of time that we've had devoid properties. So I think moving forward, um, what we need to do is make sure that we're, um, getting the specifications for those projects spot on from the start and that we're managing the program really tightly so that those decants are, are absolutely minimized where we have to do them. Um, in terms of the, Julie, did you want to comment on the leasehold, um, loss and expense issue? So the, uh, section 20 notices in question, Councillor, where section 20 notices that are uncollectible because technically they were non-compliant at the point at which they were issued, which is when Tower Hamlet Homes was still established. So our job, when it comes through in finance and write-off to a finance decision, is to look at the legitimacy of the collectability of it because it's carried as an asset. And in consultation with the service, we know that, that, that group of section 20 notices were not compliant. But can I ask, were there a series of small or medium-sized section 20 notices or was that one or maybe section 20 issues that were not compliant? I, I, I can come back to you with the detail, but I can tell you that the review encompassed a whole, a whole series of section 20 notices because we wanted to make sure that, that we weren't carrying an asset that wasn't collectible. But I can come back and tell you how many specific properties for where I don't have it at hand. Okay. Um, six million pounds. Where does it come from? So the money for, just to be clear about what it's for, I suppose, first of all, so we mustn't forget that we have, we pay for the intervention. So the, uh, we're, we're, we're led to believe that the likely cost, we don't cost for each envoy is about 1,500 pounds a day, um, maybe slightly less for the second envoy. Uh, we anticipate them being here two, perhaps three days a week. Um, so that's a substantial sum. Uh, we also are paying the lead members of the, the transformation assurance board who will receive a sum. That board needs to be serviced. Um, so we'll be looking at recruiting additional staff to do that. There's additional cost in relation, which was already committed actually in relation to additional scrutiny, resource and function and support, which I've reported back in the past. Um, we also will be taking on additional capacity to address issues with the LGA around political engagement and cultural change. So the money's in the, is in the budget, 4 million pounds in the first year, because there'll be more startup costs. I think one and a half million pounds in year two and 500,000 pounds. I think Julie can give you probably give the exact figures. Do I consider it to be value for money? I am hoping that if we move at the pace with which we, we aspire to move at, and we, all of the things that we discussed earlier on, we will not have intervention for three years. We'll be considered to be an exemplar authority before that, and not perhaps all of those costs will be incurred. The main point there though, is making sure that the improvements that we introduce are mainstream. And that may require all of that funding, it may not. At the moment I consider it the most appropriate way forward, because we have been, concern has been raised by the government that we don't have capacity to deliver our improvement agenda. And I need to make sure that we do. Thank you. Um, Jayad Bhai? You wanna? So I've got a, a pretty much a, a weird question. Um, and I don't think anybody could really answer that. But it, it, it needs to be asked. And, uh, only reason because I've come across so many families, and there's one in every, uh, ten families that I know of personally, that, uh, relating to the, to the Sen, uh, area, is there, there seems to be an increase of children with autism, uh, or, you know, within the spectrum. And what concerns me is, is it, I don't know the numbers, uh, but I've got a feeling that the number's quite high in Tower Hamlets, and it's increasing in other boroughs, in boroughs which have, uh, uh, poverty-stricken or low-income families. And the question is why? And that's been bugging me for a long time. Why? Is it something we're eating, we're drinking? And I know there's a lot of science, uh, science behind this. But nobody's actually answered the question as to why this is happening. And is, is, uh, is the council thinking about this? I mean, yes, there's demand increasing. Is there, is there any, uh, evidence to support what possibly could be the problem? Or are they looking into, you know, this, because I've, I've been getting questions. I don't have the answer. So, I wonder, Steve, if you can help me. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think it's, it's really clear, uh, looking at the national analysis that we're starting to see a rise in demand. Um, some of it is also linked to earlier diagnosis and, you know, quite rightly more investment in early intervention in early years and earlier diagnosis. And I was, uh, in a special school when I'm on a visit this week and I was talking about, um, what, where they see young people in terms of special school and mainstream. And some of, so anecdotally, some of the, the feedback from some of the staff who do outreach from special school into mainstream reported that because the autism diagnosis is happening a lot younger, um, young people are getting more support and being supported more in mainstream education, which is positive. And I guess one of my broader feedback around this indicator, which is Educate Health and Care Plans is that there are other measures of how we're performing as an area, both the council, schools and the health services for, for children and families, which are more positive. So for instance, there's a greater proportion of children on a plan in mainstream education, which is really important about being more inclusive. We can also report that children on the education, health and care plan in terms of their outcomes from school, in terms of key stage four, for instance, and GCSE and other, um, we compare much more positively to other, other areas on that. Um, but fundamentally your question is, is about demand. And I think as a, as a country we're seeing that and in terms of there are demographic differences in terms of the types of needs across different parts of the population and different demographic backgrounds. But I think the, we're seeing nationally in terms of that analysis, we have to do something radically different because the reforms that were implemented in 2014 don't seem to be working in terms of managing the demand. And also some of our children and families aren't receiving the support that they need really. So, um, my, my question wasn't really around the support and the managing the demand. My question is more about why this, the increase, why it's happening. And, and that's why I, I, uh, prefixed it by saying it's a weird question. Um, because nobody can answer that. But it is. Do you mean the number of young people that are diagnosed with autism? Yes. Yes. Do you want to take that away? I think you probably don't have the answer for that right now. Is that okay? Yeah, yeah. We can definitely come back. Is there any other question for members? If not? Okay. Two more here. Can I take councillor? Who? David, can you set your mic off? Sorry. Can I take councillor Khan first and then I'll take councillor Mohamed? Thank you, Chair. Uh, my question is brief. Actually, I've got two questions. I've asked, uh, is there a gap between average weekly rent and rate? And the amount we can recover from the housing benefit? Uh, is the council taking any, any action to reduce the gap? It's question one. And question two is that, uh, resource overspend focus increase from 0.7 to 1.2 million in quarter two. What are the key factors driving the increase? Will the direct to be expected to mitigate in the overspend in the, uh, financial year? End of the financial year. Thank you. Okay. So specifically in relation to... One second. Can I take councillor Mohamed's question? Thank you, Chair. Um, it's a question to the director, uh, call the director, sorry, for housing and region. Um, I take the point out in the report that it's 11 million overspend and that's mainly down to homeless and services, which I think has been said is across the country and especially acute in London. Um, given that the council has just self-referred itself to the regulator, I mean, which clearly indicates that something is currently wrong and there's a problem in the housing service. Like how are we accounting for potential overspend in other areas, um, in future given, yes, homeless services is one point, but there's likely to be other costs incurred and how we factor that in. Shall I come in on that one first? Okay. So the, the 11 million overspend is basically largely in relation to homelessness, um, services, which is not related to the self referral. The self referral is related to obviously our own housing stock and our role as a landlord, basically. And, um, the budget, the budget provision in respect of that is the HRA position. Let me clarify. I'm saying the 11 million overspend majority, I agree is homeless services. And that's not what the council's making. That's a London problem. That's a whole country wide problem. It's been widely acknowledged. That's not me taking a pop shot. That's not me. It's just a fact of it. Uh, and we acutely have an issue in town hamlets. My point is there is already an 11 million overspend because of that. Again, not all of our making, but given that we're about to potentially go through some changes of housing option, because we referred ourselves to the housing or the regulator, which means we need to make some changes. How are we factoring in the second part of that, which is potential changes that we need to see, uh, and kind of ensure to make sure there's a good value for our residents? Yeah. Well, I mean, just to be clear, the, um, the review of housing options, which is, um, uh, is, is, is not related to what we've referred ourselves to the regulator for the review of housing options, I think is necessary for a number of other reasons, which is related to trying to, to do what we can within town hamlets to drive down the cost of, um, our homelessness, um, services. So, um, and, and also to get better options for families, frankly. So thinking about the type of accommodation we provide. So getting, getting people out of B&B accommodation, obviously, um, and into, um, better quality accommodation in, in, in, in the private sector, which has cooking facilities and those sorts of things that people won't have in B&B, um, but can also reduce the cost for us. So one of the things we're doing is we're looking at, um, particularly the procure, the procurement of property and really stepping up the amount of resource that we're putting into that, trying to make sure that we are procuring property in the areas where the gap between the LHA rate and the rent is lowest. So that's a really key focus for us, um, to, to drive down the cost, for instance. And that's something that we're doing today in the town hall. We had an event for landlords, um, which was really well attended. Um, and that isn't just landlords and tower hamlets, but it's, it's sort of landlords within the kind of, within London and, and the Southeast. Um, and, and, and again, particularly focusing on the areas where we think we can get the best value for money, um, given the position that we're in and hoping that that can have an impact on reducing the cost of that service. Julie, is there anything you wanted to add to that? Do you want to? Do you want to? No, just, just to make it clear that David's right. The, the, the two housing responsibilities are completely separate. Homelessness general fund, the bit we've referred ourselves to the regulator for is what was Tower Hamlets homes, our own stock. So that the homelessness issue will not come in scope in any way of the regulatory review. That doesn't mean that you're not right. And we do need to do some things around that. I, I take the point. No, we disagree with that point. Do you, I'll be quite clear then. Do you expect the remediations or the change that needs to be made from the regulator and improvements that needs to be made? Do you expect that to be an incurred cost from that? So, so basically some, one aspect of the referral is to do with, um, upgrading our properties, stock to the health and safety, um, fire safety regulations. What if we don't meet them and there's a bunch of works that we need to do and we need to do them quick, which has financial implications. How do we plan for that as a council? Have you thought about it? The robustness of the department taking a big cost like that. And it's happened in the past to other councils and it could happen to us. So it's better to be safe than sorry. It is council. And I apologize. I misunderstood. Uh, yes, there will absolutely be costs associated with remedial actions. Um, they all sit in the HRA. They are nothing to do with the 11 million overspend, which is totally to do with the general fund and one can't subsidize the other. What are we doing about it? You will see as scrutiny an HRA business plan come forward to you. It's the second step in the budget process. We set the rents, then we develop the business plan that shows you how much we're planning to spend. For those of you, I think that did participate in that training session, we looked at how much we're going to be spending on all of those remedial works across all the 30 years in the plan and how we're going to fund it. So you will see that. And that has to be sustainable for the regulator to give David endorsement that that's a sustainable plan that keeps home safe. So yes, we will be doing that. And yes, you will see the detail as part of the budget, but no, it isn't part of the 11 million. And we don't know yet. Um, so the clarity comes when we have the review done. Yep. I mean, it just say, I mean, what comes out of the regulatory inspection will be important, but more generally, you know, we are even before we knew the regulator was going to do an inspection, we were already looking at investing in this area because of the, you know, changing regulatory landscape, the new building safety regulations, and already planning to put more money into this and to catch up with the position that we find ourselves in. Thank you. Um, I feel like we've forgotten what Councillor Khan's question is. Do you want to ask it again? And I'll ask you and that that will be it for this. Is the council taking any action to reduce the gap? That's the one question. And second one is like, in quarter one, uh, resource will be spending, uh, 0.7 million mentioned in quarter one. Quarter two is 1.2 million. Is there, is the mitigations end of the year? Finally, are it to be quick? What's the mitigations? Thank you. Can I also get Councillor Choudry to quickly come in and that will be the last of questions. Thank you, Chair. My question to, uh, David here. Uh, there's a lot of concerns with leaseholders, uh, that the leaseholders, what they pay per year. Last year, year before it was 4,200. Uh, I'm talking about Tarramirat Homes leaseholders. It has gone up by almost eight or 900 pounds to 5,100. That's the first question. Second one, I think you mentioned earlier, the buyback scheme. Is there anything, any figures you can give us how much we have bought or how much is in the pipeline? And, uh, obviously it will help us obviously with the homelessness. People can stay within the borough. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So, should I tell them and Julie might want to supplement me on the rent, but the question is a good one. There is a gap between what we can charge, particularly, um, for the, for temporary accommodation, um, and, and what we can recover. Uh, what we can recover is fixed at the local housing allowance rate from 2011, which varies from area to area, so it depends where the property is, um, and there is a gap. And one of the things I alluded to earlier about what we're doing to minimize it is we try to go to the areas where that gap is lowest, because that obviously has the reduced financial impact on us as an authority. Um, we are also heavily involved in lobbying government on this point with every other borough, because the, if that gap can be closed, it will help everybody, um, who, who is in this, um, space. We are also looking at, um, you know, the different forms of accommodation as well, trying to get out of the really expensive hotel and bed and breakfast accommodation, particularly for families. And we've had some success in kind of, um, shifting that. The reality is, though, that if we hadn't done those things, we would have an even bigger overspend because of the pressures that, that, that we're seeing, including increased demand. We've got 11% increase in demand on last year, uh, for these services. And then we've seen a, uh, uh, a real kind of increase in terms of the cost of accommodation because of the market. Um, so all of those factors are, um, playing through, um, in terms of leaseholders. Um, yes. I mean, uh, obviously for, uh, there have been an increase in, in, uh, charges, obviously things that energy costs have had a real impact on that. So just like we've all seen a big increase in our domestic bills that also affects things like, um, energy and communal areas. It affects things like communal heating systems and all of the rest of it. So that I think has been the biggest driver for increases, but we've seen inflationary pressures generally, which would probably pass the worst of that now because inflation has, um, died then. But we've certainly seen those, um, increases, um, hit, hit those, those charges. Um, you're quite right that we have a buy back program, um, and, um, we are buying back X, Y to buy properties in particular. Um, and we are also looking at opportunities to purchase section 106 units and, um, private sector blocks where those become, um, available. And, um, both Julie and I have been signing a steady stream of, um, of, of buybacks of lease order properties over the last, um, couple of months. And hopefully we will see that feed through. We've got capacity, um, to buy up to 200 properties as part of that program in terms of the funding that we've got. David, I would be very happy if you could provide us with some, um, references, how much you have bought and how much is in the pipeline. Obviously, I think the, if I remember some time ago when we had that meeting, 600 million was allocated for the buyback scheme, if I'm not wrong, I think. Or is that too much? We can, as a committee, we'll officially request more information on that. Yeah. Can I get Halima to come in? Thank you. She's got one last question and it'd better be the last one. Yeah, it's a quick one. Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh, just to declare, I am a lease holder. Just to jump onto what, uh, council has just, uh, talked about the service charge. Is there any explanation as to why, um, the building insurance has gone up significantly over the last couple of years and it tends to be increasing year by year? Thank you. Um, I'm not an insurance expert, so maybe, maybe, maybe Julie can help, but this is a why I do know from my own experience of having home insurance. This is not just an issue that's impacting social housing landlords. It's an issue in the insurance sector generally that we've seen a lot of, um, cost escalation there, so I think it's all related to the same inflationary pressures which have impacted things like energy, but I'm, I'm looking to Julie to see if you're more of an expert than I am on insurance, but I can, we can come back to you in more detail if that's helpful. Yeah. Thank you. And they're also not related to the quarterly budget, uh, report. So, yeah, um, thank you for that. Thank you, members, for, um, for your questions. It will be interesting when you come back in the new year because you're going to have the settlement come in. You've got new budget setting program. We kind of understand it's been a tough 14 years, but there's a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel. There's the devolution paper came out yesterday, which shows some hope about how much power the London mayor's going to have. And coming back to a point I made at Housing Subcommittee, um, about being proactive and asking for things and sharing the evidence here in Tower Hamlets, I think this is a really good time for us to be, to be doing that and putting out experiencing, experiencing with the London mayor as to what we need. And everyone's going to be fighting for their borough. And I just hope our boroughs fighting for our fair share for our residents when it comes to this. And Council Ahmed, thank you for coming in. And Julie, looking forward to the budget in the new year and how that looks and got my fingers crossed for everyone that it's a good year. Thank you. Right. I'm going to move on. Julie, you're staying. Uh, Stephen, are you staying for this one? Is it perfect? Thank you. So we're going to move on to our, uh, last piece of, um, agenda here. It's the Home Care Procurement Contract Award Process Update. This paper aims to set out to explain the reasons behind the officers' decisions to not award the Home Care Contract as agreed by Cabinet on the 11th September 2024. We'll look at this item in two sections as there are confidential elements. So we'll take the published, public element of the item first, and then we'll look at the confidential aspect offline. We will then resume, then I would like to actually end the meeting before we go into the private session. So I'll end the meeting and we won't be coming back. But for the public, I just want to be transparent and just put down a clarification as to why we'll be going into a private session. So, question chair, is the lead member joining for this section? Because they probably should be. Okay. I, I, I did actually, um, meet with the chair before the, before this. We spoke about this. There's the lead member isn't joining because it was an officer decision that you are looking at, that you are looking at. There was no political. So, the lead member for this is for procurement, or adult health social care, that's the, um, lead member you're talking about. Um, Julie's very clear that this is an officer-led decision, and this was delegated to officers. Um, you may, we may, you may question that, and you can do that with Julie when the questions come to the, um, I think that's a public part that, you know, I'm sure you'd be happy to answer that. And if need be, as a committee, when we're ready to do this publicly for the next part, because it's going to come back in January, we can ask the cabinet member to join. But as of now, we're asking why are we in this, why are we in this place now? That's the, that's the part we're doing today. And the next part is how do we move forward? I'm happy to take the concerns and whatever concerns you give us is what we will, as a committee, is what we will share with the department. And we're happy to ask for the lead, the reasoning behind the lead member not being here. Sorry, Chair, just to be absolutely clear of what Councillor Lee is saying. So, when this came last time, and I wasn't here, I've watched it since, the lead member did make clear, the cabinet member made clear, his absolute faith in this process and this, the way it was done. There were serious questions to be asked about the questions that lead member and the administration asked. Take, it's a fair point about the procedure point, or the procurement is an office decision, fine. But that lead member, the administration said they had faith in this process. So there's questions to be asked about that. And that's the important bit. Okay, there is. Can I just say something? There is a political question, which is what you go back to as to the lead member having faith in the process. And you can ask how he's had oversight, how he's been keeping an eye on the process. Absolutely. But that, that opportunity hasn't gone away from you. Does it have to be today? Is, does, do you have a justification to say it has to be today? Because the process is, this is the beginning. This is a point of putting a marker down to say, we are here today. Back to the same agenda in January to discuss in public. I, I said in the preemie that there were questions to be asked about this that weren't just about what's in these pink papers. Okay? So I totally get Julie's point. She's absolutely right. It would be inappropriate if he was involved in that decision making. And you are 100% correct. However, I have questions about the impact of this on residents, which should be heard by our residents. We were told last time that any delay in this process would harm our most vulnerable residents. He's responsible for that. Not officers. Officers aren't responsible for that. He's the lead member. So I just, I just do not agree. If he wanted to leave for this section, okay, that's fine. But he should be here for this bit. That's, that's, that's my, that's my. I can't. Yes. Can someone. I'm not 100% agree with Amy, but I think he should be here to hear what we're going to say. Yeah. Because it is, at the end of the day, it's going to be his portfolio. So regardless of whether he's saying anything like this, he knows what we're discussing. Because he's not here to, what we're going to discuss, he's not going to hear it. This is where I'm coming from. At the end of the day, he's going to be, eventually going to go into his portfolio. So what we're going to discuss today, he's not going to get here to hear what we're talking about. Yeah. Sir Chaudhary. Thank you, Chair. I think we've, I think I'll go with your view. We will hear from the officers here tonight. And obviously we have the chance to sort of have the lead member in Jan. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Just to clarify, that's not my view. I get to facilitate this meeting and I get to say how this meeting is run. I cannot force what decisions are made from the exec. The reasoning behind this, the cabinet member not being here today, you've heard, and you can ask, you can ask him this question again at the January meeting. So I don't, I agree, I see where you're coming. You've already done that. Yeah. Counsel Lee. So there's, let me finish. This might reassure you. This might reassure you. There's three things here. Firstly, the opportunity hasn't gone away. So there's a January meeting that's going to substantially be in public. It's not a private session. So you will get to ask the cabinet member questions around this. You will, you have a right to ask him if he felt reassured about the process before. You can ask him how he feels now. That's, that's on you. Like I'm happy for me to do that. That's the first thing. Second thing is the minute will reflect what you've said in your view and you're forgetting I get to represent all of you at cabinet tomorrow and I get to say this. So if this is your view, I'm happy to put that to the cabinet tomorrow. But we have to make use of what we have now and I'm conscious it's very late. We've got officers here. If we can move to the public part of the meeting and then we'll do the private session afterwards. Councillor King, is it on this? Yeah. Was the lead member invited to this session? No, he wasn't invited to this session. That's a bit different then. That's on the committee to invite the lead members, although it should be a given. Yeah, but we should be specific in inviting and knowing who we want. Do you want to explain that, Afazul? So the lead member was not invited to the committee because we understood it was an officer decision. Can you hear this so you'll understand where it's going from? The lead member wasn't invited to this meeting because we understood it was an officer decision so officers were attending to explain this. But as I think the chair has indicated, we do have a follow-up report in January about the next step and we'll ensure the lead member is invited to that meeting. And also I think it's, can we hear the report first and it might help put some of this into context and then you can decide what you would like me to report tomorrow at our cabinet. So it's best to hear the full picture and then you get to do that. So can I move? Yes, Councillor Munan. Sorry, is there any particular reason, I know it's an officer decision, but is there any particular reason that lead member was not invited even to oversee? So we just explained this, our officers were told this is an officer led decision, this decision was delegated to officers, it didn't have a political side to it that needed answering so he wasn't invited. Yes? We have enough said in it and I'm not going to bring the member back again because with your permission he had to leave. You said, like, you have said that he can feel it to go, he's gone and the officer said that he wasn't. No, that's not the lead member, the lead member is Kibria. Oh, sorry, thank you about that. Okay. But still the officer has said that because he was, he will be available for next meeting, this is for the co-official report and decisions, then let's hear from the officers, if we think in the next meeting we'll ask that question to the lead member. And there's a part of this that I think, if you can think about this as a committee please, is the fact that officers have said to us that this is a decision that didn't have any political involvement, so let's see this, let's hear this and obviously we haven't invited the cabinet member and you're saying the cabinet member should attend as an observer, this is a bit difficult because the protocol as of now is that cabinet members come and they report to this committee. They engage, they don't come to be observers here. And if we were to have that, that isn't to say we couldn't ask members to, you know, come and hear some of our views and what we have to say, but we've not asked for that as of yet. If we want to do that in the future, that's something that we can change and we can discuss. He's absolutely going to be invited for the next one because that's an official report that comes back about decisions and how they want to go about things going forward. Is any of your questions time sensitive that they need answering now and not later? I'm happy to ask them tomorrow at cabinet and I'm happy to represent your views in cabinet. Can I just propose that we move on now, but can I just reiterate that the point that I'm making is we're not just here to talk solely about a process, we're here to talk about the impact of that process. That's the point that I'm making and that's his role, not officers' role. But can I just propose that we move on because it's late and I said 10 minutes ago, let's move on. Okay. Right. Moving on. Julie, can I ask you to do an introduction, but can you introduce it as per the public guidelines? And then when we move into the private sessions, you may want to do another introduction. Okay, so I'll try and be succinct. So, as set out, I think it's important to say this was a significant procurement, as you know, and constituted 143 bidders. And whatever the outcome, there were going to be bidders that were not happy. Those that won thought they should have won more. Those that lost thought they should never have lost. And those that didn't get anything thought that they should have got something. So, when you change the way in which you deliver it, and you affect that many bidders, every authority, every adult social care will get challenges. I want to put that in perspective. And if I were a bidder, you've got a lot to fight for. So, there's a process that allows them to do that. Secondly, it's important to understand three clear roles, which I think, Councillor Lee, will help address your concern. Members' role in this, and I was here when the portfolio holder came, is to ensure that the specification for the service, they work with officers, they sign off the specification, the geographical approach that you can see set out, sign off the timetables. All they never do is get involved in the process. And when they took the decision in Cabinet, which was what was called in here, they took that decision based on the tender prices that had been submitted. When officers came to do that, there were several issues. One, we reported quite openly that there were a number of challenges, and there always are. in procurements like this. Two, the ability for any of those tenders, through no fault of their own whatsoever, to meet the original tender price, had been rendered impossible. And that's because the NI, not the NI increase, the NI threshold cap at £5,000, affects low paid sectors like social care more than anybody else. That was not the suppliers' issues, but that is a value for money issue from the Council's perspective. The next thing I want to make clear is who does what, what are the respective roles, so that when we can understand why was it that we took the decision that we took not to implement a decision taken by Cabinet and supported by you. There are two sets of roles. One is procurement. I am the accountable officer to you for procurement. I am not responsible for what went on, but I am accountable to all of you for it being conducted properly. In terms of procurement, they are responsible for the process, they are responsible for, these are the rules you must follow, here is the scoring and how you must do it. Procurement do not make any of the scoring decisions. They do not award points, they do not evaluate the tenders. That is around the service. So the service are the ones that evaluate the tenders and determine the decisions. So they are three very separate roles. One is around the design, the specification and the formal decision to spend because it was a major decision, it was a significant amount of money. Members, the framework rules by which procurement had to be followed, procurement process, and the outcome, the decisions that were concluded as a result of following that process, which are service based. And the last thing to bear in mind is members, all of you, and cabinet, accepted the officers' recommendations in full when they took the decision and when you supported that decision. And so it was delegated to officers to go away and implement those decisions. When we looked at implementing those decisions, we have to take things on balance. Yes, we had a number of challenges. We always do. But in addition, we had a situation where there was a significant value for money pressure. This was not a small contract. It was £162 million with a significant amount of bids. None of those bidders could have honoured the contractual price that had gone in. And the third element, and we were open and honest about it, was the specification that members had agreed had been designed with the input of a previous director of adult social care. And a new director of adult social care, I think, to be fair to Georgia, she'd been here about two weeks when this determination, this recommendation, so she had no involvement in that team decision-making process whatsoever. So when you added all those three things together, the conclusion I reached, and I based that on legal advice as well, in terms of value for money, affordability, was it was not in the council's interest to make the award. And I want to be quite clear, that is not because the council conceded in any way any of the challenges that were mounted. It's because if you mount a challenge, the act of going to court, whether you win or not, comes to your point, councillor Lee. The act of going to court activates an injunction that prevents the council, for however long, from doing anything at all. So looking at a number of challenges, and I've set them out for you, the affordability issue, and the consequence of having an injunction that we didn't lose, but that simply froze and made us unable to move forward in any way. All those three culminated in the decision not to award the contract. And as you can see, I've got somebody from legal here, the council that goes to procure a service is under no obligation to award it. The council that goes to procure a service takes everything into account, and we did. And one of those significant changes, the most significant, took place after Cabinet and yourselves had taken the decision that you did. So, Cabinet were not in possession of that information, you were not in possession of that information, and we all said we would make the awards based on officers' recommendations. And that's the picture that this presents, and I'm happy to answer any questions on that. Just for clarity, for all members and for the public watching, can you just do a little bit of a rundown as to how we go? So, May 2022, we have a new mayor elected. There's a priority to redesign how this service looks, correct? So, you can talk us through the political, because from 2022, this service has been asked to be changed. The service has been asked to change, and it had political priorities. So, explain to us, and then explain to us how the political aspect then leaves, then it becomes officer delegation. So, I think it will be helpful for members to be able to differentiate that too. Can you please start from May 2022, if possible? I can. I think it precedes May 2022. So, there is a timetable set out in your report on page 76. If it goes back even further, great. So, you can see this contract was procured in 2016, and it tells you the terms of the contract. So, in 2020, the contract was extended. In 2021, it was extended again. A second time in 2021, a further extension was granted on a contract that only had an initial 3, plus 1, plus 1. So, by the time, in June 21, actually, the procurement for this was launched. And that's correct, because that original contract term was out of time in 2021. In 2022, the corporate director, and I try never to say this, councillor, I wasn't here, but I can look back and tell you that the process was the procurement had started in 2022. Redesigning that service was a matter for the then corporate director. And that redesign, that specification of how we ensured adult social care met those future needs on that geographic design began. But the procurement process around this didn't start in 2022. That redesign was a corporate priority, or was it a political priority? I don't know the answer to that, councillor. Thank you. Yeah, carry on. So that you can see where the service design redesign kicks in. It's a huge service to redesign. All the professional team would have been involved in that, although George is not able to comment, as I'm not. The decision then was in 2022, a procurement was collapsed, in other words, didn't continue. I have no information as to why that was. It was June 2022, early August it was paused. And I think it was paused, and then they looked at, usually that happens if the bid submissions aren't meeting the criteria. And neither one of you at that point were in the council? No. No. Okay. No. And so the point at which, and I've set everything out here for you, the point at which I hold accountability to you, and I'm not dodging that accountability in any way, shape or form, was actually on the date the tenders were submitted, which was the 4th of September, which was my first day at work here in the council. The evaluation start was four days later. And we can look in part two of the process at some more of that detail. But my obligation to you in terms of the process, personal accountability to you began four days. Well, on day one of my taking up my post was the 4th of September. And the tender process evaluation with the adult social care team began four days later. Does that help? It does. But seeing as you haven't been here long enough, the idea was you explained, because you've said that there's no political involvement, and this is officer-led decision and delegation. I wanted to understand how that journey, so the journey, how it went from having involvement and then not having involvement, and then that would help members here understand so they know how to ask you questions. Okay, so at the point in September when the tender evaluation process concluded at an officer decision, they pull together all that information, they go through a moderation, there were two moderation panels involved in this, actually it was the second one in February. When they conclude that, they then pull all the information together, they make their recommendations, and those recommendations are picked up by members, they accept officer's recommendations, or they don't accept officer's recommendations. And in this case, I wasn't at the meeting, but I know Georgia was at the meeting, and I am absolutely convinced that all of the officer's recommendations were accepted. And that is what was reported to Cabinet, called in by yourselves, and it is that process that the member did assure you he had confidence in, and he had absolutely no reason not to at that point. In the same way none of you had any reason not to appoint you, you had officers, I was here giving you assurance. Okay, members questions, Councillor Amy Lee, Councillor Cain, Councillor Mohamed, anyone else? Okay, round of threes. This is the public part. I am a little bit confused, because I think what I have just heard you say is that one of the reasons why we decided not to go ahead with this was due to the fact that Georgia yourself, you were very new when this started, and it was about the fact that this had been essentially designed by somebody who had been here previously and wasn't here anymore. But what I am confused about is that in the previous meeting we were told that Georgia yourself being brand new was one of the reasons why it couldn't be scrutinised and it had to go through super quickly. So I just don't, I don't understand why it was okay then, and it was okay to go to cabinet and be agreed. What happened between, because you've just explained to us the difference between the service side and the process side, and I totally understand that. So what I don't understand is what happened between then, when it was okayed, and the moment that we decided that that was a reason why we weren't going to go ahead with it. I don't understand what changed, because that's not about national insurance or these issues which we're going to discuss, so I don't understand from a service side what changed. I'm confused. I'll come into that, come in. So the initial decision, which was, went to cabinet, I was involved in the decision to say, yes, let's proceed, I'd come in. I think we went to cabinet five days after I'd walked into the organisation. And I think from my perspective, having just heard the history of where we'd been from 2022, I was keen that we moved this along and actually procured a new home care service. That's what I wanted. So I came in and said, look, I'm a new corporate director. I know there's a bit of history. I don't want us to delay anymore, so if we can, let's try and get this to cabinet so we can move this forward. And I think what Julie's actually then explained is the landscape changed in terms of the legal advice that we got around the challenge and the best value and the concerns around best value in terms of national insurance. The fact that I was new is not a decision for us to abandon the procurement. From my perspective... That is kind of what was just said. No, I think there might be a misunderstanding that my walking in was not a reason for the abandonment. I'm sorry, Julie. Can I clarify? So my reference to the corporate director being new and not being involved in the original procurement was at the point at which we knew those services could not deliver on the basis of the tender prices submitted, which we absolutely knew. One second thing comes into play and that is if you know that at the point you were designing this service, would you have designed the service that way? And that's my point about we had a new director and her paper that then came to you clearly stated she would take the opportunity to do a review. So I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, but that was the connection. Can I quickly come in and ask the committee a quick question? It's 9.06. Are you happy for me to extend the meeting up until 9.30? And then I'll check again with you. You don't need to worry about it until 9.46. The meeting started at 6.46. We've got three hours. The meeting started at 6.46, so you're able to sit for three hours. At 9.46 is the point at which you then need to extend if you're still sitting at that. I have got a note I will be reminding you about. Okay, so 40 minutes, and this includes both sides, yeah? Both public and private. Okay, so Amy, you've done your question. Anything else? I just want to say that it does feel a little bit like I want to bang my head against the wall because I think that some of this stuff, I appreciate that some of it couldn't have been anticipated, but I'm pretty sure that we did sort of sit here and say, well, why don't we wait to see what the government does? I'm pretty sure that was one of the main cruxes of the call-in and the argument, was there's going to be a bunch of changes quite soon. Why don't we just hang on a minute? So it just feels quite frustrating, and I'm just putting that out there. Councillor King? Well, I've got two questions. The first comment I'd like to make is to the committee. Now, Ms Lorraine, in your report you said that it was the committee accepting the officer recommendations in the call-in, but it wasn't all of us. And indeed, I'd say the decision fell down party political lines, which is something that was raising the best value inspection as a failure of overview and scrutiny. So I think I'd like members to reflect on that going forward. Another thing you said, Julie, is I was very struck by the tone of why you thought that the challenge came about. I mean, I felt there was an implication that there was less a challenge to the process and more a malicious intent to not have it go forward. So that's my interpretation. If you want to clarify, that would be great. So, in your experience, how often are tendering processes like this challenged in such a robust way? Because it seems very highly unusual to me, and it's a point that there is a problem with the process. Obviously, that will come out in many other ways. And please advise me if I'm going into the wrong territory. And then the second question, if I may, it's slightly difficult because it helped me. It is potentially focusing more, it seems to me, on issues that might be best or more easily explored in the private session, when you can speak much more freely and when Miss Lorraine is not going to be quite so constrained, perhaps. I'll withdraw that question then, yeah. I just want to understand to what extent it was a usual thing for this to happen. But then secondly is, again, you're very clear in saying that the scoring and the evaluation sat with the service and not procurement. So I wanted to understand, I would think that procurement would be a good check and balance against making sure it had been done properly. So why, what happened with procurement in that sense of checking and being confident that all the things had been done properly, so that it's a decision that can be shared, you know, by the council and not, you know, put on one department to have made? Councillor, I'm not saying in any way, shape or form that the decision was one that had not been taken properly. The council would never concede that position. It hasn't conceded that position. And what I can tell you in answer to your first statement is, at no point do I believe that anybody maliciously didn't want this contract to be awarded. What I believe, and I have seen 100% of the time, surprisingly more so in adult and children's I think gets it as well, when you get businesses applying for tenders and the landscape's changing, those who had it don't have as much, and those who bid for a lot don't get as much, you 100% of the time get challenges, 100%, which is surprising because the council is the customer, the users of the service are the end users, but the supply chain, you almost never see it in some of the more commercial areas of the council, but you always see it, where there's, particularly where smaller businesses have an opportunity to apply. Councillor Mohamed and then Councillor Charlie. Thank you, Chair. So I'm going to stay clear of talking about specific bits, because the legal have made us pretty clear that we have to do that, and talk more broadly about this. So, rightly or wrongly, we'll go into the weeds and it'll be a robust conversation, I'm sure, when it's a private session, but residents are most likely watching and there'll be some who are impacted by this and are nervous and worried about it. So, I hope you acknowledge that the reputation of the council, you know, around this and how it's been done, rightly or wrongly, we'll get into the weeds of that at a certain point. But you've gone to great pains to talk about the fact it's an officer decision and not a political decision. So, as kind of the officer in charge of procurement, which you've kind of clarified, I think it's your chance to talk about how, in the short term, because there will be reports and there will be things coming out of this afterwards to make sure it doesn't happen again. How can the residents watching now have faith in our council and have faith in the procurement process? Because, yes, you said there's 147 plus and there's 162 million in this, but we're still a massive council and as Mr Chibizet keeps talking about the 10,000 staff and 5,000 that we directly employ, it's your chance to now restore some faith for the residents watching who are going to be really concerned about this. So, I would say to anyone, my job starts and ends with ensuring that the council makes awards for contracts that demonstrate value for money. I could not demonstrate value for money in these circumstances. That takes a courageous decision. It would have been a whole stack easier for me to just make the awards because I wouldn't sit here explaining to you that it was the right decision to take and it's a difficult decision to take. We've just heard about truth to power. I'm speaking it. It was the right decision to take in the interest of the council and the taxpayer and I stand by that decision. Sorry, can I just come in here on the note of speaking truth to power. Was that decision taken out of choice? But wasn't that a decision you had to take? No, Councillor. The decision was taken. On balance, when you look at value for money, the service delivery, a 143 tender submissions for a contract value of £162 million, none of those prices could be met. Not one. Can I ask you a question? Could we have carried on? Was the option to carry on an actual option? It was an option that we could have carried on. We certainly could have. It wouldn't have been the right thing to do. Okay, Councillor Chaudry. You've asked some of my question actually. If we did carry on, what would the cost be? Obviously, there's a lot of things that come into it. And secondly, I've made a note of it. The contract was extended in 2020, 2021, then again in 2021. Is that normal procedure? I can't answer that, Councillor. I wasn't involved. Julie wasn't here at the time. Oh, sorry. All right. And Stephen was also not here at the time. No one was here. But I'm sure we can find some papers. But I'm sure if that's an answer you want, I'm sure Stephen would be more than happy to put something together for us. Yes, Chair, if that could be noted, please. Thank you. Yeah, perfect. Abdi, your question hasn't been answered. I'm not sure the Deputy Chief Executive answered my question. So I'll give the Chief Executive a chance to answer given residents are watching and you've heard the question. So what's your response or your point directly to residents about the concerns they have? So granted, the Deputy Chief Executive is the corporate director for resources. So key job around procurement is best value. Fine. Okay. How are you restoring faith given in the short term, there are people who are watching, who are probably worried about the service and the quality of Humanities Council? Okay, thank you for the point. Thank you for the question. My position comes from a slightly different perspective. So from my perspective, and I support everything that Julie has said in the committee tonight, it's one of risk management. There would be no circumstances under which I would be able to endorse letting a contract, a series of contracts of this value with the risk that resulted as a result of the issues that Julie has outlined. The second thing I would say was, I am also minded about the response we've had from auditors about the Council's ability to effectively manage risk. And I was not, and you'll have seen the reports that have been to audit committee, you'll have seen they're publicly available, particularly Deloitte's comments about risk management during this period. So, and I was not prepared to let the, what could be perceived as the mistakes of the past be repeated. So what have we done? Well, we have new procurement regime about to be introduced. You'll see as a result of the budget, we're investing more in procurement process. We're getting more procurement officers involved. We're taking advice from external organisations such as Lumensol about how we procure. We'll be taking specialist advice from them over the period of the MTFS. And I'm sure at some point we should come back to overview and scrutiny committee and talk about Lumensol's role, particularly in the pilot that we're running between now and the end of March. We have to get better at managing risk. We have to get better in using not just financial management information, but a range of information to inform decision making. I joined the local authorities in interim sort of at the bottom of page 76. So I'm really interested on the chair's comment about coming back perhaps with the member, the cabinet portfolio holder in why, for example, at the beginning of 2022, we extended the contracts outside of any contract terms. We were outside of the five year period at that point. I'd like to understand that a little bit more. And I think the point that's been made, the assurance that I would give is that I'm determined, we have a brand new corporate leadership team. I'm determined that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. And as a result, do not put this council's finances at risk. And we do talk truth to power and make decisions at the right time in the best interests of the local authority that are in turn the best interests of the local community. If we were to be sitting here in two years' time having to explain why the costs of this procurement have gone through the roof because none of those bidders could maintain their costs, that would be a completely different conversation to which you would be holding us accountable in a completely different way. Sorry, before I take you, Councillor Choudry was in the queue. Thank you, Chair. So, my question is more for the residents. Should residents be worried? Their contract, I believe, is currently still continuing. What can you tell the residents or how can you reassure residents? Thank you, Chair. Obviously, this tender has stopped. Are we in the process, because of this, losing out good service providers? You know, that's what we want. Okay, and Councillor Manna? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I think Halim will answer my question, because I'm worried about the opposite side of the platform. The tender has been, whatever reason, has stopped, and therefore the residents, how effective they're going to be, and are they continuing service? You can carry on. That's my concern at the moment. Okay, so I feel like this is a really good place, both linked. Tell us, are we going to lose some of these providers, and then we can go to end with the residents part? I can come in, Councillors. So, in terms of the residents, from a residents' perspective, there's nothing to be worried about. Their care continues. They continue to receive care from their current providers. That's not changing. Yes, the current contracts are due to end on 31st of March, but we will make suitable arrangements well before that time. So that, I can assure residents in terms of that continuity. And then I think the second question was around service providers, I think you were asking, in terms of danger of losing service providers. I think it's unlikely. We've kept very close communication with our providers in terms of what's happening. The provider market is such that, you know, let's be perfectly honest, we need them as much as they need us. So we'll continue to work together to get to a position where we can either re-procure or whatever the next steps might be. So, at the moment, I have no concerns in terms of us losing providers. Councillor Lee? Super briefly. At the last meeting, when we discussed this, we were told any extension in the current contracts would put vulnerable residents at risk. So what has changed now that there's no nothing for residents to worry about? There's always a risk, Councillor Lee. So there is a risk at the moment. We are seeking legal advice in terms of next steps, which is what we hope to be able to bring an update of scrutiny in January. So until we have legal advice, it's really difficult for me to give you a sense of what that might be. But there's always a risk with everything that we do. I don't think that question, that answers, like, was substantial enough because, to be fair to this committee, they asked when those papers were bounced in 24 hours after. Sorry. So this committee was not, not had a chance to have that report discussed here. Then it went into cabinet and the papers were released on that day. We've got over that. We've had explanation. We've had conversations around that. But one of the main reasons officers gave this committee was the urgency. Now, we're in a slightly flip side. That urgency, reasoning and importance seems to be slightly diluted. Because if the urgency is still, was there, was important then, it's important now. And if the urgency was important, but there was mitigations in place, then you were able to have that conversation around the calling. So I want, I understand where you're coming from, and I'm sorry you're in this position, because I do remember you were very new into your position. But I also want my colleagues to be respected in what they're asking. And that actually has, fundamentally has issues with building that trust between officers and councillors. That's, that's, that's, that's pivotally what, what's the problem here, is like, having two different answers for two different occasions. And I don't think you mean to do that. But if you can just talk through that a little bit more, if you want, or we, I'm happy to take that in the private session. So, so can I clarify, erm, you're absolutely right, there was a risk, and that risk was truthfully spoken to you. And it was me that spoke to you about the risk, and I recall there was a part two to that meeting that was an entirely different reason. Erm, and secondly, we didn't know that the risk we then faced was a bigger risk. And that's what you do in risk management councillors. And that's what George has said, there is always risk. And there was. We've taken the smaller one. Okay, that helps put it into context a bit more. Erm, any other questions in the, er, public part? Can I say that, Manan? Sorry, Chair. Er, I understand where they're coming from, but do you remember at the time that when you were calling on that particular subject, and we've been told we had to have to call in an emergency, and we've been undermined at that time. So what's happened now? Are we being undermined as well? I think officers have answered. Yes, do you see what I'm coming from? We had to call in that particular subject on the ONS, because we had it day before, then the cabinet went in, then we had to call in, and they were discussing calling, and we've been undermined at that time. So basically, it's a flip side of the code, that we're just basically talking, but you officers are telling us, porcupine. And I, I really want to know, what is the aim? We'll be a bit careful with language, please. Sorry. Sorry, my lady. No allegations to our officer. I don't know what I said, but I really think that we're going to gain the answer from you, officers, and I really, my heart goes up. I think it's a mitigation risk that residents may have suffered. And how do you mitigate the suffering? Because my concern is with the residents, because if something does happen and they don't get service continued, residents will suffer. That's what I'm worried about on this. Okay. Okay. I feel like officers have answered your question. They have reassured you about how the service providing, how they're going to provide the service to residents. I'm happy to let them come back in touch, based on that again, for reassurance. Natalie, do you want to comment? Yeah, I just have a comment. I don't think officers have undermined us, and I think officers were very open when we brought the call in, or when we discussed the call in. So I'd like to challenge what Councillor Manan has just said. Okay. Any other questions? I'm going to let you come in one last time to Councillor Manan's point about the service providing part. Do you want to come in, or do you want to move into? I was just going to come in just to say, I think as officers, I pride myself on integrity, and I appreciate I've only just walked into Tower Hamlets, but I hold a statutory role, and my statutory role is to make sure that I do safeguard the residents of Tower Hamlets, and I would be remiss in my duties if I did anything that did not put those residents at the centre of everything that I do. So when I walked into Tower Hamlets in September, I looked at the history as far as I could understand it, and I thought we cannot continue to chug along and take longer with this process because we've got people at the end of this. These are not widgets, they are people. And I was conscious of the fact that contracts were due to end, and I wanted us to try and move this on as quickly as we could. That was me balancing the risks in terms of what I knew then. And then fast forward to a couple of weeks later, there were different sets of risks, and I think as Julie has explained, that's something that we have to constantly do. One moment you're dealing with some risks, the next moment the risks are slightly different. And the risks in that respect were, yes, I'm still concerned about the residents, but actually there was now a risk around the best value, the legal advice that we've got. And at the moment our conservative estimates in terms of national insurance, worst case scenario could cost us in the region of 8 million, or best case scenario in the region of 3.5 million. Those are just very guesstimates at the moment based on what we know from the work that's being done nationally. So that's part again of what I was balancing. What I didn't want to do is we could have proceeded, as Julie said, there was also an option that we could have proceeded. But can you imagine if you were a vulnerable adult in Tower Hamlets? You possibly moved to a different provider, depending on what that situation might have been, and then you possibly might have had a situation where that provider is going out of business because they can no longer afford, and actually you then have to move again. So that's part of my balancing as a Corporate Director for Health and Adult Social Care. And I want the members that you understand that. Thank you. Thank you. And it's a good time. Yeah, go on, Councillor Mano. I understand what Natalie was saying. Maybe on the pink paper we'll discuss, find out a lot more about it when we were off the air. But still, I take back what I said before. But still, my puzzle, I'm still not getting the right answer from what you're saying. It's still concern. There's an element of risk. And I think that's why we should conclude and then move into pink paper, where we could answer a lot of questions to be answered. Yes, I'm about to do that. I do want to say this while the public part is still running and people can view this, that what makes this quite difficult is the fact that we've got three officers with us, but none of them have been around right from the beginning of the start of the issue here. And it is something that has been, over the years, been a problem that has resulted in this last thing that's happened now. And when members here ask you questions, it's not personal and it's not directed at you. It's about the whole situation as a whole. And so we're trying to get to a point where I think members want to ask some questions to be able to get some clarity. And this is not the first time we've done it. This is the second shot at it after the call-in. So that's why it's a little bit difficult. But we need to have these difficult conversations at the same time. It is important that we do this. Unless members have any other questions for the public part... Nope. And we are going to move into a private session. Can I ask to end this meeting as a whole, publicly? Can you let me know if there's any other business? No. Jonathan? Oh, sorry, James. I just want to ask a question. Ask a question about the mail decision that was made on the 13th. Okay. Do you want to ask that question now? Yes. I can't find any papers about it online. And I can't find any papers being sent about it. But I'm getting... The reason I'm asking about it now is because I'm getting providers getting in touch with me this evening. They're unhappy that quite quickly and without sort of a public process, the food... Well, it's the holiday club and holiday and food clubs provision is changing at short notice without, you know, with an individual mail decision being made. I appreciate I'm just dropping this question on top of the question. I think unless, Julie, you have an answer at hand. And, Stephen, I'm happy for you to do this as a written response. Of what it is, that would be great. Unless you have an... Can you provide a written response? Yeah. Perfect. Julie, is that okay? This falls with you as well, I think, if I'm not mistaken. Okay. Jonathan, did you... Before I close the meeting, did you have any legal advice? I was just going to be slightly pronouncing and say, obviously, you're only closing the meeting as far as the public's concerned. Secondly, just in relation to... Because we're being broadcast, I don't know if it normally is done, but I've always taken the view that you read out the statutory extract in the papers just to explain why we're going into a private session. Sure. I kind of said it in my words earlier, but I'll do it. It's fine. As the exclusion of the press and public, in the view of the contents of the remaining items on the agenda, the committee is recommended to adopt the following motion. That under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government Access to Information Act 1985, the press and public to be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section 2 businesses on the grounds that it contains information defined as exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. Are we all happy? Yes. I am now officially closing the meeting. Can you let me know when viewing... When... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Transcript
Wow, cool coming up. Good evening, everyone. And the recycle team. Good evening and welcome. Apologies for the delay. So my name is Asma Islam. I'll be chairing today's meeting. Can I remind everyone that this meeting has been filmed for public viewing on the council's website. Those participating in the meeting will be included in the footage. If there are any technical issues, I will decide if and how the meeting should continue after taking advice from officers. Thomas, do we have any apologies? Good evening, Chair. No, we have no apologies bar one vacancy. We have a full committee tonight. Thank you. Can members declare whether they have any disclosable pecuniary interests and indicate which aspects of the agenda this relates to? Can you state whether your interest is of personal or prejudicial nature? Any declarations? None. Thank you. So the minutes from our meeting on the 15th of October 2024 have been circulated. Can the members who were present confirm these are true and accurate records? Agree? Agree? Agree? Yes. Perfect. Okay. I'm going to take a few things now so that we're able to conclude the meeting on time, which is scrutiny lead updates are for noting. Agreed? Agreed. And we've got pre-decision scrutiny questions that's been circulated. Can you agree them? Yes? Yes? Thank you. And we have executive forward plan, which is for noting. And if you have any suggestions about how that affects our work plan, you may do so through email. Is that okay? Perfect. Thank you. The action log is within the papers with responses from services and officers. By way of an update from November on OSC's involvement with target setting, we have now received an update. The service will be putting on a KPI and target setting session on the 12th of February 2025 for scrutiny members. I will strongly encourage you all attend this as you've asked for these changes. Do members have any comments at this point? Thank you. Thank you. It says 10 minutes, but I don't really want to give you 10 minutes because we've got a packed agenda. But as quick as you can make it, but we have read the report. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just very briefly, I apologise for the fact that I haven't been able to put it on screen, but I've made some copies of a very brief PowerPoint presentation I was going to give this evening. But I do want you to take advantage of the fact that we have Clive here and it might be appropriate for him to talk about his experience and say you've got the opportunity to ask him questions. Can I come back and say, apologies, I've made a mistake. I'm following my script and I'm not very well, but I should have welcomed the Mayor. Thank you very much for joining us. I was waiting for your part of the agenda, but thank you for joining us and I'll bring it back to Clive. Okay, so I'll just give you an update. By now, part of the reason that I wanted to come to overview and scrutiny committee and every opportunity was to update you with any confirmation or correspondence we've had with the Ministry. And I can tell you that we've had none. So since the last time I was here and we had received the draft best value notice, there has been another meeting with the Minister. But in terms of taking the best value notices forward, we haven't had confirmation of anything. The representation period finished on the 25th of November. And all I have been able to do in the meantime is make as much preparation as I possibly can. And I did just want to update you on that. So where we are is that on the second page of the PowerPoint presentation I've handed out, and once again I apologise for the technical difficulty, we have now had correspondence or have received correspondence from the department where they have highlighted in summary the five key issues that they've identified or isolated in the best value report. They are detailed on that slide. They are around political leadership, governance and decision making, the culture of the organisation, working effectively in partnership, and our use of resources, continuous improvement of service delivery. And I suppose the point I wanted to make to over you and scrutiny tonight is, I, the executive and the corporate leadership team, accept the criticism of the report. I know I keep saying it, but I want to keep making that point. We accept them, we take them seriously, and we've got to take them forward. However, I'm very conscious of the fact that I need to take them forward in partnership, not least of which with the envoys, and we don't know who the envoys are yet. I'm advised that it's likely now that I will receive confirmation of the minister's deliberations in the middle of January, which suggests, if that timetable is correct, that we won't have any practical manifestation of the notice until February. So we have a little way to go. However, I can make some preparatory steps. So very quickly to go through this before I hand over to Clive, I have now met with a range of partners. I've met with the Transformation Advisory Board, as it's currently called. I've met with a range of chief executives that have been through intervention, and I'll come back to Clive in a moment. I've met with over 1,500 staff now and presented to them. I've also been talking to the Local Government Association about a member development programme, which is to address the political challenge point. But we've also, as part of the council's MTFS preparation, and the mayor may want to make comment on that, allocated funds to ensure that we can resource the continuous improvement programme. And so the MTFS includes a sum of £6 million over a three-year period to make sure that we have not only got the resource and capacity to deliver the agenda, but that we do it as speedily and as quickly as is practicable possible. We're determined to make this work. We're determined to make sure that we not only seem to take it seriously, but that we do. The next slide, I'm on that one now, areas for improvement identified in the BVI report, simply touches upon the key themes that have come out of my discussions with the Minister. The Minister make it very clear that this has to be locally led, and they have to be local solutions, and they categorise them into those three areas, organisational integrity and governance, embedding co-production with partners, and improving staff experience and dealing with the challenging political environment. I'll leave you to go through what we've achieved and what we're doing moving forward. I did just want to make the point before I meet with Clive, I've had conversations with members, and it's my intention to develop an improvement plan that we work with overview and scrutiny with. So I am suggesting this evening that we meet early on in the new year on an informal basis to have a briefing around how we can compile the improvement plan, that we come back to overview and scrutiny at your request, as and when you think it's appropriate as a result of compiling that improvement plan, and that over a period of time, you may want to undertake some deep dives into aspects of it. But we are determined and committed and of resource to working in collaboration with overview and scrutiny so that we are co-producing the solution. On that, and looking forward, which is what I said we would be doing this evening, with the agreement with the Chair, Clive is here this evening, just to give you a little bit of his background. Clive has been in local government and public services for 42 years, 28 of those at executive level. He's never taken authority through intervention, but has worked with Birmingham, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, and, latterly, Middlesbrough, to aid their exit from intervention. And that's the point. In his most recent role at Middlesbrough, he's successfully navigated the Council out of its best value notice and children's statutory intervention. And Clive is here tonight to share some of his thoughts about what our priorities should be, and to answer any questions you might have. Clive. Thank you, Steve, and thank you, members, for inviting me this evening. Steve has given a potted history of my career, and I've spent quite a lot of time with local authorities who have been in trouble, trying to get them out of trouble. The good news is that best value in intervention always comes to an end. You will get yourself out of trouble. The question is how quickly and how painfully, or less painfully, it is done, in my opinion. And I can touch on some of the experiences in the Birmingham's and the Nottingham's and Northamptonshire's, but just to say that in Northamptonshire, I saw the most extreme of intervention in Northamptonshire, which was full commissioners. And full commissioners means that control of the authority was taken away from its members, and all the decisions were taken by technocrats. So you are appointed as members, you're elected as members to serve the people of Tower Hamlets. With commissioners, you lose the right to do that, and technocrats come in and run the organisation and take those decisions. You do not want that. So my first advice is make sure you go nowhere near getting deeper into intervention. I'll often describe the intervention journey as being a bit of a ladder, really. You can get on the first rung, which is a best value notice. You can climb further up and get an improvement board. You can climb further still and get a mandated board with powers of direction, and you can end up right at the top of the ladder with commissioners. And the aim has got to be to get off the ladder as quickly as you possibly can do. So hopefully tonight I can give you a few thoughts. I joined Middlesbrough. I'm going to focus on Middlesbrough. Please ask me questions later on about any of the other roles. I joined Middlesbrough 20, 21 months ago. Middlesbrough was in some difficulty with a best value notice. It was essentially around culture, member-to-member, member-to-officer relations, poor relationships, poor social media, and that was being picked up as well. Poor leadership of the officer corps as well. That was right at the heart of the organisational problems. And in Middlesbrough's case, a financial position which was untenable. I know your financial position is much stronger, and you've been well led in terms of your finances, which is great to hear. The first thing the members really wanted to talk about was how do we get out of this situation as quickly as we possibly can. And to do that, we first of all embarked on a series of member development sessions to help members understand the roles and responsibilities of members versus officers. So again, I can't comment here. I don't know you well enough. But at Middlesbrough, there was confusion between the role of members and the role of officers treading into each other's territory. And we had to make sure that both understood each other's roles. Local government works because both parties work closely together, work in harmony, but they have very different roles and very different things to do within good local government. So we had to have that understanding. We brought in the local government association to work with the members collectively as a group, but also with individual groups as well. So we had the independent group lead, the conservative lead, the Labour lead, come in and work with all of the groups to think about how they should play their role within good local government and what good governance looks like. One of the things to bear in mind, and you'll know from tonight, is that once you're in intervention, the eyes of government are upon you on everything you do and everything you say. Everything you say tonight, everything you say on social media, everything that gets reported in the press, government will be watching and taking note of. So unfortunately with intervention, you do things in a goldfish bowl, in a spotlight that you wouldn't do for any other organisations. And I often had members say to me, you know, why is it that we can't do such and such a thing when another council can? And the answer is because you have a best value notice against you and because governments are watching your every single move. Just a reflection at Nottingham where we talked about the difficulties of creating a four-year budget at Nottingham. I know it's not your problem, but just to give you an example. And the chair of the panel said to us, well, other authorities don't need to do it because they're not under the spotlight, but my task is to make sure that we do a four-year plan here. So that's what we're going to do, however difficult it is. So it changes the way that we do things, and government's eyes will be upon you very definitely. So one of the things is about how members work with one another. We had to work at Middlesbrough on respect, on dignity. I'd say to the members quite often that, by all means, have political debate. It's really good that you have good, honest, open political debate and political differences, but do it in a way that's got dignity, that's got respect, that shows respect for one another and each of your views. And that will come through then in terms of the social media. And what we saw at Middlesbrough was a slackening off then of some of the quite negative social media stuff that was going on member to member. And that was really important to do. And we also saw there's quite a few attacks from members and officers in Middlesbrough as well. Officers became part of the public game, if you like, of playing that. And that had to stop as well. Officers do their job and advise they don't have a right of reply. And it wasn't right when members were attacking officers in that way. So we had to work out how we can work better together. We did a lot more around group leaders meetings and working as cooperative groups. We did budget working groups together where we've got all of the political groups working together on the budget throughout the year, talking confidentially about budget proposals, budget options, and not running off to social media to try and say we don't like what one group is doing, but actually working together in that more collaborative way. What we also did was we worked very closely with MHCLG. We developed an absolutely close relationship with them so that we had openness all the time. I met with them on a monthly basis along with the other statutory officers, with the monitoring officer and the section 151 officer. And we'd have that really close working relationship so that they know that they could ask us any question, we would give an honest answer. And indeed sometimes we'd be upfront to say we think you ought to know this piece of information, rather than find it out further down the line. And what came back to us at the end of all of this was that they felt that by having that open relationship with us, they had a chance then to really understand what we were trying to do and portray that back to ministers as well. So I'm getting the nod on time. Nearly done, nearly done. So I think that open relationship is a really important one. A look at the roles and responsibilities, as I said, but that also meant a deep dive into the constitution, financial regulations and the scheme of delegations, both the elected mayor's delegations, which we also had in Middlesbrough, but also the officers' delegation scheme as well and how much officers were trusted to get on with their job. That became quite important as well to CLG and the way they looked at it. And the relationships with partners became critical as well. So greater working with the education sector, greater working with the health and police sector, particularly over the riots in Middlesbrough. We had riots in the summer, quite serious riots, and our ability to work with the police and show that kind of progress was excellent. So these are the kind of things about this open approach with government, making sure they understand what's going on, openness of data and sharing of data. All of that got us out. And overall, that journey took us around 20 months from going into Best Value to coming out of it. We were also in children's statutory intervention for five years. And again, the progress we made in terms of good leadership, officer member working relations, the conversion of interim staff to permanent staff was also what got us out of children's intervention as well and put us into a better position. So there's some of the... I could probably go on all evening, Chair, but I can see you smiling at me and saying, giving me the nod to stop talking now and take some questions. Thank you. That was very interesting. And maybe if we need to have another session, maybe we can invite you over again, because this is very interesting. Do members have any... I have one, but do members have any questions so I can write your names down before I ask... Okay. Okay, five. I'm going to start off with my question first, if that's okay. My interest is around overview and scrutiny. A lot of what you've said relates back to some of our experiences here in Tower Hamlets, but how can ONS engage in this improvement plan? And what are your experiences that you've had and what kind of tools and skills you've learned throughout that's helped councils improve their scrutiny function? And while you're answering that question, I'm going to knock down some of the names that are asking you the next set of questions. Okay. So we work with the Centre for Scrutiny Studies to work on a good practice model for scrutiny, because I believe that a proper scrutiny challenge is critical to any authority. And again, when I worked with MHCLG, they were looking for proper challenge, open challenge from overview and scrutiny towards that process. We also set up an independent improvement board, so a board made up not of any councillors, not of any officers of the council, but people who had achieved in local government, a former chief executive who'd achieved, a former section 151, a former monitoring officer, and a support for the directly elected mayor. We brought in the mayor of Doncaster as well as being a political support as well, which proved to be useful. That board also engaged with scrutiny very directly on their findings, the progress that we were making, and reported both to scrutiny and to the executive and to the council on a regular basis. So councillors were fully aware of that journey based on independent assurance, and that proved to be very valuable. Both the scrutiny committee and the audit committee both called in the plans at regular intervals to have a briefing on where we were, the progress we were making, and what we were doing about any barriers and blockages that were happening. So that really active engagement was a key part of it. Thank you. So the next set of questions are going to come from Councillor Abdi Mohamed and then Councillor Amy Lee. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that. Really helpful. And I think it's very helpful in the sense that Middlesbrough is also directly elected mayor, so there's real applicability there, so that's really helpful. One of the things that the best value identifies is kind of weak governance, or lack of governance, and the lack of due process. So I wonder if you could speak briefly about some of the lessons that we can learn, how you strengthened that due process. So, for example, with officers, we sit on committees. I sit on the HR committee, for example, which is a non-executive committee that's set... For the past year, there's been four meetings where papers have come late, which kind of ultimately bounces councillors into a finance decision about interim cover, for example, and that obviously isn't proper and effective governance. So what more can we learn from Middlesbrough as directly elected to strengthen senior management to be able to kind of learn a lesson? We look very closely at our forward management or forward plan as to how we projected that and how we've talked to members about what that forward plan and the reports look like. So by better early engagement in the plan, we looked at the whole clearance cycle so that members were involved, and particularly members of the executive, were involved in understanding those reports at a much earlier stage and had the chance to discuss them long before they got into that report stage. So it's about starting things earlier, planning things for longer and taking them through on a more structured way. It doesn't mean we got everything right. We still didn't. I think the elected mayor would still say there are times when we got a few things wrong. But nonetheless, I think, you know, by and large, we took that through. The other thing with officers was about the ability to speak truth to power. So Middlesbrough had had a few occasions where the previous mayor and the previous chief executive had demanded things of officers, and officers had just said, yes, I want to keep my job, I'll just do as you say, when actually the answer is you need to speak truth to power. You need to be saying your professional opinion. Officers are engaged to put a professional opinion out there. You need your professional opinion out there, and let's get debate going about what the alternatives and options are. Because although you might not be able to do something one way, there's usually an alternative way to do it, and that means early discussion and early feeding into the committee process then for better governance. As I said, we also looked at the constitution, the financial regulations and the delegations to make sure they were fit for purpose as well, as well as enhancing the member development programme. So it was a range of fronts on which we improved that governance process. Always learning that constitution is never quite right. Even today, there's still things we change about it, but it's a whole lot better than it was 20 months ago, and it's working much more smoothly now. Thank you. Just coming to my colleague here, the sovereignty and the independence of the ONS, the duties they discharge in oversight and scrutinising the executive and the mayor is so important, it's inherent in the democratic process. So in that respect, I encourage my cabinet members to attend over and scrutinising members on a regular basis, and I do my best to also attend before this committee. It's putting ourselves forward to questions like accountability to scrutinising is healthy for our organisations, and also healthy for what we're doing in the Council. Yes. To have a second opinion, and colleagues who are independent of the executive to question myself whether our policies are correct or not, or if they have a look, we need to have a look at that policy. It's important. It's really important. I agree. I agree. Thank you. I'm going to take two questions now, if that's from two different councillors. Councillor James King and then Councillor Amy Lee. Thank you. Wasn't it Amy first? Okay, you did. I've got a supplementary to my question, if that's okay. I'm sure I will. So first question is for Mr Halsey and the mayor. So the mayor's office is reducing from 36 to nine staff. Where are those staff going? Are they going elsewhere in the organisation, or? This is about the BVI? Yeah. You're relating it? Yeah, it's in the presentation. Okay. Okay. That was it? Do you want to ask it now? Because I'm going to do a set of questions then. Okay, Councillor Amy Lee, do you want to come in and then I'll come back to James again. Yep. Thank you. My question is about culture. So I'm just referring to the presentation. It talks about, particularly talking about the staff. So, just particularly the words intimidation, bullying and harassment. And I think the thing that stands out to me, there was an example in the report that was given of members of staff who were taken to one side after their meetings with the inspectors and told to write down what questions they've been asked and what answers they gave. To me, that's quite extreme. These are quite extreme examples of harassment, intimidation and bullying. So I just wonder if you have any advice on how that can be resolved. Because to me, that's not just a bit of an unhappy team culture. To me, those are quite extreme examples of something rotten. Can I give it? I'm sorry. First question. In relation to the first question, we're on a journey to conclude the restructure of the mayor's office by the end of March, which is what I reported last time I was here. The caseworkers will be moving to customer services. The extent of the customer services work that they do to support all members, caseworkers, will be subject to review, which is subject to consultation that we're currently going through. The cabinet support officers will be moving to democratic services. There's a consultation process to go through there because we need to make sure that in all of those movements we're getting value for money. So, because it's subject to consultation, because there is a process that we're currently going through, and because the council currently has the opportunity for staff to apply for early retirement or voluntary redundancy, individuals may be affected in a different way. So, although I say there will be nine in the mayor's office, that doesn't necessarily mean that 24 will all still be working for the council in those places that I've highlighted. There are also mayor's advisers. Mayor's advisers' roles will be moved where it's appropriate and where there is need to the appropriate directorate. The question is, so, thank you for that answer. It was noted in the best value inspection report that they noted that that was happening, but then there was concern amongst staff that, da-da-da-da, we understand that tasking operations will be similar with direct access to the mayor, but different line management. This structural change is seen by a number of officers as not sufficiently addressing the route of concerns, leading to confusion, et cetera, et cetera. So, as part of this process, what are you doing to allay that fear outlined in the best value inspection that former members of the mayor's staff will be integrated completely within to the council and structures and accountability processes? Thank you for the question. So, the council has proper procedures and policies that we adhere to in going through any reorganisation, the perception of staff or that they are concerned that although, so all staff at any point we work under an executive mayor model can have a conversation with the mayor. It's perfectly appropriate. It's perfectly logical that they would do so. That is different to having a perception that they are being line managed by anybody other than their line manager. And it's that type of cultural perspective that we need to get through and we need to change the message, we need to change the optics and people need to clearly understand. I would also make the point that part of the discussion we've had with the department and the minister is rebasing some of this stuff. So, we know, for example, that we employ, I think we've discussed this before, we employ nearly 10,000 staff, 5,000 directly if you exclude schools. And we need to make sure that we reach as many of those people as is practically possible in rebasing some of this perception stuff. Because there are perceptions out there that are valid. If one person feels that they're being bullied to arise, then that's one too many. But we need to get to the bottom of where that comes from and how much that impacts upon the perception of the mayor's office, given the fact that there are only going to be nine people in it. Amy's question, Clive. And Councillor Lee. So, a healthy organisation is one which has a positive culture where everybody feels they can speak their minds, say what they want to say, when they want to say it. And it's up to management and leadership to make sure that they're comfortable with people doing that. So, I have always created the forums for people to be able to speak, either through teams meetings, through face-to-face meetings. Often teams meetings will be 1,000 people on the call and asking me questions. I've set up forums for people to ask me those questions confidentially. The elected mayor of Middlesbrough has sessions where he has come and meet the mayor, lunches as well, and they're very open sessions. So, we encourage people to speak without fear or favour. You can speak your mind. You know, there aren't consequences for doing that unless you do it in a malicious way or something that's, you know, clearly out of line. But that tends not to happen because people feel they're able to do that. Although Middlesbrough has been through a really difficult period of nearly two years now of recovery and some really difficult financial decisions, staff morale has remained at a reasonable level. It's not as high as I'd like it to be. But as we now move into what we call the reset phase of the agenda, come out of recovery and into resetting for the future, we're starting to see now staff morale start to lift a little more. We also, as Steve alluded to policies and procedures, we have policies in place like whistleblowing policies as well that people are able to use and they're used reasonably. But our level of grievances and the like is quite low because people feel they can engage with us. And that's right at the heart of a really good organisation. Can I just add to that, Chair? Sorry, I'll be very quick. It's part of the journey that we're on. We've had conversations with chief executives like Clive and we have done, you know, the road shows, the 1,000, 2,000 staff that have come in to talk to us. The mayor hosted a staff Q&A online for about 500 or 600 staff that turned up for that. So, we are learning from others. That's just the point I wanted to make. And we are looking at independent systems for whistleblowing to build on what we already have. So, there's a learning journey and we're learning from people like Clive. Thank you. A set of three now. So, naturally first, then Bodo Bayu and then Monan Bird. Thanks, Chair. Okay. So, I have a comment and a question for Clive. My comment is that this is the second time we've discussed this in an overview and scrutiny meeting. And last time we had a late report come to this meeting, we had a late letter sent by you, Stephen. And this is a PowerPoint that I only received five minutes before the meeting. I know it's only a simple PowerPoint, but it still gives us time. I'm someone who processes information internally. So, I really, really appreciate having information before the meeting. The question for Clive is my concern mainly from the Best Valley Report is around political culture. It sounds like you've done some really amazing work in Middlesbrough. But I also think that there's a way that we need to go as a council to get to a place where we can trust each other as political members. So, what advice would you give us, as councillors, to be prepared to go through that process, to do it in an open way? Thank you, Chair. My question to Clive. Thank you. How long is the process, obviously the invoice coming in January or February, how long would that process take? And how often would they review how well, as a council, we're doing? If you could give me a bit more insight. Thank you. I think just to touch on the question of Natalie, a report mentioned to the Clive, thanks for coming over. A report mentioned on toxic politics exists on both sides of the party platform. What advice or experience can you share where all parties are engaged and learned within our role as the ONS? Also, my secondary question is, within the members and staff, the moral was, like, they're not on the right, same platform. How did you, did you have similar experience in Middlesbrough and how did you engage them to bring the same platform, so therefore residents outside, we can serve the residents rather than having internal, like the staff has a different role and political councillors have a separate role as well, but they have to work on the same platform so they can serve the community outside. Did you have a similar problem like that? And if there is, how do you solve it? Thank you. Thank you for giving us answer these three sets. So, really taking the first and third questions or the first parts together, the toxic politics was there in Middlesbrough as well. It was very definitely part of that Middlesbrough culture. And what we tried to encourage, well, first of all, we had a set of values that we asked members to work to as well. It was well understood by staff and I think most staff could reflect on those, but I guess quite a number of members couldn't and didn't work to those. So, we spent a bit of workshop time with members on those values and how the values are brought out and the Nolan principles and how they work through as well. But we also encourage members to find forums where they could work together in a more collaborative way rather than in a challenging way. Because quite often you come up against each other in political debate, but actually it's probably more common ground than you think when you start to sit down and work through policy decisions, policy issues, budgetary issues, etc. So, we encourage members, you know, so the constitution working group was a cross party group, the budget working group was a cross party group. So, really try to encourage that cross party working to bring some of that respect back into the politics. And by and large, it worked out. I think, you know, Middlesbrough has found that that's been a successful recipe. That doesn't mean to say there aren't occasions when the members fall back again into some of that toxic culture, but it's far fewer occasions now. And it's at the level now where MHCLG were looking and saying, okay, that's normal politics now. We expect a little bit of that going on from time to time. But by and large, you're back again on a normal route now with normal political debate and discussion. So, I encourage you to find those areas of common ground, those areas of working together where you can get cross party working and you can get agreement. You'll find that works wonders when you start to do that. In terms of the envoy position, the envoy is an interesting one because that envoy model is a new one. It's not come out before, so we've got no direct experience of what an envoy will look like. What we did was bring in the improvement board, which is the similar model, if you like. It was a wholly independent board of, in the end, five people or six, if you include the local government association on it. But they report, that board reported on a regular basis into executive on a quarterly basis and into council onto a half yearly basis and took questions. That group also met with group leaders, it also met with staff groups, it met with partners, a whole range of things. So, we encourage that wider working of the whole group so that everybody in the system was well aware of what was going on. And I think, again, using the good offices of the improvement board, and you might think about the envoys in the same way. If you can use them and engage with them, that gives assurance both to you as members, but also back up to MHCLG as well about the progress you're making. So, I'd encourage you to try to use them in that way, but it's a new model, so we're not quite sure how that's quite going to work yet. Was there another question in there? Okay, so thank you very much, Clive. Really appreciate you coming. Steve, do you want, we are definitely coming back in January to have that conversation around, because you want to work in partnership, and you want us to be part of the co-design of what the improvement looks like. Is there a role for Clive and us in the future again, or is this it? So, part of the discussions that we're having with the government are how we can learn from best practice. So, Clive is here this evening. I've already had a conversation with Clive about his continued involvement, as and when that's appropriate, and we have others as well. I've had conversations with the chief executive at Liverpool, who Clive and Andrew know each other well as well. So, there will be, not a suite, but there will be a number of people that we'll engage with, and at the appropriate time through a discussion with yourself, we'll bring them back to those sessions. I think we could usefully discuss that at the first meeting we have in the new year on a more informal basis, so that we can work out an infrastructure to making sure the committee is fully involved in co-production. Thank you. Through you, if I may say, you're doing the right things in the right way. My encouragement is you keep the pace going. When I've seen intervention be stretched out in local government, it's usually the word that's used most often is a lack of pace. That comes out most times, so I'd encourage you to do that, and if I can help in any way, I'll offer my services. What I want to see is good democratic local government, and I want to see you get back to where you belong. Thank you very much, and I think we're all on the same page when it comes to the pace, so thank you. I'm going to move on to our next piece of agenda, which is a focus on flood risk management. I'm aware that our borough has experienced some flooding, and some committee members have also undertaken a site visit to understand the situation better. I welcome members to share their experiences and observations from this as part of our discussion. Before we begin, can I quickly thank Nicholas McCalf, who joins us from METIS Consultants, and will be lending his expertise to the committee to help us with some of the technical aspects of this item. We've had a conversation in the pre-meet that this will be an ongoing conversation. We might not be able to resolve our next steps in this meeting, but for sure we'll keep you engaged in that. Can I quickly thank Councillor Shafi Ahmed, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Emergency, and Ashraf Valley Injury Director of Public Realm for joining us on this item. Please take this paper as read, and is it okay if I give you three minutes to quickly give us an introduction, and then I'll ask members if they've got any questions. Thank you, Chair, and good evening all. The flood risk presentation outlines the Council's approach to mitigating flood risks in the borough. It discusses current frameworks, and identifies key risks and challenges, and presents strategies to ensure resilience, improve service capacity, and address full statutory requirement. As you mentioned, Chair, it should be a red report. Council officers are here to answer any questions that the members may have. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councilor Nathalie Benfit, do you want to go first? Because you've led on this quite a bit. Sure, Chair, thank you. And thank you very much, Councillor Ahmed, for being here in person. I really appreciate it. So, I wonder, so, is there space for the officers to sit a bit more centrally, so we're not kind of craning our heads? Oh, we're going to take the report as read. Yeah, and if you can do, members haven't indicated they've got any questions, so if you can do a quick fire round, you're the only one that's got questions, and then we can get to a recommendation stage. All right, great. So, is it all right if I start questions? So, the reason that I came to this is because we had a flooding event in Fish Island earlier this year, and we've been on a site visit to Fish Island to understand why that was. And I understand the report is coming out, and that's been to do a full investigation, but one of the key risks that was potentially identified from that investigation was our relationship with key strategic partners, such as Canal and River Trust. We are reliant, are we not, on their funding position to maintain their infrastructure that affects us. Do you identify any risks in our communication with those organisations? Hello, nice to meet you. I'm Thomas Bayford. My initial response to that would be that the Canal and River Trust do not, at the current stage, fall within the risk management authorities that are responsible for flood risk. They are designated as a trust, so they do not have a risk management authority statutory role. We do liaise with them. We have been, with regards to the flooding that did happen at the beginning of this year, and we have undertaken a section 19 flood investigation to identify what caused the flooding, and it was identified it was a failure within the canal system itself to manage the water levels, that we were in direct communication with them as we sort of did the investigation, and I'm pleased to present them issues that were failures that happened in their side has been resolved, so the flood risk in that area should now be mitigated. Can I just add, just so introductory actually, Thomas is actually a flood engineer, so his expertise in that field. In addition to what Thomas says, as a flood authority, obviously we've got responsibility to work with partners, including Thames Water and the Canal River Trust. So there is a forum that local authority oversees and engages with our key partners in and around flood areas, so there is ongoing discussion and dialogue with Canal River Trust, and ensuring those actions that have been highlighted in the report is carried out, so we will have that responsibility to oversee, and where there is a support is required to support the Canal River Trust, we will do that, including working with Thames Water to ensure a lot of the drainage, drainage and infrastructure in place to mitigate some of those flooding. Alright, thank you. So another issue that was identified in that flooding event is that we didn't respond as quickly as we could have done as a council, so that is something that you've mentioned in your report as one of your recommendations, so I wonder if you could talk more about what need there is for like a civil contingencies response, like a flood risk response that's needed. Thank you. And with that, can I just get Councillor Manan to come in as well with his question, if that's alright? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, me and Natalie visited the place a month ago, and a few things have been highlighted. The Canal River Trust, the automated systems wasn't working, and it's not a priority for them if there's an emergency, they just come as a go to open it. If that system doesn't work, there are more than 1,000 houses in there, which easily get flooded. So, can we be able to find a way to mitigate the rigs, there's some sort of communication between the Canal River Trust and the council, so anything happen in the future, there will be automatically someone to respond. The reason that flooding happened is because people did not respond, nobody knew who are the responsible for the overflowing of the gate. It's not just because of the extensive rain, it's the automatic system did not work on that day, and therefore gate did not open to let the water out. And that could happen any time, again. So, I just want to highlight, that was the main reason, was flooding, it's not because so much of the rain came through, it's the system did not work. Okay. Fair on the system. Thank you. Thank you. So, that's, Thomas, to come into the specifics on the technical of the gate, when it was working, but just going to point the Councillor Benfied about communication, you're absolutely right. There are lessons that have to be learned in terms of how we communicate, and faster response to our residents and businesses that are affected should any of these situations arise. We've reviewed, working with our business continuity team to actually review the whole process and sort of make improvements, how we can actually faster communicate to our residents that are directly affected, how we can actually respond to our third-party contractors to ensure getting sandbags and other aspects of it a lot more quicker, and reduce the risk of further escalation of flooding. So, there are lessons to be learned from that, and we've taken that in the report, it's been highlighted, and that's what we embed in our process going forward. But more specifically about the gate in itself, which is a third-party ownership, they have that responsibility and there's ongoing dialogue with that, looking at how we can actually improve the actual operating of the gate of that. But maybe perhaps Thomas could highlight a bit more. Yeah, I can jump in on that. So, the incident that happened in January was a direct result of three of the four sluice gates around Old Ford Dock failing. They're on an automated system that basically, when the water level reaches certain points, it's meant to then activate the opening of the sluice gates, which then manages the water level. Unfortunately, three of them failed. Two of them were a year before and one of them was on the event that happened on the flooding. Like I said, on the back end of that, the Canal River Trust and the Environment Agency done a big program of works over the summer to rectify all the failures within the systems themselves. And we were in direct communication with them as they were doing that. So, I'm pleased to present now that they've mitigated them risks, so the sluice gates are active. Okay, did you have a follow-up, quickly? Sorry, Asma, there's a big question mark on this. The Canal River Trust, the people who work at their voluntary basis, they're not paid work. So, when they mention that, I think that's what they're saying. There's no one taking serious responsibility for it. So, that could happen again. Yeah, and it doesn't take away from the fact that it's still a third-party responsibility, and therefore it places difficulties with the officers and the council. Remember, you took them three hours' response. That's a long time for somebody to come to open, to manually open the gate. I think, coming onto that topic, the responsibility falls for the Environment Agency, because the Environment Agency are due to respond to fluvial flooding, which is canals and rivers overtopping. So, part of the response is when the level reaches a certain point, it activates an automatic response that there's an issue with the system, so therefore manage it. But as them sluice gates failed, the response and the emergency response went out to the Environment Agency, and it took them a while to get back to site to open the gate. So, the initial responsibility of that is down to the Environment Agency, not the council. The council ourselves are responsible for service water flooding, groundwater, and ordinary watercourses, but we're not directly responsible for third-party assets, and that includes the canals. Okay. Okay. Can I take two more questions, Councillor Chaudhry, and then, if you want to go next, after. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the Cabinet Member, or the Officer could answer this. Can you provide us with a timeline and a budget for implementing the proactive maintenance system that is in place, and the proposed CCTV system, and the gully sensors installation, to improve the overall resilience of the drainage system that we have, which is very poorly? Thank you. Thank you. I'll answer that question. Oh, is it me? Oh. Yeah, I do. Thanks, Chair. So, my question outside of the incident that's happened, the flooding, standard flooding response services that we already have, well, we don't seem to have anything outside of the at our normal hours. So, what, in comparison to other local authorities, what's the balance there? How do we mitigate against out-of-hours flooding or some sort of incident? How do we challenge, how do we resolve that? Or could you answer that, please? Thank you. First of all, I may go back to Councillor Chaudhry's question in terms of some of the funding and all that. In terms of the drainage and cyclical cleaning, that's already a baseline existing programme, so that's frequently, we have a programme of cleansing and looking at the drainage on a cyclical programme, so that's already in place. The additional measures where we're looking at best practices, learning from other local authorities, some innovative way of improving the drainage system, so like CCTV survey. That's an ongoing programme that we're looking at funding from externally, from government, grant and other sources. In terms of the suds programme, where more drainage and sustainable urban drainage system, we're trying to embed by looking at our existing capital highway schemes. So as part of ongoing programmes, we'll be trying to put a part of those programmes to deliver some of those suds, which will help some of the drainage and gullies. So whilst this is ongoing, this was a discussion that's happened with the Councillor Benfita over the last several months, putting in some recommendation what we'd like to do. So it's going to be an ongoing programme we do, but some of the stuff we've highlighted is going to be part of the existing programme. So a more specific timeline can be provided in the near future. Going back to, in terms of the out of hours programme, we don't have a dedicated office of just specifically around flooding. This is obviously high sort of probability of cost effectiveness. So actually we look at out of hours of other aspects of work. So in terms of out of hours of RTA, road traffic accidents happen. So there are officers and contractors available to actually undertake some of those works. So there are processes and procedures in place to report any incidents that takes place in the borough. Whether it's emergency, road accidents or flooding, and there are contractors in place to carry out those activities. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. I'm going to take another two and then I want to finish, close this off here. Councillor Khan and then Councillor Mohammed again. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee Member Shafiam for your reports on flood risks. We're just talking about the fish island tonight, but I'd like to know is there any other potential flood risks into our hamlets? And if it is, then what is the Council doing about it? Thank you. Thank you for that to the officers who kind of report this. I think it's really helpful and the report is really helpful. With the examples, the most recent example, the faculty example, it'd be helpful to understand how much we worked closely with our kind of, you know, business resilience. And the minute it happened, so the fire brigade obviously take over and do emergency services, but say if it was a fire, for example, there would be, you know, hotels put on or a gym or whatever would have taken over and our contingency planning as a council would have kicked in. So how much do we factor that in with flooding? Because while it doesn't happen often, when it does happen, it can be as devastating or it can be as potentially dangerous. So it's helpful to understand how strong our plans are in the immediate aftermath of flooding. And if not, are we planning to review that to ensure it's as strong as it can be? On the councillor, in terms of the areas, in the PAC presentation, it has a map of showing the risk areas of the borough. Whilst Fish Island, northern of both part of the area, not in the high risk area, but it happened because of the canal there. The risk area is, the high risk area within the borough is around Poplar and South into Isle of Dogs. So that's the most risky in the part of the borough in terms of flooding. And there are programmes in place in terms of, we actually do a cyclical cleaning of our drainage. There are more frequency of cleaning takes place and there are other suds programmes in place to actually alleviate the high risk areas of flooding. So there are programmes in place and there will be continued monitoring of those risks. Councillor Mohamed, in terms of your question in terms of emergency, there isn't specific to flood. All emergency is treated. There is a business continuity plan that deals with any emergency and all the emergencies. And there is a PAC, I don't know the detail of it, but it's in our website, but I'm happy to get the detail of what they actually do in terms of an emergency. So whether it's flooding or whether it's road traffic incident or even in a fire. So there is a guidance and programme for our emergency team, which is dispatched to residents and businesses in the area. Thank you. And we've had one request from our guest that he wants to ask a question. If that's OK, I'm minded to take it. Do you want to ask now? Sure. Yeah, thank you. There's been reference to a suds programme and how we're trying to embed suds within highway schemes. I was just wondering if officers could expand on how existing data is being incorporated into modelling and mapping to ensure those sud schemes are suitably targeted to areas at risk and maybe what parameters are being considered within that modelling and mapping. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I can answer that. So, currently, we've implemented 55 rain gardens and suds features around the borough. But at the moment, in the present time, we're scattergun sort of approach where we're putting them in and retrofitting them to other highway schemes. Currently, we don't have a dedicated flood alleviation programme in place looking at high-risk areas. One of the recommendations was to sort of build a programme of areas and schemes that could potentially benefit from implementing suds within them. So, one of my sort of answers to that would be to get a list of sort of 20, 30, 40 areas that need it and then sort of go away and design, implement them schemes and get them ready for any funding that's available or schemes that come along in them areas that we can sort of retrofit on to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, thank you very much for your help with that today. And we look forward to engaging with you in the future. And thank you to Ashraf and Councillor Ahmed for all your help today. What we're going to do is we're just trying to work out how we work with this in this committee. Um, we've got some ideas of recommendations. Um, is it okay if we are able to communicate that through our offices and then we can, if need be, we can bring it back. It seems like a piece of work that will fit in probably with housing regeneration. The ONS lead member is happy to take that on board. And also the sustainability part of council, um, and building new homes. So, if it's okay, if we can leave that for the future, some parts of it for the future agendas. It's okay. But we really appreciate today's work and thank you for coming and reporting to this committee. Thank you very much. Uh, Councillor Ahmed, do you want to come at the front? So, as part of the new changes, uh, to this committee, we'll be taking our next two substantive items together. So, this is the strategic performance and delivery report in quarter two for 2024 and 25. And the budget monitoring report for quarter two, 24 to 25. This will give us a good opportunity to consider how our performance relates and impacts our budgets. So, again, I'd like to welcome the mayor, um, exec, um, Stephen Halsey, John Ashworth, the senior performance and improvement analyst. And I'm aware that we've got lots of senior corporate directors and divisional directors here to take some questions as well. Um, I also note, um, can I also please welcome Councillor Syed Ahmed, cabinet member for resources and cost of living, along with Julie Lorraine, the corporate director for resources. Right. So, what I'm going to do is give you, we've, we've read all the papers, um, but we're happy to give you some time to present. But I'm more mindful that the mayor, Billy, uh, speaks at this committee. So, I'm happy to take yours and everything else I think we can take as noted. Thank you and grateful, uh, thank you to all the members, uh, and the officers for the role that you discharge in the overall scrutiny. Uh, and I do very much, uh, respect your, your role and your job. Uh, can I say, just want to say a few words and I'll bring, uh, Syed in, uh, if he wants to compliment what I've said. I mean, I've said this here before, that our residents come first to all of us, whether you are elected members or the officers. All of us are here to support and deliver high performing services to our residents. And that's what keeps me up during the night. That's the passion that drives me. And not a week goes by or a moment goes by when I speak to Steve or the corporate management team. When I don't talk to them, uh, and we have a, a, a, a challenging session about performance, performance. You know, whether it's in cabinet or whether it's in other, other areas, it's about how can we accelerate performance? How can we make sure that we are performing, we're delivering excellent services to our residents? Uh, that's very important to us, to all of us and, and to yourselves, uh, members. Uh, and over the last two and a half years, you would very much know that we have reinvested a substantial amount of money in public services. I'm not going to list all of them, but you know, whether bringing timeless homes in house. Uh, a couple of, uh, cabinet meetings back, we agreed a sum of 140 million pounds, how to, uh, refurbish, uh, our housing stock, how to deal with, uh, money to deal with the regulatory stuff. Uh, to bring our housing stock, uh, to bring our housing stock to a safe and a good condition. 145 million pounds, we've done that. Townsend has come in house successfully, but it's a long way to go, and I'm grateful to the officers, uh, for the work that we do. We have self-referred ourselves to the housing regulator because we want, we, we, we accept that there are some shortcomings. We want to work with the housing regulator, uh, to see how we can work together to ensure that our housing stock is in a good condition. Also, we've brought, uh, in house, uh, the leisure services, which wasn't part of my manifesto pledge. We have invested and agreed an investment in the leisure services, uh, more investment in necessary St. George's, which, uh, you know about. Some of the targets, uh, investment and the work of the officers is, is, is paying dividend. We can see the improvement coming on board. The youth service, which you know, uh, 13.7 million pound, uh, that we have, uh, we've allocated additional money each year. 16 of the youth, uh, centers have already been, uh, 16 wards have been rolled out. Uh, thank you, Steve and your team, uh, the, uh, the director and the lead member for more wards to go. And I think, uh, you're in the process of recruiting the officers to, to those posts in the meantime. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm quite confident we'll get the youth service up and running in due course. Our youngsters need a place to go to. Uh, the five million pound in the waste service, uh, the cleanliness of the borough, uh, is very important to us. We want to see a clean borough. Uh, the team, uh, both Simon Ashraf and that team and the lead member are working hard to make sure that money is used, uh, constructively used. Solely for, for cleanliness. And as, uh, the mayor and, and the executive, for every single penny, we are holding the officers accountable. Recycling absolutely is an issue in the borough. Uh, and again, uh, an improvement plan like the waste improvement plan has, has been enacted. Uh, and we're beginning to see nowhere near where we should be, beginning to see a, a, a slight improvement. You know about our investment in young people. The free school meals, the education maintenance allowance, the university bursary. Some 22 million pound of investment has gone into young people alone. I'm not going to go through all of them. Uh, St. George's Baths, you know how much money we have put aside. 30, about 30 homes, three, four bedroom council homes will come on the site. Uh, uh, a state of the art wet and, uh, dry facility. The council tax, we froze it for the first year. The second year, in accordance with my manifesto pledge, I clearly said for those earning, on low income, we'll freeze council tax. The 49,500, uh, pound threshold, uh, means that if people apply and they can demonstrate their income is below that, at or below that, they will not, the increase will not be passed onto them. The five resident hubs, the idea store, Watney Market, we have, we have, we have reopened it. Community safety, we have invested, uh, a lot of money. Uh, once we've finished the full recruitment, we'll have 72 peers on our streets. Uh, money in CCTV cameras, in control rooms. We want to see a safe borough for our, for our folks, people visiting the borough, living in the borough. Uh, and for our, our sisters and our mothers. Very important. The free home care will be delivered next, from next April. There are other stuff, capital projects, which are in the pipeline. I'm not going to go through all of them. There'll be another opportunity in the future, where, when I can list the projects, which you know, which are in the pipeline. But for today, uh, just in addition to what I've said, is that, you know, quarter two of this ambitious four-year strategic plan, the overall picture is positive. But I am not happy, nor is the executive, nor are you happy with just a ticks, just a green. We want to ensure, overall, that we are doing well. On a positive note, of the 56 strategic performance measures, 32 are green at the end of quarter two, up from 24 last quarter. Four previously red measures have improved to green. I'm not going to go through all of them, which you know already. Five previously amber measures have improved to green. And the key achievements are, uh, we want to promote healthier communities and reduce health inequalities. The council's be well leisure centers launched, uh, free swimming for women and girls aged 16 and over, uh, and for men aged 55 and over. The program has resulted in over 10,000 new membership for women and girls alone. And at the end of September, 2024, 71% of leisure center members were female. The results of this year's annual resident survey are positive for the council, with almost all perception ratings seeing statistically significant increases compared to last year. Residents continue to view Tire Hamlets in a positive light. Uh, 84% are satisfied with the local area as a place to live. And 90% believe people of different backgrounds get on well together in Tire Hamlets. There are challenges, uh, which you know. There are a number of red and amber measures in this report, which is disappointing. And, and corporate directors and the leading members know very well, uh, my sentiments, uh, sentiments. Uh, at the, uh, at the end of quarter two, uh, July to September, 2024, 56 performance measures are reported in seven categories as follows. Thirty two have met and exceeded their target green. Five are between target and minimum target amber. Unfortunately, four are below target red. Uh, one is missing data for quarter two. Ten are data only contextual information, uh, in the pack. Three are reported annually. One is reported termly. Of the four red measures, uh, uh, corporate doctors may want to come in. If I just point them out. Uh, they all matter to us. But one of them is very dear, uh, to me, uh, especially because of the vulnerability of the youngsters. It's the KP 1 0 21 percentage of education, health and care assessments completed within 20 weeks. Now, our youngsters are important to us. We see how under pressure our parents are. And I'm going to ask Steve to come in and do course on that, please. Yeah. Yeah. And, and we've had a chat, Steve, and you and the deputy mayor. Uh, the KP 1, uh, O 2, uh, O 26. We're doing well, but there was a technicality because of which becomes red. And, uh, I'll ask Steve to explain that. Percentage of young people that reoffend. KP 1 0 4 6 level of household recycling. I'll ask, uh, Simon to come in. But again, we have put in a lot of money in that area. A partnership with the community, with the schools, with the NGO organizations is in place. And it's, uh, education program is in place too. Uh, and we're quite confident that we will see and already, already experience an upward trend in that area. Uh, uh, then KP 1 0 5 4 percentage of tenants satisfied with the overall, uh, service. Uh, David is there and you know our views on that, David. And, uh, you are developing team to get that right. Uh, can I, I'm not going to go through each one of them. Uh, uh, each one of them. All I want to say is that we are the, the, the chief executive, the corporate management team and their executive. The lead members are very mindful that improvement is a continuous, uh, agenda endeavor. Uh, just because a matter is green, we don't take our eyes off it. Just because a matter is amber, we can't say we've done it. We've done it continuously. We've got to make sure that we are driving up performance. We're delivering, continue to deliver a high performing service to our residents. Those that are red, we've got to do our best to make sure they are improving quickly and rapidly. And this is not want of investment. We have put more money into, uh, the send service. We have put more money into recycling. We have more put more money into, uh, when it comes to young people, uh, and tenant satisfaction. We have put more money into more, more workers for our, whether the housing, uh, housing options team or the housing team generally. I'll ask Julie and other teams to come in, please. Steve, you want to come in on your, on your first one, please. Yeah. Two. Okay. The chair allows. I think we should take questions from members of the committee. If you're okay with that. And then what we'll do is, um, if the question hasn't come up, I'll come back and give you an opportunity at the end to come back on that. Because very likely it's been coming up in every single meeting when it, when it has come to performance. Members have been asking about this. So I'll allow them to, uh, ask the question in their own words. So, Halima, you want to go first? And then Amy next. Thank you, chair. Um, so mine is, mine is around the KP, KPI, uh, 021 about the EHC plan. I mean, assessments. Um, this is quite concerning because it's been up, been below, uh, target, uh, last quarter. And it is significantly low again. Uh, please, can you tell us what steps you are taking to address this as we have been told many times that it's been, uh, due to the lack of resources. Um, so just to understand what the, uh, the reasons are really. Thank you. Um, that was going to be my question. As you know, we, we've raised this at every time this comes because it is consistently in the red, unfortunately. Um, I realize it's a difficult one, but Halima was right. I think we're sort of told improvement is coming and we're still seeing it down there. Um, but, but, um, instead I'm going to ask about free school meals. So we had a bit of discussion about this last time that, uh, percentage of, uh, primary school pupils receiving free school meals was actually going down, which was a bit of a surprise to us. I think we had a discussion about a site visit, uh, because, uh, there's a bit of concern that this is coming, uh, from an issue of quality anecdotally, um, from residents. Uh, a lot of us as counsellors are being told that the quality of the food is poor and the children don't want to eat it. Um, so, has anybody got anything to say on that? Does anybody want to join us on a site visit to go and try some free school meals? I did try and tempt Councillor Ahmed last time, but I don't think he was interested. Um, but there's something not quite right, uh, so it would just be good to understand what's going on there. Um, should we let, um, them answer the question and come back? So there's two set of questions there. Can I, can I just touch on it? I'll ask, uh, corporate I should come in. Uh, like yourself, uh, Halima, I'm also concerned with, uh, the, the 20 weeks milestone. And I've made my views very clear. We have set aside quite, uh, substantial amount of money into the service, which was lacking. You know, to make sure, a want of resources that we're not failing our kids, we're not failing the vulnerable kids in our community. And I'll ask Steve to come in to explain how, uh, what kind of money has gone in and what the improvement plan is, please, if you can. On the, on the free school meals, I agree with you, Councillor Amy Lee. I've had kids tell me that the choice isn't good enough. Uh, they don't like, uh, some of the choice that's been put before them. Uh, and on particular days in some schools, it's the same thing again and again, which doesn't meet their needs or the cultural needs of some of the kids. And I've made that known to the lead member, uh, to the deputy mayor and to Steve. Uh, so I'm requesting that we talk to work with our schools to make sure the choice is much more extensive, uh, and that the take-up improves. Please, yep. The money is there. We're set aside to the schools. We want to see kids are taking advantage of that. Over to you, Steve. Please, yep. And, Chair, I don't know if Councillor Manon wants to comment as the scrutiny chair or leading a piece of work on scrutiny on school meals. Did you want to come in on that? Do you want to come in? Yeah. Thank you, Asma. Uh, since, uh, Amy, you raised the question on 17th of January next year, uh, I was going to invite all the ONS, uh, members to come in. There will be parents to be coming in on our, uh, council. Uh, we can talk about openly with the parents about the preschool meal and, and so on. So there's a stream line of work coming in January, February, leading to March. I'll update you, all of you, on, on an email on this. Unless you want to share anything else on top of that? Me and Steve have been working closely on that, with, uh, on, on the subject, uh, about preschool meal. I think, um, it's important to say as well that there is a bit of a dip in the data, uh, depending on the time of year. So we should see it recover, um, more in, in the winter. But I, like yourselves, I've heard some of the anecdotal feedback. So we do need to, um, as we've said, as part of that piece of scrutiny work, actually go out and see it ourselves and speak to young people, uh, to make sure we can improve the, the offer, uh, and get the figures back up. Okay, um, I know Councillor Chaudry has done some work around this, um, last year as well as part of, uh, the work plan here. And actually this is a really good exercise in the place that we are politically. This is one thing that we all agree on about getting right. And it's, uh, like the mayor said, it's not lack of resources. It's about making sure we get the, the sort of contracts right and what the children want. And we're happy to help and be part of that, um, that journey of improvement to try and see what it is that's going wrong and what the kids want. And I think that's a really good way for exec, if the mayor agrees, for the exec and this committee to work together in order to make sure we're able to provide the information and come up with some recommendations and suggestions. And I'm sure, Mr. Reddy, you'd appreciate that help. Absolutely. Absolutely. Very happy for, uh, for, uh, members to join in and so those visits. Um, just to also say there's been a bit of screening work done on the child healthy wage strategy. And some of that is linking across into the, uh, what's happening with school meals as well. So it's, it is captured in that action plan that we've had an update to our committee on as well. Right. The next set of questions. Can I take Councillor James King and then Councillor Abdi Mohamed? My question has been asked, actually. I'll just reiterate the point about the EHP, um, failures. Um, failures that last quarter when I raised it, it was a 44%. Now it's a 24%. So almost a, you know, 50% decrease in the same time. I think Steve, you asked the question for me last quarter where you said that there'd be a range of things, including training to reiterate the, um, importance of putting these in time, more resources being put in place. So if, uh, in answer to Halima's question, just talking about what has happened this quarter to address this problem. Um, and what are you going to do differently to tackle it? Councillor Mohamed. Um, thank you, chair. Um, I think leading off from what the mayor said about not taking an eye off the ball when it comes to green KPIs. And so I'm referring to, um, KPIs 16, 17 and 18 around youth service. So I think hopefully that the, um, exec director for children services is here. So as we move into, and the mayor spoke about, um, his changes to the youth service, how are we ensuring we're keeping the KPIs and the performance green? Because as we move to a new service, regardless of whatever it is and the political ambition around it, there's always problems in the short to medium term where, especially we've got commission services. So a fantastic service of spotlight, for example, in popular does some fantastic work and, you know, helps us achieve this kind of green. As we move to move it internal and the council delivering it directly rather than the commission. The worry I have is the medium, the short to medium term where I think there will be slippage. I think I saw an ad recently of hiring 75 new youth workers. So if all the staff aren't in place, it's just helpful to understand what the plan is around the short kind of medium term. Because that's where I think there will be people falling through the cracks. I'd like to take it directly from the corporate director. Yeah. Can I, thank you Councillor Mohamed. Can I, can I just say, uh, it's, we brought it in house. A lot of money has been set aside for the youth service because that's where we're young, young borough. Uh, we need an expanded. Uh, and I believe, I always believed in, and I did this when I was the leader of the council then, Subtangli Mayor and in-house youth service. However, we need to also work with our partners. We can't do this on our own. There are good, uh, volunteer organizations out there who also deliver, uh, good, uh, work with the youngsters. So our approach is a, yes, substantially it's an in-house youth service, but there is a element of it that will deliver commissioned work with those volunteer organizations. Uh, we want to make sure that, in fact, with the investment that's going in, uh, and, and, uh, the capital investment and the revenue investment, we should, should, we should see a much more expanded youth service. But I agree with you. We can't take our eyes off the ball. Youngsters gotta, they need to attend those sessions. They need to fill their peers. People are working with them and they need to engage with the service. Very important. Please, uh, Steve. Um, uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I think the, the reality is, as you said, that the current targets are being met, but we're rolling out a bigger service. So we will. And I think we mentioned earlier in the meeting about, uh, target setting. And, and certainly as the service rolls out, there's more investment, more places, more recruitment. We'll have to review those targets. So that's the first thing in terms of volume and capacity and, and make sure we adjust the targets to, to be really ambitious there. The other thing we're doing is that the, the, the, the, the quite basic measures at this stage. So we're working with the service also taking advice from national youth organizations around what information we want to collect and what targets we're going to set around that in terms of the quality of provision as well. So not only will the volume of service delivery and how we track that and what targets we set, but actually bringing in some additional measures as well. As well, listening to what young people say, that's all going to be part of the rollout. And just to support the point, uh, we've been really clear that, um, we'll be retaining some of the, uh, commission services, because as you say, some of their, their outcomes they deliver is really positive in the borough. So we've made a commitment and the mayor and deputy mayor's made a commitment that we'll keep a proportion of commission services. So I'm not quite sure either answered my question there. Sorry, I appreciate that. That's really helpful. And I think the commitment from the mayor was quite clear. I mean, I'd say throwing a tonne of money at you is not always a solution, but I think that's, that's an answer. I think my question to you is in the short to medium term where you said some commission services will remain, there'll be others that aren't. So how are we making sure children and young people aren't falling through the cracks in that period of upheaval where you're moving from commission based to partial commission based and, um, partial, uh, council based. So it's that period in the middle where I continue to worry about. And I think how I'm not sure I've got any reassurances from either answers about how we're catching that. So I think we're obviously we have the information from commission services about which young people are engaging. So we'll ensure that the offer about the in house services is made very clear to those young people and make sure that they're encouraged to attend. And I guess one of our primary drivers here is listening to the young people and listen to their views about what we're offering and delivering. And, you know, that's, that's, that's what's going to drive, uh, what we'll offer them. Hopefully we'll retain those young people that have been accessing a different service. Thank you. So can I bring in Councillor Manan and then Councillor Knightley, please? Okay. He didn't. Okay. Councillor Knightley. And then Councillor Charlie, did you put, have your hands up or you want to retract your case? Okay. Thanks. So, uh, my question is about, uh, KPI zero four four six, which is the recycling rate. Um, my particular question. So I have a question for the mayor. I didn't realize that the mayor was going to be attending today and we put submitted a pre-decision question, which is this, but if, if you're willing to answer it today, that would be fantastic. Um, and then a question for the officers. Um, so the question for the mayor is, um, we're obviously, um, the five million pounds investment is going to come to an end at some point, um, in the next few months. Um, how are you, um, prioritizing, um, what your, what to fund going forward? Um, and how are you thinking about the sustainability of the improvement plan? Um, and then the question for officers is, um, actually based on the report for cabinet tomorrow, there's a very concerning, um, point about our contract with Biwalt. Um, having a, um, a decrease in the tolerance for contamination. Um, what, what impact do you think that will have on our recycling rates? And also have we put in, um, contingency for, um, the costs that it might bring the council to have more contaminant, like a lower, have we thought about the cost? Okay. And I'm going to bring in Halima and then we'll take them both. Thank you, uh, chair. So mine is, um, around the recycling. Um, it's good to see that, uh, there's a lot of communication out there. Um, I've seen stuff, uh, on social media. Uh, just want to know, has there been an impact? Are residents engaging? Um, so yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll answer the first one and I'll ask, uh, Simon to come in on the recycling one, the impact. There has been an impact, uh, continues to be an impact. Uh, he'll come in detail. Can I say, uh, absolutely. Uh, absolutely. With the five million pound in this investment and the Wasting Improvement Plan, we want to get our streets, our estates to a certain level. Uh, and we're looking at how do we, how we sustain that. No good getting to that level, then we go back again. You know, it's about sustaining. But we don't have an infinite pot of money, uh, and, and, and to splash out. We've got a very, uh, sustainable council financially, but the good work has to continue. I just want to say that. And you will see, going forward, you will see some commitments, how we sustain the work. We're not there yet. It's going to take a few years and months, you know, months and years to get to a position that we're more or less satisfied. But we need to sustain that. I agree with you. You want to come in, please? Yeah. Um, thank you, members. Um, I suppose I should firstly apologise for my time, because I'm still on jewelry service, even from last week, and that continues. So, I would be in a suit otherwise, so accept my apologies. Um, we've done a presentation to, um, ONS, about three weeks ago now, um, where we gave an overview of, of, of the improvements in the service area. And one of those areas was, um, recycling. We are, we've got committed, um, to eight extra outreach workers. Um, dry recycling is going up, which is really good. Um, contamination levels are going down. Um, and our recycling rate is actually going up. It is, I think, is where I've got here. It was 15.38. It's now heading towards 19. Um, though it doesn't reflect it in this quarter's report, but it is actually going towards 19. We are seeing increases. And some of that's down to, um, the outreach. Some of that is down to the investment. Some of that is down to the social media work that we're doing. Um, but also the work we're doing with the RSLs and, um, other, other private landlords. So it's a combination of, um, lots of good things happening at once. But I can't get complacent because, you know, these things are variable. Um, and, um, we are working hard to ensure that we get as close as we can to the target that we set ourselves. So that's the first thing. There's this, your point of Bible, just the, the waste market is, is complex. You know that. Um, and it, you know, you're a very knowledgeable councillor of these waste issues. But the, the waste charges, be it landfill or, or incineration or recycling is, is, is, is vulnerable. Um, it's one of those things I always sort of spy to, to have our own waste transfer station, but that could be a long way off. Um, so we have factored it at the end to our budget. Um, the contamination levels, but I think actually, I believe we have. Um, the thing that we need to do though is get the contamination down, down, because that's, will save us money. Um, contamination is, is, is reducing. So that's a good thing. But, um, with the Biowaters contract, um, they are, they are harsh on us. Um, because it's, they're the only player in town, unfortunately, in, in this borough, or anywhere near East London. And it's your part of the East London Waste Authority. So it's a difficult one to manage. Um, but again, it gives an incentive to reduce contamination, which we are slowly doing. Thank you. Um, I'm mindful that the committee hasn't asked any questions around the budget monitoring. Councillor Ahmed, can I ask you to do a quick, uh, headline? And then if, after that, if committee members don't want to ask any questions, I can end it. Otherwise they might, this, you might help probe them. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Um, so the Q2 general fund forecast outturn position for the year is a forecast overspend of 18.4 million at the moment. Well, when the report was reported. And, uh, this position continues to be significantly impacted by the nationally recognized pressures in homelessness, adult social care, and SEND. Um, we also have, um, the underspends in Q2 somewhat mitigating the overspends, um, mainly from the Young Tower Hamlet services. Um, the forecasts will continue to be monitored, reviewed, and challenged, um, including focus on specific drivers and, uh, financial challenges in a planned and measured way. Um, and the DSG has a, uh, outturned forecast of, of overspends. A forecast of, of overspend of 2.7 million pounds, largely due to pressures in high needs block. The HRA has a overspend of 5.1 million pounds, um, which is a ring-fenced account. And this overspend, um, needs to be funded from the HRA general fund, um, general reserves. Um, on savings, uh, there is an 18.2 million pounds, uh, savings that has been reported, um, already achieved out of the 37.4 million pounds. 12.7 million pounds savings are on track, and 6.4 million pounds savings have some risks involved, but there is generally high confidence that it will be delivered, uh, with only 40%, which is, sorry, which is 40K, which is around 1% of the savings reported to have some delays. Um, I'll skip general fund for, um, the capital and HRA capital, which I believe would have been already noted in the report. Uh, I just wanna sort of highlight the, around the overspends. Uh, we have corporate directors here, um, who will talk to the strategies that have been implemented, um, to mitigate the overspends. Um, as lead member, and, um, I can reassure the committee here that, myself and the mayor, we hold weekly, um, star chamber sessions to, with departments to identify, um, and, uh, to, we go through a zero-based approach to identify how we can mitigate the savings, mitigate the, uh, overspends, to find the, uh, right strategies in place. Uh, that also doesn't help for future budgets, but it also helps, um, ensure that India's spends are under control. And this also helps departments to keep the pressure on that, that sort of, um, of forecast. Again, we say it's a forecast, which is an actual spend should come under control. Um, if we have a comparison with other local authorities, um, we are around the halfway mark, um, in terms of the overspends reported by 29, um, um, authorities out of the 30s that have already reported the forecast position at Q2. So, it's very important to understand that although we want to be, we want to be accurate in forecasting, but it's also, um, very crucial to be prudent to make sure that we have enough buffer to make sure that what we're reporting, um, is sustainable. But I just want to touch on one last point, that this time last year, we also did report an overspend, but we ended the year at three, 0.3 million under spending. So we will, I will request the corporate directors to talk on those three main areas, on how we're going to mitigate those pressures. But like last year, I'm confident that we, by Q3, we'll have a better position to report by the end of the year. Thank you. And taking into account settlements coming in a couple of days, settlements coming in from government in a few days, yep, which means hopefully some good news for the budget as well. Um, I'll hand over to Julie to sort of, um, give us a further update on the latest position. Um, yeah, so I think it's, it's always difficult, isn't it, timely reporting for you. So you're looking at a picture that officers sat there and drafted at the end of September, looking forward to the end of next March. But of course, we've got real time reporting into our Hamlets. So even though we haven't closed the period for quarter three yet, I and the team have a very good oversight as to what the position is. Um, and the audit committee, any of you that were at it, um, will see that they approved a windfall, um, at audit, which will eliminate the overspend on the HRA that's forecast. And in addition to that, uh, Abdul and I have been looking at these figures this morning, and I believe I can confidently tell you we will end the year, um, with at least 50%, probably more of that forecast overspend, not materialising. And we've got a risk reserve of 18 million pounds. So I just want to draw that attention to where we are today. The budget will be based on the Q3 position. Thank you. That's helpful. Any questions from committee? Yep. Okay. Councillor Manan and then Councillor King. Thank you, Chair. Uh, to say what the specific action will be taken as part of the zero, uh, based budgeting approach to mitigate overspend in sand area? And my second question is, how will the funding from the independent review of the overall sand transport service influence budget planning and operation efficiency? Uh, I can certainly take the first one. I might have to ask you to repeat the second. Um, so you're asking, uh, how will the zero based approach help us with mitigating with overspends? Um, well, the reality is some of the overspends will be mitigated because the new government will, as the council put out, actually put financing in that meets the pressures. We can't mitigate demand in a lot of those areas. And the three big pressures are demand led housing, adult social care, and special educational needs. Same as nationally. That doesn't mean we sit back and do nothing. We have to look at which areas in the council are underspending. So we allocate the money we have spare, which is the process that may have described to the right place, usually enabling us to fund investment, particularly for children's and adults in technology that will enable new ways of working, speedier processes for assessment. So, so what we do is we don't wait until, uh, a proposal. We don't wait until the new budget before we do it. If we can identify an opportunity to reduce costs, the members will take the decision to do that in year. Um, and that's how we mitigate some of those overspends. Could you repeat your second question, please? Influence budget and operational efficiency. So basically is, we do use a lot of agencies for taking children and so on. So, uh, uh, spending a lot of money on this. So, so what we do, we're quite prudent when we set budgets, which is why I think we emerged well in the best value reporting on finance. And the reason we're prudent is, if I can't see it and Abdul can't, can't see it, we don't count it, councillor. So yes, there is an independent review. Community transport, Steve and Simon are both engaged with that. It hasn't concluded. Those directors haven't been certain as to the savings that will likely be put forward. So we haven't included them as being banked. Does that help? Thank you. Uh, councillor King and then Jordan and Natalie. Thanks. I've got two questions from the HRA. First one about, could you give us more detail about what the section 20 notice, uh, write off, uh, for leaseholders is, um, how much is it? It's about 3.2 million pounds. It's quite significant. Um, and indeed as councillors, we all get details of, uh, leasehold charges that, uh, um, are disputed. Uh, we try and get to the bottom of them. And indeed, I'm aware of, you know, leaseholder, um, groups taking the council to court. So if you can tell us about that and give us reassurance or tell us what you're doing to get to the bottom of, uh, the way the council gets, um, uh, does its leaseholds and charges its leaseholds in a fair way. And then secondly about voids, what, can you give us more detail about what measures you're taking to tackle voids, which again, uh, in the housing, um, in, uh, housing, which has brought quite a lot of work. Um, large, um, overspend Maltingham Brewster house, which is in my ward, um, is cited as an example. Now there's 36 voids. I don't think they're all vacant voids, but there's 36 there. Um, and that project has been going on for years and years and it's every six months, it's pushed back another six months. So that would be, I'd love for you to tell me that you're going to get on top of Maltingham Brewster house project as a way of tackling voids in the first instance. But if you can give us more detail on what you're going to do to tackle voids to get on top of that overspend and indeed bring more council housing back into, uh, use quickly. Thank you. Oh yes, indeed. I am at our Hamlet's homes leaseholder. Yes. And I do, I do, uh, I do challenge my lease, not as, but it's not as bad as other leaseholders. Okay. Thank you. I want to take one more question. I'm going to go with Halima and then you can take them as a block. You don't have one now. Okay. It was Natalie. Um, you mentioned Steve, that there's a 6 million pound, um, pot for, um, the best value improvement plan. Um, where is that coming from? And it's a huge amount of money. Is it reasonable? Can I take the housing questions first from Councillor King and then we'll, then I'll let you come in. Yeah. So on, I think the question about tackling voids is a really important one. So, um, in, in terms of general voids, when properties become available, we have sort of an end to end turnaround period. And as part of the repairs, end to end service review, we are looking at that, how we maximum, maximize efficiency is how we look at the lettings part of it as well, not just the repairs to the property. So that it's available, um, to, to that. So that is very much part of the overall kind of review of the repair service. Um, and we are really focused on it. Obviously the example that you gave is, um, related to a major works, um, process around the sort of strengthening works to those blocks, which is why we've decanted them. Um, those examples are rare, but we obviously have to get on top of that by minimizing the amount of time that we've got properties decanted by really kind of, um, ensuring that the projects run as, as quickly and as smoothly as possible. As you've alluded to, there have been some delays with that project, um, which have, have impacted the length of time that we've had devoid properties. So I think moving forward, um, what we need to do is make sure that we're, um, getting the specifications for those projects spot on from the start and that we're managing the program really tightly so that those decants are, are absolutely minimized where we have to do them. Um, in terms of the, Julie, did you want to comment on the leasehold, um, loss and expense issue? So the, uh, section 20 notices in question, Councillor, where section 20 notices that are uncollectible because technically they were non-compliant at the point at which they were issued, which is when Tower Hamlet Homes was still established. So our job, when it comes through in finance and write-off to a finance decision, is to look at the legitimacy of the collectability of it because it's carried as an asset. And in consultation with the service, we know that, that, that group of section 20 notices were not compliant. But can I ask, were there a series of small or medium-sized section 20 notices or was that one or maybe section 20 issues that were not compliant? I, I, I can come back to you with the detail, but I can tell you that the review encompassed a whole, a whole series of section 20 notices because we wanted to make sure that, that we weren't carrying an asset that wasn't collectible. But I can come back and tell you how many specific properties for where I don't have it at hand. Okay. Um, six million pounds. Where does it come from? So the money for, just to be clear about what it's for, I suppose, first of all, so we mustn't forget that we have, we pay for the intervention. So the, uh, we're, we're, we're led to believe that the likely cost, we don't cost for each envoy is about 1,500 pounds a day, um, maybe slightly less for the second envoy. Uh, we anticipate them being here two, perhaps three days a week. Um, so that's a substantial sum. Uh, we also are paying the lead members of the, the transformation assurance board who will receive a sum. That board needs to be serviced. Um, so we'll be looking at recruiting additional staff to do that. There's additional cost in relation, which was already committed actually in relation to additional scrutiny, resource and function and support, which I've reported back in the past. Um, we also will be taking on additional capacity to address issues with the LGA around political engagement and cultural change. So the money's in the, is in the budget, 4 million pounds in the first year, because there'll be more startup costs. I think one and a half million pounds in year two and 500,000 pounds. I think Julie can give you probably give the exact figures. Do I consider it to be value for money? I am hoping that if we move at the pace with which we, we aspire to move at, and we, all of the things that we discussed earlier on, we will not have intervention for three years. We'll be considered to be an exemplar authority before that, and not perhaps all of those costs will be incurred. The main point there though, is making sure that the improvements that we introduce are mainstream. And that may require all of that funding, it may not. At the moment I consider it the most appropriate way forward, because we have been, concern has been raised by the government that we don't have capacity to deliver our improvement agenda. And I need to make sure that we do. Thank you. Um, Jayad Bhai? You wanna? So I've got a, a pretty much a, a weird question. Um, and I don't think anybody could really answer that. But it, it, it needs to be asked. And, uh, only reason because I've come across so many families, and there's one in every, uh, ten families that I know of personally, that, uh, relating to the, to the Sen, uh, area, is there, there seems to be an increase of children with autism, uh, or, you know, within the spectrum. And what concerns me is, is it, I don't know the numbers, uh, but I've got a feeling that the number's quite high in Tower Hamlets, and it's increasing in other boroughs, in boroughs which have, uh, uh, poverty-stricken or low-income families. And the question is why? And that's been bugging me for a long time. Why? Is it something we're eating, we're drinking? And I know there's a lot of science, uh, science behind this. But nobody's actually answered the question as to why this is happening. And is, is, uh, is the council thinking about this? I mean, yes, there's demand increasing. Is there, is there any, uh, evidence to support what possibly could be the problem? Or are they looking into, you know, this, because I've, I've been getting questions. I don't have the answer. So, I wonder, Steve, if you can help me. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think it's, it's really clear, uh, looking at the national analysis that we're starting to see a rise in demand. Um, some of it is also linked to earlier diagnosis and, you know, quite rightly more investment in early intervention in early years and earlier diagnosis. And I was, uh, in a special school when I'm on a visit this week and I was talking about, um, what, where they see young people in terms of special school and mainstream. And some of, so anecdotally, some of the, the feedback from some of the staff who do outreach from special school into mainstream reported that because the autism diagnosis is happening a lot younger, um, young people are getting more support and being supported more in mainstream education, which is positive. And I guess one of my broader feedback around this indicator, which is Educate Health and Care Plans is that there are other measures of how we're performing as an area, both the council, schools and the health services for, for children and families, which are more positive. So for instance, there's a greater proportion of children on a plan in mainstream education, which is really important about being more inclusive. We can also report that children on the education, health and care plan in terms of their outcomes from school, in terms of key stage four, for instance, and GCSE and other, um, we compare much more positively to other, other areas on that. Um, but fundamentally your question is, is about demand. And I think as a, as a country we're seeing that and in terms of there are demographic differences in terms of the types of needs across different parts of the population and different demographic backgrounds. But I think the, we're seeing nationally in terms of that analysis, we have to do something radically different because the reforms that were implemented in 2014 don't seem to be working in terms of managing the demand. And also some of our children and families aren't receiving the support that they need really. So, um, my, my question wasn't really around the support and the managing the demand. My question is more about why this, the increase, why it's happening. And, and that's why I, I, uh, prefixed it by saying it's a weird question. Um, because nobody can answer that. But it is. Do you mean the number of young people that are diagnosed with autism? Yes. Yes. Do you want to take that away? I think you probably don't have the answer for that right now. Is that okay? Yeah, yeah. We can definitely come back. Is there any other question for members? If not? Okay. Two more here. Can I take councillor? Who? David, can you set your mic off? Sorry. Can I take councillor Khan first and then I'll take councillor Mohamed? Thank you, Chair. Uh, my question is brief. Actually, I've got two questions. I've asked, uh, is there a gap between average weekly rent and rate? And the amount we can recover from the housing benefit? Uh, is the council taking any, any action to reduce the gap? It's question one. And question two is that, uh, resource overspend focus increase from 0.7 to 1.2 million in quarter two. What are the key factors driving the increase? Will the direct to be expected to mitigate in the overspend in the, uh, financial year? End of the financial year. Thank you. Okay. So specifically in relation to... One second. Can I take councillor Mohamed's question? Thank you, Chair. Um, it's a question to the director, uh, call the director, sorry, for housing and region. Um, I take the point out in the report that it's 11 million overspend and that's mainly down to homeless and services, which I think has been said is across the country and especially acute in London. Um, given that the council has just self-referred itself to the regulator, I mean, which clearly indicates that something is currently wrong and there's a problem in the housing service. Like how are we accounting for potential overspend in other areas, um, in future given, yes, homeless services is one point, but there's likely to be other costs incurred and how we factor that in. Shall I come in on that one first? Okay. So the, the 11 million overspend is basically largely in relation to homelessness, um, services, which is not related to the self referral. The self referral is related to obviously our own housing stock and our role as a landlord, basically. And, um, the budget, the budget provision in respect of that is the HRA position. Let me clarify. I'm saying the 11 million overspend majority, I agree is homeless services. And that's not what the council's making. That's a London problem. That's a whole country wide problem. It's been widely acknowledged. That's not me taking a pop shot. That's not me. It's just a fact of it. Uh, and we acutely have an issue in town hamlets. My point is there is already an 11 million overspend because of that. Again, not all of our making, but given that we're about to potentially go through some changes of housing option, because we referred ourselves to the housing or the regulator, which means we need to make some changes. How are we factoring in the second part of that, which is potential changes that we need to see, uh, and kind of ensure to make sure there's a good value for our residents? Yeah. Well, I mean, just to be clear, the, um, the review of housing options, which is, um, uh, is, is, is not related to what we've referred ourselves to the regulator for the review of housing options, I think is necessary for a number of other reasons, which is related to trying to, to do what we can within town hamlets to drive down the cost of, um, our homelessness, um, services. So, um, and, and also to get better options for families, frankly. So thinking about the type of accommodation we provide. So getting, getting people out of B&B accommodation, obviously, um, and into, um, better quality accommodation in, in, in, in the private sector, which has cooking facilities and those sorts of things that people won't have in B&B, um, but can also reduce the cost for us. So one of the things we're doing is we're looking at, um, particularly the procure, the procurement of property and really stepping up the amount of resource that we're putting into that, trying to make sure that we are procuring property in the areas where the gap between the LHA rate and the rent is lowest. So that's a really key focus for us, um, to, to drive down the cost, for instance. And that's something that we're doing today in the town hall. We had an event for landlords, um, which was really well attended. Um, and that isn't just landlords and tower hamlets, but it's, it's sort of landlords within the kind of, within London and, and the Southeast. Um, and, and, and again, particularly focusing on the areas where we think we can get the best value for money, um, given the position that we're in and hoping that that can have an impact on reducing the cost of that service. Julie, is there anything you wanted to add to that? Do you want to? Do you want to? No, just, just to make it clear that David's right. The, the, the two housing responsibilities are completely separate. Homelessness general fund, the bit we've referred ourselves to the regulator for is what was Tower Hamlets homes, our own stock. So that the homelessness issue will not come in scope in any way of the regulatory review. That doesn't mean that you're not right. And we do need to do some things around that. I, I take the point. No, we disagree with that point. Do you, I'll be quite clear then. Do you expect the remediations or the change that needs to be made from the regulator and improvements that needs to be made? Do you expect that to be an incurred cost from that? So, so basically some, one aspect of the referral is to do with, um, upgrading our properties, stock to the health and safety, um, fire safety regulations. What if we don't meet them and there's a bunch of works that we need to do and we need to do them quick, which has financial implications. How do we plan for that as a council? Have you thought about it? The robustness of the department taking a big cost like that. And it's happened in the past to other councils and it could happen to us. So it's better to be safe than sorry. It is council. And I apologize. I misunderstood. Uh, yes, there will absolutely be costs associated with remedial actions. Um, they all sit in the HRA. They are nothing to do with the 11 million overspend, which is totally to do with the general fund and one can't subsidize the other. What are we doing about it? You will see as scrutiny an HRA business plan come forward to you. It's the second step in the budget process. We set the rents, then we develop the business plan that shows you how much we're planning to spend. For those of you, I think that did participate in that training session, we looked at how much we're going to be spending on all of those remedial works across all the 30 years in the plan and how we're going to fund it. So you will see that. And that has to be sustainable for the regulator to give David endorsement that that's a sustainable plan that keeps home safe. So yes, we will be doing that. And yes, you will see the detail as part of the budget, but no, it isn't part of the 11 million. And we don't know yet. Um, so the clarity comes when we have the review done. Yep. I mean, it just say, I mean, what comes out of the regulatory inspection will be important, but more generally, you know, we are even before we knew the regulator was going to do an inspection, we were already looking at investing in this area because of the, you know, changing regulatory landscape, the new building safety regulations, and already planning to put more money into this and to catch up with the position that we find ourselves in. Thank you. Um, I feel like we've forgotten what Councillor Khan's question is. Do you want to ask it again? And I'll ask you and that that will be it for this. Is the council taking any action to reduce the gap? That's the one question. And second one is like, in quarter one, uh, resource will be spending, uh, 0.7 million mentioned in quarter one. Quarter two is 1.2 million. Is there, is the mitigations end of the year? Finally, are it to be quick? What's the mitigations? Thank you. Can I also get Councillor Choudry to quickly come in and that will be the last of questions. Thank you, Chair. My question to, uh, David here. Uh, there's a lot of concerns with leaseholders, uh, that the leaseholders, what they pay per year. Last year, year before it was 4,200. Uh, I'm talking about Tarramirat Homes leaseholders. It has gone up by almost eight or 900 pounds to 5,100. That's the first question. Second one, I think you mentioned earlier, the buyback scheme. Is there anything, any figures you can give us how much we have bought or how much is in the pipeline? And, uh, obviously it will help us obviously with the homelessness. People can stay within the borough. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So, should I tell them and Julie might want to supplement me on the rent, but the question is a good one. There is a gap between what we can charge, particularly, um, for the, for temporary accommodation, um, and, and what we can recover. Uh, what we can recover is fixed at the local housing allowance rate from 2011, which varies from area to area, so it depends where the property is, um, and there is a gap. And one of the things I alluded to earlier about what we're doing to minimize it is we try to go to the areas where that gap is lowest, because that obviously has the reduced financial impact on us as an authority. Um, we are also heavily involved in lobbying government on this point with every other borough, because the, if that gap can be closed, it will help everybody, um, who, who is in this, um, space. We are also looking at, um, you know, the different forms of accommodation as well, trying to get out of the really expensive hotel and bed and breakfast accommodation, particularly for families. And we've had some success in kind of, um, shifting that. The reality is, though, that if we hadn't done those things, we would have an even bigger overspend because of the pressures that, that, that we're seeing, including increased demand. We've got 11% increase in demand on last year, uh, for these services. And then we've seen a, uh, uh, a real kind of increase in terms of the cost of accommodation because of the market. Um, so all of those factors are, um, playing through, um, in terms of leaseholders. Um, yes. I mean, uh, obviously for, uh, there have been an increase in, in, uh, charges, obviously things that energy costs have had a real impact on that. So just like we've all seen a big increase in our domestic bills that also affects things like, um, energy and communal areas. It affects things like communal heating systems and all of the rest of it. So that I think has been the biggest driver for increases, but we've seen inflationary pressures generally, which would probably pass the worst of that now because inflation has, um, died then. But we've certainly seen those, um, increases, um, hit, hit those, those charges. Um, you're quite right that we have a buy back program, um, and, um, we are buying back X, Y to buy properties in particular. Um, and we are also looking at opportunities to purchase section 106 units and, um, private sector blocks where those become, um, available. And, um, both Julie and I have been signing a steady stream of, um, of, of buybacks of lease order properties over the last, um, couple of months. And hopefully we will see that feed through. We've got capacity, um, to buy up to 200 properties as part of that program in terms of the funding that we've got. David, I would be very happy if you could provide us with some, um, references, how much you have bought and how much is in the pipeline. Obviously, I think the, if I remember some time ago when we had that meeting, 600 million was allocated for the buyback scheme, if I'm not wrong, I think. Or is that too much? We can, as a committee, we'll officially request more information on that. Yeah. Can I get Halima to come in? Thank you. She's got one last question and it'd better be the last one. Yeah, it's a quick one. Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh, just to declare, I am a lease holder. Just to jump onto what, uh, council has just, uh, talked about the service charge. Is there any explanation as to why, um, the building insurance has gone up significantly over the last couple of years and it tends to be increasing year by year? Thank you. Um, I'm not an insurance expert, so maybe, maybe, maybe Julie can help, but this is a why I do know from my own experience of having home insurance. This is not just an issue that's impacting social housing landlords. It's an issue in the insurance sector generally that we've seen a lot of, um, cost escalation there, so I think it's all related to the same inflationary pressures which have impacted things like energy, but I'm, I'm looking to Julie to see if you're more of an expert than I am on insurance, but I can, we can come back to you in more detail if that's helpful. Yeah. Thank you. And they're also not related to the quarterly budget, uh, report. So, yeah, um, thank you for that. Thank you, members, for, um, for your questions. It will be interesting when you come back in the new year because you're going to have the settlement come in. You've got new budget setting program. We kind of understand it's been a tough 14 years, but there's a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel. There's the devolution paper came out yesterday, which shows some hope about how much power the London mayor's going to have. And coming back to a point I made at Housing Subcommittee, um, about being proactive and asking for things and sharing the evidence here in Tower Hamlets, I think this is a really good time for us to be, to be doing that and putting out experiencing, experiencing with the London mayor as to what we need. And everyone's going to be fighting for their borough. And I just hope our boroughs fighting for our fair share for our residents when it comes to this. And Council Ahmed, thank you for coming in. And Julie, looking forward to the budget in the new year and how that looks and got my fingers crossed for everyone that it's a good year. Thank you. Right. I'm going to move on. Julie, you're staying. Uh, Stephen, are you staying for this one? Is it perfect? Thank you. So we're going to move on to our, uh, last piece of, um, agenda here. It's the Home Care Procurement Contract Award Process Update. This paper aims to set out to explain the reasons behind the officers' decisions to not award the Home Care Contract as agreed by Cabinet on the 11th September 2024. We'll look at this item in two sections as there are confidential elements. So we'll take the published, public element of the item first, and then we'll look at the confidential aspect offline. We will then resume, then I would like to actually end the meeting before we go into the private session. So I'll end the meeting and we won't be coming back. But for the public, I just want to be transparent and just put down a clarification as to why we'll be going into a private session. So, question chair, is the lead member joining for this section? Because they probably should be. Okay. I, I, I did actually, um, meet with the chair before the, before this. We spoke about this. There's the lead member isn't joining because it was an officer decision that you are looking at, that you are looking at. There was no political. So, the lead member for this is for procurement, or adult health social care, that's the, um, lead member you're talking about. Um, Julie's very clear that this is an officer-led decision, and this was delegated to officers. Um, you may, we may, you may question that, and you can do that with Julie when the questions come to the, um, I think that's a public part that, you know, I'm sure you'd be happy to answer that. And if need be, as a committee, when we're ready to do this publicly for the next part, because it's going to come back in January, we can ask the cabinet member to join. But as of now, we're asking why are we in this, why are we in this place now? That's the, that's the part we're doing today. And the next part is how do we move forward? I'm happy to take the concerns and whatever concerns you give us is what we will, as a committee, is what we will share with the department. And we're happy to ask for the lead, the reasoning behind the lead member not being here. Sorry, Chair, just to be absolutely clear of what Councillor Lee is saying. So, when this came last time, and I wasn't here, I've watched it since, the lead member did make clear, the cabinet member made clear, his absolute faith in this process and this, the way it was done. There were serious questions to be asked about the questions that lead member and the administration asked. Take, it's a fair point about the procedure point, or the procurement is an office decision, fine. But that lead member, the administration said they had faith in this process. So there's questions to be asked about that. And that's the important bit. Okay, there is. Can I just say something? There is a political question, which is what you go back to as to the lead member having faith in the process. And you can ask how he's had oversight, how he's been keeping an eye on the process. Absolutely. But that, that opportunity hasn't gone away from you. Does it have to be today? Is, does, do you have a justification to say it has to be today? Because the process is, this is the beginning. This is a point of putting a marker down to say, we are here today. Back to the same agenda in January to discuss in public. I, I said in the preemie that there were questions to be asked about this that weren't just about what's in these pink papers. Okay? So I totally get Julie's point. She's absolutely right. It would be inappropriate if he was involved in that decision making. And you are 100% correct. However, I have questions about the impact of this on residents, which should be heard by our residents. We were told last time that any delay in this process would harm our most vulnerable residents. He's responsible for that. Not officers. Officers aren't responsible for that. He's the lead member. So I just, I just do not agree. If he wanted to leave for this section, okay, that's fine. But he should be here for this bit. That's, that's, that's my, that's my. I can't. Yes. Can someone. I'm not 100% agree with Amy, but I think he should be here to hear what we're going to say. Yeah. Because it is, at the end of the day, it's going to be his portfolio. So regardless of whether he's saying anything like this, he knows what we're discussing. Because he's not here to, what we're going to discuss, he's not going to hear it. This is where I'm coming from. At the end of the day, he's going to be, eventually going to go into his portfolio. So what we're going to discuss today, he's not going to get here to hear what we're talking about. Yeah. Sir Chaudhary. Thank you, Chair. I think we've, I think I'll go with your view. We will hear from the officers here tonight. And obviously we have the chance to sort of have the lead member in Jan. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Just to clarify, that's not my view. I get to facilitate this meeting and I get to say how this meeting is run. I cannot force what decisions are made from the exec. The reasoning behind this, the cabinet member not being here today, you've heard, and you can ask, you can ask him this question again at the January meeting. So I don't, I agree, I see where you're coming. You've already done that. Yeah. Counsel Lee. So there's, let me finish. This might reassure you. This might reassure you. There's three things here. Firstly, the opportunity hasn't gone away. So there's a January meeting that's going to substantially be in public. It's not a private session. So you will get to ask the cabinet member questions around this. You will, you have a right to ask him if he felt reassured about the process before. You can ask him how he feels now. That's, that's on you. Like I'm happy for me to do that. That's the first thing. Second thing is the minute will reflect what you've said in your view and you're forgetting I get to represent all of you at cabinet tomorrow and I get to say this. So if this is your view, I'm happy to put that to the cabinet tomorrow. But we have to make use of what we have now and I'm conscious it's very late. We've got officers here. If we can move to the public part of the meeting and then we'll do the private session afterwards. Councillor King, is it on this? Yeah. Was the lead member invited to this session? No, he wasn't invited to this session. That's a bit different then. That's on the committee to invite the lead members, although it should be a given. Yeah, but we should be specific in inviting and knowing who we want. Do you want to explain that, Afazul? So the lead member was not invited to the committee because we understood it was an officer decision. Can you hear this so you'll understand where it's going from? The lead member wasn't invited to this meeting because we understood it was an officer decision so officers were attending to explain this. But as I think the chair has indicated, we do have a follow-up report in January about the next step and we'll ensure the lead member is invited to that meeting. And also I think it's, can we hear the report first and it might help put some of this into context and then you can decide what you would like me to report tomorrow at our cabinet. So it's best to hear the full picture and then you get to do that. So can I move? Yes, Councillor Munan. Sorry, is there any particular reason, I know it's an officer decision, but is there any particular reason that lead member was not invited even to oversee? So we just explained this, our officers were told this is an officer led decision, this decision was delegated to officers, it didn't have a political side to it that needed answering so he wasn't invited. Yes? We have enough said in it and I'm not going to bring the member back again because with your permission he had to leave. You said, like, you have said that he can feel it to go, he's gone and the officer said that he wasn't. No, that's not the lead member, the lead member is Kibria. Oh, sorry, thank you about that. Okay. But still the officer has said that because he was, he will be available for next meeting, this is for the co-official report and decisions, then let's hear from the officers, if we think in the next meeting we'll ask that question to the lead member. And there's a part of this that I think, if you can think about this as a committee please, is the fact that officers have said to us that this is a decision that didn't have any political involvement, so let's see this, let's hear this and obviously we haven't invited the cabinet member and you're saying the cabinet member should attend as an observer, this is a bit difficult because the protocol as of now is that cabinet members come and they report to this committee. They engage, they don't come to be observers here. And if we were to have that, that isn't to say we couldn't ask members to, you know, come and hear some of our views and what we have to say, but we've not asked for that as of yet. If we want to do that in the future, that's something that we can change and we can discuss. He's absolutely going to be invited for the next one because that's an official report that comes back about decisions and how they want to go about things going forward. Is any of your questions time sensitive that they need answering now and not later? I'm happy to ask them tomorrow at cabinet and I'm happy to represent your views in cabinet. Can I just propose that we move on now, but can I just reiterate that the point that I'm making is we're not just here to talk solely about a process, we're here to talk about the impact of that process. That's the point that I'm making and that's his role, not officers' role. But can I just propose that we move on because it's late and I said 10 minutes ago, let's move on. Okay. Right. Moving on. Julie, can I ask you to do an introduction, but can you introduce it as per the public guidelines? And then when we move into the private sessions, you may want to do another introduction. Okay, so I'll try and be succinct. So, as set out, I think it's important to say this was a significant procurement, as you know, and constituted 143 bidders. And whatever the outcome, there were going to be bidders that were not happy. Those that won thought they should have won more. Those that lost thought they should never have lost. And those that didn't get anything thought that they should have got something. So, when you change the way in which you deliver it, and you affect that many bidders, every authority, every adult social care will get challenges. I want to put that in perspective. And if I were a bidder, you've got a lot to fight for. So, there's a process that allows them to do that. Secondly, it's important to understand three clear roles, which I think, Councillor Lee, will help address your concern. Members' role in this, and I was here when the portfolio holder came, is to ensure that the specification for the service, they work with officers, they sign off the specification, the geographical approach that you can see set out, sign off the timetables. All they never do is get involved in the process. And when they took the decision in Cabinet, which was what was called in here, they took that decision based on the tender prices that had been submitted. When officers came to do that, there were several issues. One, we reported quite openly that there were a number of challenges, and there always are. in procurements like this. Two, the ability for any of those tenders, through no fault of their own whatsoever, to meet the original tender price, had been rendered impossible. And that's because the NI, not the NI increase, the NI threshold cap at £5,000, affects low paid sectors like social care more than anybody else. That was not the suppliers' issues, but that is a value for money issue from the Council's perspective. The next thing I want to make clear is who does what, what are the respective roles, so that when we can understand why was it that we took the decision that we took not to implement a decision taken by Cabinet and supported by you. There are two sets of roles. One is procurement. I am the accountable officer to you for procurement. I am not responsible for what went on, but I am accountable to all of you for it being conducted properly. In terms of procurement, they are responsible for the process, they are responsible for, these are the rules you must follow, here is the scoring and how you must do it. Procurement do not make any of the scoring decisions. They do not award points, they do not evaluate the tenders. That is around the service. So the service are the ones that evaluate the tenders and determine the decisions. So they are three very separate roles. One is around the design, the specification and the formal decision to spend because it was a major decision, it was a significant amount of money. Members, the framework rules by which procurement had to be followed, procurement process, and the outcome, the decisions that were concluded as a result of following that process, which are service based. And the last thing to bear in mind is members, all of you, and cabinet, accepted the officers' recommendations in full when they took the decision and when you supported that decision. And so it was delegated to officers to go away and implement those decisions. When we looked at implementing those decisions, we have to take things on balance. Yes, we had a number of challenges. We always do. But in addition, we had a situation where there was a significant value for money pressure. This was not a small contract. It was £162 million with a significant amount of bids. None of those bidders could have honoured the contractual price that had gone in. And the third element, and we were open and honest about it, was the specification that members had agreed had been designed with the input of a previous director of adult social care. And a new director of adult social care, I think, to be fair to Georgia, she'd been here about two weeks when this determination, this recommendation, so she had no involvement in that team decision-making process whatsoever. So when you added all those three things together, the conclusion I reached, and I based that on legal advice as well, in terms of value for money, affordability, was it was not in the council's interest to make the award. And I want to be quite clear, that is not because the council conceded in any way any of the challenges that were mounted. It's because if you mount a challenge, the act of going to court, whether you win or not, comes to your point, councillor Lee. The act of going to court activates an injunction that prevents the council, for however long, from doing anything at all. So looking at a number of challenges, and I've set them out for you, the affordability issue, and the consequence of having an injunction that we didn't lose, but that simply froze and made us unable to move forward in any way. All those three culminated in the decision not to award the contract. And as you can see, I've got somebody from legal here, the council that goes to procure a service is under no obligation to award it. The council that goes to procure a service takes everything into account, and we did. And one of those significant changes, the most significant, took place after Cabinet and yourselves had taken the decision that you did. So, Cabinet were not in possession of that information, you were not in possession of that information, and we all said we would make the awards based on officers' recommendations. And that's the picture that this presents, and I'm happy to answer any questions on that. Just for clarity, for all members and for the public watching, can you just do a little bit of a rundown as to how we go? So, May 2022, we have a new mayor elected. There's a priority to redesign how this service looks, correct? So, you can talk us through the political, because from 2022, this service has been asked to be changed. The service has been asked to change, and it had political priorities. So, explain to us, and then explain to us how the political aspect then leaves, then it becomes officer delegation. So, I think it will be helpful for members to be able to differentiate that too. Can you please start from May 2022, if possible? I can. I think it precedes May 2022. So, there is a timetable set out in your report on page 76. If it goes back even further, great. So, you can see this contract was procured in 2016, and it tells you the terms of the contract. So, in 2020, the contract was extended. In 2021, it was extended again. A second time in 2021, a further extension was granted on a contract that only had an initial 3, plus 1, plus 1. So, by the time, in June 21, actually, the procurement for this was launched. And that's correct, because that original contract term was out of time in 2021. In 2022, the corporate director, and I try never to say this, councillor, I wasn't here, but I can look back and tell you that the process was the procurement had started in 2022. Redesigning that service was a matter for the then corporate director. And that redesign, that specification of how we ensured adult social care met those future needs on that geographic design began. But the procurement process around this didn't start in 2022. That redesign was a corporate priority, or was it a political priority? I don't know the answer to that, councillor. Thank you. Yeah, carry on. So that you can see where the service design redesign kicks in. It's a huge service to redesign. All the professional team would have been involved in that, although George is not able to comment, as I'm not. The decision then was in 2022, a procurement was collapsed, in other words, didn't continue. I have no information as to why that was. It was June 2022, early August it was paused. And I think it was paused, and then they looked at, usually that happens if the bid submissions aren't meeting the criteria. And neither one of you at that point were in the council? No. No. Okay. No. And so the point at which, and I've set everything out here for you, the point at which I hold accountability to you, and I'm not dodging that accountability in any way, shape or form, was actually on the date the tenders were submitted, which was the 4th of September, which was my first day at work here in the council. The evaluation start was four days later. And we can look in part two of the process at some more of that detail. But my obligation to you in terms of the process, personal accountability to you began four days. Well, on day one of my taking up my post was the 4th of September. And the tender process evaluation with the adult social care team began four days later. Does that help? It does. But seeing as you haven't been here long enough, the idea was you explained, because you've said that there's no political involvement, and this is officer-led decision and delegation. I wanted to understand how that journey, so the journey, how it went from having involvement and then not having involvement, and then that would help members here understand so they know how to ask you questions. Okay, so at the point in September when the tender evaluation process concluded at an officer decision, they pull together all that information, they go through a moderation, there were two moderation panels involved in this, actually it was the second one in February. When they conclude that, they then pull all the information together, they make their recommendations, and those recommendations are picked up by members, they accept officer's recommendations, or they don't accept officer's recommendations. And in this case, I wasn't at the meeting, but I know Georgia was at the meeting, and I am absolutely convinced that all of the officer's recommendations were accepted. And that is what was reported to Cabinet, called in by yourselves, and it is that process that the member did assure you he had confidence in, and he had absolutely no reason not to at that point. In the same way none of you had any reason not to appoint you, you had officers, I was here giving you assurance. Okay, members questions, Councillor Amy Lee, Councillor Cain, Councillor Mohamed, anyone else? Okay, round of threes. This is the public part. I am a little bit confused, because I think what I have just heard you say is that one of the reasons why we decided not to go ahead with this was due to the fact that Georgia yourself, you were very new when this started, and it was about the fact that this had been essentially designed by somebody who had been here previously and wasn't here anymore. But what I am confused about is that in the previous meeting we were told that Georgia yourself being brand new was one of the reasons why it couldn't be scrutinised and it had to go through super quickly. So I just don't, I don't understand why it was okay then, and it was okay to go to cabinet and be agreed. What happened between, because you've just explained to us the difference between the service side and the process side, and I totally understand that. So what I don't understand is what happened between then, when it was okayed, and the moment that we decided that that was a reason why we weren't going to go ahead with it. I don't understand what changed, because that's not about national insurance or these issues which we're going to discuss, so I don't understand from a service side what changed. I'm confused. I'll come into that, come in. So the initial decision, which was, went to cabinet, I was involved in the decision to say, yes, let's proceed, I'd come in. I think we went to cabinet five days after I'd walked into the organisation. And I think from my perspective, having just heard the history of where we'd been from 2022, I was keen that we moved this along and actually procured a new home care service. That's what I wanted. So I came in and said, look, I'm a new corporate director. I know there's a bit of history. I don't want us to delay anymore, so if we can, let's try and get this to cabinet so we can move this forward. And I think what Julie's actually then explained is the landscape changed in terms of the legal advice that we got around the challenge and the best value and the concerns around best value in terms of national insurance. The fact that I was new is not a decision for us to abandon the procurement. From my perspective... That is kind of what was just said. No, I think there might be a misunderstanding that my walking in was not a reason for the abandonment. I'm sorry, Julie. Can I clarify? So my reference to the corporate director being new and not being involved in the original procurement was at the point at which we knew those services could not deliver on the basis of the tender prices submitted, which we absolutely knew. One second thing comes into play and that is if you know that at the point you were designing this service, would you have designed the service that way? And that's my point about we had a new director and her paper that then came to you clearly stated she would take the opportunity to do a review. So I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, but that was the connection. Can I quickly come in and ask the committee a quick question? It's 9.06. Are you happy for me to extend the meeting up until 9.30? And then I'll check again with you. You don't need to worry about it until 9.46. The meeting started at 6.46. We've got three hours. The meeting started at 6.46, so you're able to sit for three hours. At 9.46 is the point at which you then need to extend if you're still sitting at that. I have got a note I will be reminding you about. Okay, so 40 minutes, and this includes both sides, yeah? Both public and private. Okay, so Amy, you've done your question. Anything else? I just want to say that it does feel a little bit like I want to bang my head against the wall because I think that some of this stuff, I appreciate that some of it couldn't have been anticipated, but I'm pretty sure that we did sort of sit here and say, well, why don't we wait to see what the government does? I'm pretty sure that was one of the main cruxes of the call-in and the argument, was there's going to be a bunch of changes quite soon. Why don't we just hang on a minute? So it just feels quite frustrating, and I'm just putting that out there. Councillor King? Well, I've got two questions. The first comment I'd like to make is to the committee. Now, Ms Lorraine, in your report you said that it was the committee accepting the officer recommendations in the call-in, but it wasn't all of us. And indeed, I'd say the decision fell down party political lines, which is something that was raising the best value inspection as a failure of overview and scrutiny. So I think I'd like members to reflect on that going forward. Another thing you said, Julie, is I was very struck by the tone of why you thought that the challenge came about. I mean, I felt there was an implication that there was less a challenge to the process and more a malicious intent to not have it go forward. So that's my interpretation. If you want to clarify, that would be great. So, in your experience, how often are tendering processes like this challenged in such a robust way? Because it seems very highly unusual to me, and it's a point that there is a problem with the process. Obviously, that will come out in many other ways. And please advise me if I'm going into the wrong territory. And then the second question, if I may, it's slightly difficult because it helped me. It is potentially focusing more, it seems to me, on issues that might be best or more easily explored in the private session, when you can speak much more freely and when Miss Lorraine is not going to be quite so constrained, perhaps. I'll withdraw that question then, yeah. I just want to understand to what extent it was a usual thing for this to happen. But then secondly is, again, you're very clear in saying that the scoring and the evaluation sat with the service and not procurement. So I wanted to understand, I would think that procurement would be a good check and balance against making sure it had been done properly. So why, what happened with procurement in that sense of checking and being confident that all the things had been done properly, so that it's a decision that can be shared, you know, by the council and not, you know, put on one department to have made? Councillor, I'm not saying in any way, shape or form that the decision was one that had not been taken properly. The council would never concede that position. It hasn't conceded that position. And what I can tell you in answer to your first statement is, at no point do I believe that anybody maliciously didn't want this contract to be awarded. What I believe, and I have seen 100% of the time, surprisingly more so in adult and children's I think gets it as well, when you get businesses applying for tenders and the landscape's changing, those who had it don't have as much, and those who bid for a lot don't get as much, you 100% of the time get challenges, 100%, which is surprising because the council is the customer, the users of the service are the end users, but the supply chain, you almost never see it in some of the more commercial areas of the council, but you always see it, where there's, particularly where smaller businesses have an opportunity to apply. Councillor Mohamed and then Councillor Charlie. Thank you, Chair. So I'm going to stay clear of talking about specific bits, because the legal have made us pretty clear that we have to do that, and talk more broadly about this. So, rightly or wrongly, we'll go into the weeds and it'll be a robust conversation, I'm sure, when it's a private session, but residents are most likely watching and there'll be some who are impacted by this and are nervous and worried about it. So, I hope you acknowledge that the reputation of the council, you know, around this and how it's been done, rightly or wrongly, we'll get into the weeds of that at a certain point. But you've gone to great pains to talk about the fact it's an officer decision and not a political decision. So, as kind of the officer in charge of procurement, which you've kind of clarified, I think it's your chance to talk about how, in the short term, because there will be reports and there will be things coming out of this afterwards to make sure it doesn't happen again. How can the residents watching now have faith in our council and have faith in the procurement process? Because, yes, you said there's 147 plus and there's 162 million in this, but we're still a massive council and as Mr Chibizet keeps talking about the 10,000 staff and 5,000 that we directly employ, it's your chance to now restore some faith for the residents watching who are going to be really concerned about this. So, I would say to anyone, my job starts and ends with ensuring that the council makes awards for contracts that demonstrate value for money. I could not demonstrate value for money in these circumstances. That takes a courageous decision. It would have been a whole stack easier for me to just make the awards because I wouldn't sit here explaining to you that it was the right decision to take and it's a difficult decision to take. We've just heard about truth to power. I'm speaking it. It was the right decision to take in the interest of the council and the taxpayer and I stand by that decision. Sorry, can I just come in here on the note of speaking truth to power. Was that decision taken out of choice? But wasn't that a decision you had to take? No, Councillor. The decision was taken. On balance, when you look at value for money, the service delivery, a 143 tender submissions for a contract value of £162 million, none of those prices could be met. Not one. Can I ask you a question? Could we have carried on? Was the option to carry on an actual option? It was an option that we could have carried on. We certainly could have. It wouldn't have been the right thing to do. Okay, Councillor Chaudry. You've asked some of my question actually. If we did carry on, what would the cost be? Obviously, there's a lot of things that come into it. And secondly, I've made a note of it. The contract was extended in 2020, 2021, then again in 2021. Is that normal procedure? I can't answer that, Councillor. I wasn't involved. Julie wasn't here at the time. Oh, sorry. All right. And Stephen was also not here at the time. No one was here. But I'm sure we can find some papers. But I'm sure if that's an answer you want, I'm sure Stephen would be more than happy to put something together for us. Yes, Chair, if that could be noted, please. Thank you. Yeah, perfect. Abdi, your question hasn't been answered. I'm not sure the Deputy Chief Executive answered my question. So I'll give the Chief Executive a chance to answer given residents are watching and you've heard the question. So what's your response or your point directly to residents about the concerns they have? So granted, the Deputy Chief Executive is the corporate director for resources. So key job around procurement is best value. Fine. Okay. How are you restoring faith given in the short term, there are people who are watching, who are probably worried about the service and the quality of Humanities Council? Okay, thank you for the point. Thank you for the question. My position comes from a slightly different perspective. So from my perspective, and I support everything that Julie has said in the committee tonight, it's one of risk management. There would be no circumstances under which I would be able to endorse letting a contract, a series of contracts of this value with the risk that resulted as a result of the issues that Julie has outlined. The second thing I would say was, I am also minded about the response we've had from auditors about the Council's ability to effectively manage risk. And I was not, and you'll have seen the reports that have been to audit committee, you'll have seen they're publicly available, particularly Deloitte's comments about risk management during this period. So, and I was not prepared to let the, what could be perceived as the mistakes of the past be repeated. So what have we done? Well, we have new procurement regime about to be introduced. You'll see as a result of the budget, we're investing more in procurement process. We're getting more procurement officers involved. We're taking advice from external organisations such as Lumensol about how we procure. We'll be taking specialist advice from them over the period of the MTFS. And I'm sure at some point we should come back to overview and scrutiny committee and talk about Lumensol's role, particularly in the pilot that we're running between now and the end of March. We have to get better at managing risk. We have to get better in using not just financial management information, but a range of information to inform decision making. I joined the local authorities in interim sort of at the bottom of page 76. So I'm really interested on the chair's comment about coming back perhaps with the member, the cabinet portfolio holder in why, for example, at the beginning of 2022, we extended the contracts outside of any contract terms. We were outside of the five year period at that point. I'd like to understand that a little bit more. And I think the point that's been made, the assurance that I would give is that I'm determined, we have a brand new corporate leadership team. I'm determined that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. And as a result, do not put this council's finances at risk. And we do talk truth to power and make decisions at the right time in the best interests of the local authority that are in turn the best interests of the local community. If we were to be sitting here in two years' time having to explain why the costs of this procurement have gone through the roof because none of those bidders could maintain their costs, that would be a completely different conversation to which you would be holding us accountable in a completely different way. Sorry, before I take you, Councillor Choudry was in the queue. Thank you, Chair. So, my question is more for the residents. Should residents be worried? Their contract, I believe, is currently still continuing. What can you tell the residents or how can you reassure residents? Thank you, Chair. Obviously, this tender has stopped. Are we in the process, because of this, losing out good service providers? You know, that's what we want. Okay, and Councillor Manna? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I think Halim will answer my question, because I'm worried about the opposite side of the platform. The tender has been, whatever reason, has stopped, and therefore the residents, how effective they're going to be, and are they continuing service? You can carry on. That's my concern at the moment. Okay, so I feel like this is a really good place, both linked. Tell us, are we going to lose some of these providers, and then we can go to end with the residents part? I can come in, Councillors. So, in terms of the residents, from a residents' perspective, there's nothing to be worried about. Their care continues. They continue to receive care from their current providers. That's not changing. Yes, the current contracts are due to end on 31st of March, but we will make suitable arrangements well before that time. So that, I can assure residents in terms of that continuity. And then I think the second question was around service providers, I think you were asking, in terms of danger of losing service providers. I think it's unlikely. We've kept very close communication with our providers in terms of what's happening. The provider market is such that, you know, let's be perfectly honest, we need them as much as they need us. So we'll continue to work together to get to a position where we can either re-procure or whatever the next steps might be. So, at the moment, I have no concerns in terms of us losing providers. Councillor Lee? Super briefly. At the last meeting, when we discussed this, we were told any extension in the current contracts would put vulnerable residents at risk. So what has changed now that there's no nothing for residents to worry about? There's always a risk, Councillor Lee. So there is a risk at the moment. We are seeking legal advice in terms of next steps, which is what we hope to be able to bring an update of scrutiny in January. So until we have legal advice, it's really difficult for me to give you a sense of what that might be. But there's always a risk with everything that we do. I don't think that question, that answers, like, was substantial enough because, to be fair to this committee, they asked when those papers were bounced in 24 hours after. Sorry. So this committee was not, not had a chance to have that report discussed here. Then it went into cabinet and the papers were released on that day. We've got over that. We've had explanation. We've had conversations around that. But one of the main reasons officers gave this committee was the urgency. Now, we're in a slightly flip side. That urgency, reasoning and importance seems to be slightly diluted. Because if the urgency is still, was there, was important then, it's important now. And if the urgency was important, but there was mitigations in place, then you were able to have that conversation around the calling. So I want, I understand where you're coming from, and I'm sorry you're in this position, because I do remember you were very new into your position. But I also want my colleagues to be respected in what they're asking. And that actually has, fundamentally has issues with building that trust between officers and councillors. That's, that's, that's, that's pivotally what, what's the problem here, is like, having two different answers for two different occasions. And I don't think you mean to do that. But if you can just talk through that a little bit more, if you want, or we, I'm happy to take that in the private session. So, so can I clarify, erm, you're absolutely right, there was a risk, and that risk was truthfully spoken to you. And it was me that spoke to you about the risk, and I recall there was a part two to that meeting that was an entirely different reason. Erm, and secondly, we didn't know that the risk we then faced was a bigger risk. And that's what you do in risk management councillors. And that's what George has said, there is always risk. And there was. We've taken the smaller one. Okay, that helps put it into context a bit more. Erm, any other questions in the, er, public part? Can I say that, Manan? Sorry, Chair. Er, I understand where they're coming from, but do you remember at the time that when you were calling on that particular subject, and we've been told we had to have to call in an emergency, and we've been undermined at that time. So what's happened now? Are we being undermined as well? I think officers have answered. Yes, do you see what I'm coming from? We had to call in that particular subject on the ONS, because we had it day before, then the cabinet went in, then we had to call in, and they were discussing calling, and we've been undermined at that time. So basically, it's a flip side of the code, that we're just basically talking, but you officers are telling us, porcupine. And I, I really want to know, what is the aim? We'll be a bit careful with language, please. Sorry. Sorry, my lady. No allegations to our officer. I don't know what I said, but I really think that we're going to gain the answer from you, officers, and I really, my heart goes up. I think it's a mitigation risk that residents may have suffered. And how do you mitigate the suffering? Because my concern is with the residents, because if something does happen and they don't get service continued, residents will suffer. That's what I'm worried about on this. Okay. Okay. I feel like officers have answered your question. They have reassured you about how the service providing, how they're going to provide the service to residents. I'm happy to let them come back in touch, based on that again, for reassurance. Natalie, do you want to comment? Yeah, I just have a comment. I don't think officers have undermined us, and I think officers were very open when we brought the call in, or when we discussed the call in. So I'd like to challenge what Councillor Manan has just said. Okay. Any other questions? I'm going to let you come in one last time to Councillor Manan's point about the service providing part. Do you want to come in, or do you want to move into? I was just going to come in just to say, I think as officers, I pride myself on integrity, and I appreciate I've only just walked into Tower Hamlets, but I hold a statutory role, and my statutory role is to make sure that I do safeguard the residents of Tower Hamlets, and I would be remiss in my duties if I did anything that did not put those residents at the centre of everything that I do. So when I walked into Tower Hamlets in September, I looked at the history as far as I could understand it, and I thought we cannot continue to chug along and take longer with this process because we've got people at the end of this. These are not widgets, they are people. And I was conscious of the fact that contracts were due to end, and I wanted us to try and move this on as quickly as we could. That was me balancing the risks in terms of what I knew then. And then fast forward to a couple of weeks later, there were different sets of risks, and I think as Julie has explained, that's something that we have to constantly do. One moment you're dealing with some risks, the next moment the risks are slightly different. And the risks in that respect were, yes, I'm still concerned about the residents, but actually there was now a risk around the best value, the legal advice that we've got. And at the moment our conservative estimates in terms of national insurance, worst case scenario could cost us in the region of 8 million, or best case scenario in the region of 3.5 million. Those are just very guesstimates at the moment based on what we know from the work that's being done nationally. So that's part again of what I was balancing. What I didn't want to do is we could have proceeded, as Julie said, there was also an option that we could have proceeded. But can you imagine if you were a vulnerable adult in Tower Hamlets? You possibly moved to a different provider, depending on what that situation might have been, and then you possibly might have had a situation where that provider is going out of business because they can no longer afford, and actually you then have to move again. So that's part of my balancing as a Corporate Director for Health and Adult Social Care. And I want the members that you understand that. Thank you. Thank you. And it's a good time. Yeah, go on, Councillor Mano. I understand what Natalie was saying. Maybe on the pink paper we'll discuss, find out a lot more about it when we were off the air. But still, I take back what I said before. But still, my puzzle, I'm still not getting the right answer from what you're saying. It's still concern. There's an element of risk. And I think that's why we should conclude and then move into pink paper, where we could answer a lot of questions to be answered. Yes, I'm about to do that. I do want to say this while the public part is still running and people can view this, that what makes this quite difficult is the fact that we've got three officers with us, but none of them have been around right from the beginning of the start of the issue here. And it is something that has been, over the years, been a problem that has resulted in this last thing that's happened now. And when members here ask you questions, it's not personal and it's not directed at you. It's about the whole situation as a whole. And so we're trying to get to a point where I think members want to ask some questions to be able to get some clarity. And this is not the first time we've done it. This is the second shot at it after the call-in. So that's why it's a little bit difficult. But we need to have these difficult conversations at the same time. It is important that we do this. Unless members have any other questions for the public part... Nope. And we are going to move into a private session. Can I ask to end this meeting as a whole, publicly? Can you let me know if there's any other business? No. Jonathan? Oh, sorry, James. I just want to ask a question. Ask a question about the mail decision that was made on the 13th. Okay. Do you want to ask that question now? Yes. I can't find any papers about it online. And I can't find any papers being sent about it. But I'm getting... The reason I'm asking about it now is because I'm getting providers getting in touch with me this evening. They're unhappy that quite quickly and without sort of a public process, the food... Well, it's the holiday club and holiday and food clubs provision is changing at short notice without, you know, with an individual mail decision being made. I appreciate I'm just dropping this question on top of the question. I think unless, Julie, you have an answer at hand. And, Stephen, I'm happy for you to do this as a written response. Of what it is, that would be great. Unless you have an... Can you provide a written response? Yeah. Perfect. Julie, is that okay? This falls with you as well, I think, if I'm not mistaken. Okay. Jonathan, did you... Before I close the meeting, did you have any legal advice? I was just going to be slightly pronouncing and say, obviously, you're only closing the meeting as far as the public's concerned. Secondly, just in relation to... Because we're being broadcast, I don't know if it normally is done, but I've always taken the view that you read out the statutory extract in the papers just to explain why we're going into a private session. Sure. I kind of said it in my words earlier, but I'll do it. It's fine. As the exclusion of the press and public, in the view of the contents of the remaining items on the agenda, the committee is recommended to adopt the following motion. That under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government Access to Information Act 1985, the press and public to be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section 2 businesses on the grounds that it contains information defined as exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. Are we all happy? Yes. So, I am officially closing the meeting, can you let me know when viewing... 時...
Summary
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss a range of issues, including the Best Value Inspection, flood risk management, the strategic performance and delivery report, budget monitoring and an update on the home care procurement process. The committee noted all of the updates, except the home care procurement update, where a decision was made to move into a private session to discuss the issues further.
Best Value Inspection
Stephen Halsey, Chief Executive of Tower Hamlets Council, provided the Committee with an update on the Best Value Inspection.
Mr Halsey told the committee that the council has not yet received a formal Best Value Notice, but is making preparations for its implementation, including meeting with a range of partners, including the Transformation Advisory Board and chief executives from other councils that have previously experienced intervention.
The five key issues identified in the draft notice are:
- Political leadership
- Governance and decision-making
- The culture of the organisation
- Working effectively in partnership
- Use of resources and continuous improvement of service delivery.
The Minister has made it clear that any improvement plan needs to be locally led with local solutions. Mr Halsey has proposed meeting with the committee early in the new year to discuss how they can co-produce the plan.
The committee also heard from Clive Halsey, who was invited to speak to the committee about his experience helping councils exit intervention. Mr Halsey said that intervention is a journey with four stages or rungs on a ladder.
- A Best Value notice
- An Improvement Board
- A Mandated Board with powers of direction
- Full commissioners.
Full commissioners are appointed by central government and have full control of the authority.
“With commissioners, you lose the right to do that, and technocrats come in and run the organisation and take those decisions. You do not want that. So, my first advice is make sure you go nowhere near getting deeper into intervention.”
Mr Halsey said that councils in intervention need to ensure that they have a close relationship with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and are open and transparent in their dealings with them. He also said that councils need to work on improving governance, member development and relationships with partners.
Flood Risk Management
The Committee discussed flood risk management in the borough. Councillor Nathalie Bienfait reported on a recent site visit to Fish Island following flooding in the area. One of the key risks identified is the relationship with key strategic partners such as the Canal and River Trust. The committee questioned officers on the perceived lack of communication from the Canal and River Trust and what the council's response would be if there was another serious flooding event.
“Remember, you took them three hours' response. That's a long time for somebody to come to open, to manually open the gate.”
Officers explained that the responsibility for responding to flooding from canals and rivers sits with the Environment Agency and not the council. The council is responsible for flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary water courses.
The committee heard that three of the four automated sluice gates around Old Ford Lock failed in January, leading to flooding. The gates are designed to open automatically when water levels reach a certain point, however they malfunctioned. Two of the gates had failed a year prior to the incident and the third failed on the day of the flood. The Environment Agency and the Canal and River Trust undertook a programme of works over the summer to repair the gates and the council has been assured they are now working properly.
The committee discussed the role of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)1 in mitigating flood risk and what data the council is using to identify areas where they could be beneficial. The Committee heard from officers that while the council has installed 55 SUDS, including rain gardens, across the borough, a strategic approach to their implementation is needed. The council has been advised to develop a list of areas that could benefit from SUDS, and to design and plan for schemes in these areas.
The committee agreed to continue discussions on this topic at a future meeting and will be inviting the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Climate Emergency and the Director of Public Realm to attend.
Strategic Performance and Delivery
The committee considered the Strategic Performance and Delivery Report for quarter two, 2024 to 2025.
Mayor Lutfur Rahman opened the discussion, telling the committee that he is committed to improving services for residents. The Mayor said that despite difficult financial circumstances, the council has invested heavily in public services. The Mayor highlighted recent investments in housing, leisure services, youth services, waste services, young people, community safety and adult social care.
Of the 56 strategic performance measures reported in the report, 32 are green (meeting or exceeding targets), 5 are amber (between target and minimum target) and 4 are red (below target).
“But I am not happy, nor is the executive, nor are you happy with just the ticks, just a green. We want to ensure overall that we are doing well.”
The four red measures discussed by the committee are:
- The percentage of Education, Health and Care assessments completed within 20 weeks. This target has been missed for two consecutive quarters, despite the council increasing investment in SEND provision.
- The percentage of young people that reoffend.
- The level of household recycling.
- The percentage of tenants satisfied with the overall service.
Committee members discussed the poor performance on Education, Health and Care plans.
“failures that last quarter when I raised it, it was a 44%. Now it's a 24%. So almost a, you know, 50% decrease in the same time.”
Officers explained that the percentage is a measure of statutory compliance with the Children and Families Act 2014. This is not the only measure of performance on SEND provision, and that in other areas, such as inclusivity, and Key Stage 4 educational attainment, the council is performing well.
“And I guess one of my broader feedback around this indicator, which is Educate Health and Care Plans is that there are other measures of how we're performing as an area, both the council, schools and the health services for, for children and families, which are more positive. So for instance, there's a greater proportion of children on a plan in mainstream education, which is really important about being more inclusive.”
Officers explained that the council is working with the Local Government Association (LGA) to improve its performance in this area and is committed to finding new ways of working.
Free School Meals
The Committee also discussed free school meals. The percentage of primary school children receiving free school meals has been falling and anecdotal evidence suggests that this is because of poor quality food.
“I've had kids tell me that the choice isn't good enough. Uh, they don't like, uh, some of the choice that's been put before them. Uh, and on particular days in some schools, it's the same thing again and again, which doesn't meet their needs or the cultural needs of some of the kids.”
Councillor Abdul Mannan said that he is leading a piece of scrutiny work on school meals and that the committee will be discussing the issue further at a meeting in January. The Committee also heard that there is a seasonal dip in take-up of free school meals in the Autumn and that figures should recover over the winter.
Youth Service
The committee heard from officers about changes to the youth service. The council is in the process of bringing most of the youth service in-house. It has increased investment in the service and is recruiting new youth workers.
“A lot of money has been set aside for the youth service because that's where we're young, young borough. Uh, we need an expanded.”
The committee questioned how the council will ensure that services are maintained during the transition period and that performance is not negatively affected.
Officers said that they will be retaining some commissioned youth services and that they are working with national youth organisations to develop new quality measures for the service.
Recycling
The committee discussed the level of household recycling in the borough. This is a red KPI, with the current rate being below target. The council has invested £5 million in a Waste Improvement Plan, and the committee heard that this is starting to have a positive impact.
“Um, dry recycling is going up, which is really good. Um, contamination levels are going down. Um, and our recycling rate is actually going up.”
The committee heard that the council has recruited eight additional outreach workers to support the plan and is working with social landlords to improve recycling rates.
The committee heard that the council’s contract with Bywaters, the company that processes the council's waste, has been amended to reduce the tolerance for contamination in recycling. The committee asked what impact this would have on recycling rates and what contingency plans the council has in place.
“Um, contamination is, is, is reducing. So that's a good thing. But, um, with the Biowaters contract, um, they are, they are harsh on us. Um, because it's, they're the only player in town, unfortunately, in, in this borough, or anywhere near East London.”
Officers explained that they have factored this change into the budget and that they believe that contamination levels will continue to fall.
Budget Monitoring
The committee considered the Budget Monitoring Report for Quarter Two, 2024 to 2025.
The General Fund has a forecast overspend of £18.4 million. This has been driven by pressures in homelessness, adult social care and SEND.
“Um, so the Q2 general fund forecast outturn position for the year is a forecast overspend of 18.4 million at the moment. Well, when the report was reported. And, uh, this position continues to be significantly impacted by the nationally recognized pressures in homelessness, adult social care, and SEND.”
The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) has a forecast overspend of £2.7 million and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) has an overspend of £5.1 million.
Officers explained that this is a forecast position based on figures from the end of September, and that the picture is now more positive.
“The budget will be based on the Q3 position.”
The Committee heard that they are expecting a windfall which will eliminate the forecast overspend on the HRA and that at least 50% of the forecast overspend in the General Fund is not expected to materialise.
Home Care Procurement
The committee considered a report on the Home Care Procurement Contract Award Process.
The report explains the decision to withdraw from the procurement process for domiciliary care services, despite a previous decision by the Mayor in Cabinet to award the contract. The committee heard that several bids had been received that challenged the outcome of the procurement process. It also heard that changes to national insurance announced in the autumn statement have affected the affordability of the service.
“None of those bidders could have honoured the contractual price that had gone in.”
The committee questioned officers on the process, particularly in relation to why they were told in a previous meeting that any delay in the process would put vulnerable residents at risk, yet were now being told that there was nothing to worry about.
“Super briefly. At the last meeting, when we discussed this, we were told any extension in the current contracts would put vulnerable residents at risk. So what has changed now that there's no nothing for residents to worry about?”
The Committee also heard that the new director of Adult Social Care had very little involvement in the procurement process and questioned how the cabinet member for Health, Wellbeing and Social Care could have been so confident about the process, given these issues.
Officers explained that the decision not to award the contract was taken to ensure best value for the council and that they had considered all of the risks and opportunities before making a decision.
“The decision not to award was taken on the basis of our ability to demonstrate Best Value due to the combination of all the above.”
The committee decided to move into a private session to discuss the report further.
The next meeting of the committee will be held on Tuesday 14 January 2025.
-
SUDS are drainage systems that are designed to mimic natural processes, like infiltration into the ground. They are an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional drainage systems that rely on piping water away. They are particularly useful in densely populated areas, like Tower Hamlets. ↩
Attendees
Documents
- Cabinet reports updated 17th-Dec-2024 18.30 Overview Scrutiny Committee other
- Appendix A - Letter to Minister Jim McMahon re Representations 18122024 Cabinet other
- Appendix 1 18122024 Cabinet other
- Appendix 1 - General Fund Revenue by Service Area 18122024 Cabinet other
- Appendix 2 - 2024-25 General Fund Variances 18122024 Cabinet other
- Agenda frontsheet 17th-Dec-2024 18.30 Overview Scrutiny Committee agenda
- Public reports pack 17th-Dec-2024 18.30 Overview Scrutiny Committee reports pack
- Declarations of Interest Note 2021 other
- Minutes other
- Cover sheet BVI
- Homecare Cabinet Report for 18 december - final other
- Homecare Procurement Appendix A 181224 - Letter to all bidders other
- Scrutiny Lead Update
- Printed plan Forthcoming Decision Notice - 091224 Cabinet other
- Strategic Delivery and Performance Report Year 3 Quarter 2
- Homecare Procurement Contract Award Process Updated
- CS Flood Risk Management
- Cabinet and other reports 17th-Dec-2024 18.30 Overview Scrutiny Committee
- Flood Presentation 2024 - Final draft V5
- Combined Agenda 17th-Dec-2024 18.30 Overview Scrutiny Committee agenda
- Budget monitoring report 2024-25 Quarter 2 1
- Appendix 3 - 2024-25 General Fund and Earmarked Reserves 18122024 Cabinet other
- Appendix 4 - 2024-25 Savings Tracker 18122024 Cabinet other
- Appendix 5 - 2024-25 Q2 General Fund Forecast Outturn Capital Programme Monitor 18122024 Cabinet other