Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Aldred and Councillor Gugnani.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Councillor Fonseca declared an Other Disclosable Interest in agenda item 10, “Citizens Advice Leicestershire City Advice Services Contract Performance 2015-16”, in that he had previously worked for three months as a volunteer with the Citizens Advice service.

Councillor Dr Chowdhury also declared an Other Disclosable Interest in agenda item 10, “Citizens Advice Leicestershire City Advice Services Contract Performance 2015-16”, in that he worked in a voluntary organisation that provided welfare advice.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, these interests were not considered so significant that they were likely to prejudice the Councillors’ judgement of the public interest.  They were not therefore required to withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the relevant item.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 24 August 2016 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Commission received the minutes of its meeting held on 24 August 2016.

With regard to the eleventh paragraph of minute 25, “Social Welfare Advice Procurement Options Paper 2017/22”, Members noted that, in order to establish comparable rates for the contracts identified for possible inclusion in the scope of the new contract, they had been calculated as the value of the contract divided by the number of customers seen.  It therefore was suggested that the minute be amended to reflect this.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny commission held on 24 August 2016 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the first sentence of the eleventh paragraph of minute 25, “Social Welfare Advice Procurement Options Paper 2017/22”, being amended as follows (new wording in italics):

“The Commission expressed some concern that the contracts identified for possible inclusion in the scope of the new contract had significantly different rates costs per customer.”

To note progress on actions agreed at the previous meeting and not reported elsewhere on the agenda (if any).

At the invitation of the Chair, the Director of Finance advised the Commission that consultation on proposals for a revised Council Tax Reduction Scheme had closed and the results were being analysed. Members would be advised as soon as possible whether a Special Meeting of the Commission was needed to enable them to consider the outcome of the consultation before they were reported to the Executive.  (Minute 21, “Chair’s Announcements”, referred.)

Members noted that it was likely that procurement options for Social Welfare Advice now would be considered by the Executive in February 2017, (not early October 2016 as originally anticipated).  (Minute 25, “Social Welfare Advice Procurement Options Paper 2017/22”, referred.)

The Chair also advised the Commission that it had been confirmed that the Council bought both halal and non-halal meat.  Where halal meat was being served, the food choices were clearly labelled.  An item on food regulation would be considered by the Commission in April 2017, so instead of a separate item being included in the work programme on halal and non-halal meat, it would be included in the food regulation report.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no questions, representations or statements of case had been received.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report, which asks the Commission for their views regarding the potential to charge for bulky waste collections.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report asking the Commission for its views regarding the potential to charge for bulky waste collections, it being noted that a six-week consultation on the options set out in the report was scheduled to start on Friday 7 October 2016.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services reminded Members that the City Council currently was one of the few local authorities that did not charge for the collection of bulky waste.  While mindful of the potential implications of introducing charges for this service, especially with regard to fly-tipping, the Council needed to consider all options for creating income while safeguarding services.

Councillor Clarke, (Assistant City Mayor for Energy and Sustainability), reiterated that the current financial situation created a need to consider all aspects of services to identify savings.  Concerns about increased fly-tipping were important, especially in areas that already had problems with this.  However, although some areas had seen an increase in fly-tipping when charges for bulky waste collections were introduced, others had seen a reduction, while in other areas there was no noticeable change.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Chaplin, one of the Members representing Stoneygate Ward, addressed the Commission.  She noted that the report submitted identified Stoneygate as currently having the highest level of fly-tipping in the city.  The Council’s difficult financial situation was acknowledged, but to introduce charges for the collection of bulky waste could make the fly-tipping situation worse.  For example, mattresses had been seen stacked outside a house, piles of furniture had been left on street corners and some residents had had other people’s rubbish dumped on their property.  If people reporting these things had to pay to have the items removed, they would stop reporting them.

Councillor Chaplin explained that Stoneygate Ward contained large numbers of properties that were rented and houses in multiple occupation.  When people moved from these, they often left behind items, which the landlord became responsible for disposing of, but instead of using the bulky waste collection service, the items often were fly-tipped.  The more items were abandoned in this way, the more it encouraged others to do the same.  As well as being unsightly, the accumulated rubbish also created potential health hazards.

Council Chaplin further explained that a lot of time had been spent trying to tackle fly-tipping in Stoneygate Ward.  Fly-tipping was a problem across the city, but the situation in Stoneygate Ward was such that officers already were unable to deal effectively with the volume being created.  Introducing the charges proposed would make the situation worse.

The following points were then made during discussion on this report:

·           Landlords in areas such as Stoneygate Ward, which had a high density of residents and/or students, with a high turnover, could have many bulky items to dispose of;

·           The charges recommended in the report had been calculated following extensive research in to charges made by other councils.  Approximately 89% of councils charged for this service, with the average  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report, which asks the Commission for their views regarding the potential to charge for DIY waste deposited at the City’s two Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs).

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report seeking the Commission’s views on the potential to charge for DIY waste deposited at the city’s two Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs). 

The Service Development Manager (Waste Management) reminded the Commission that the Council operated two HWMCs, one at Freemans Common and one at Gypsum Close.  These Centres were not required to accept non-household waste, but the Council chose to do so.  

Household waste was defined by regulation.  As such, DIY waste was classified as commercial / industrial waste.  This led to problems with builders using the HWRCs illegally, although regular visitors to the sites were monitored. 

The Council’s financial position was such that savings needed to be made in order to safeguard services.  It was estimated that a saving of £77,000 could be achieved if a charge of £3 per bag of DIY waste was made.  Consultation on these proposals would run concurrently with the consultation on the proposed introduction of charges for bulky waste collections, (see minute 35, “Consideration of Charging for Bulky Waste Collections”, above).

Members noted that, if charges were introduced for the disposal of DIY waste, the HWRCs would continue to receive items such as large pieces of furniture free of charge.

Councillor Clarke, (Assistant City Mayor for Energy and Sustainability), explained that:

·           DIY waste referred to the type of waste a builder would be expected to produce when undertaking work on a domestic property, (for example, plasterboard, wood or kitchen units);

·           Asbestos would not be included in the charges proposed for DIY waste, to continue to encourage the safe disposal of this material; and

·           There was anecdotal evidence that waste materials which Leicestershire County Council now charged to dispose of were being diverted to city HWRCs.

The following comments were made in discussion on this report:

o    If charges for the disposal of DIY waste were not introduced, monitoring of HWRCs would have to be improved, to ensure that builders were not using them to illegally dispose of building waste;

o    It appeared that residents were being penalised by the proposed introduction of these charges due to problems in identifying people disposing of trade waste illegally at HWRCs;

o    A range of surveillance techniques were used to identify people fly-tipping building waste;

o    The introduction of any charges for the disposal of DIY waste at HWRCs would need to be accompanied by an appropriate communications plan, to ensure that residents were aware of how to access the service;

o    Hard-bonded asbestos currently was accepted free of charge at Freemans Common HWRC.  It needed to be double-bagged and was collected in a separate skip on the site.  Residents therefore needed to check before arriving at the HWRC that space was available in the skip; and

o    It was anticipated that the amount of DIY waste disposed of at the HWRCs would reduce by approximately 75% if charges for its disposal were introduced.  This was based on research undertaken with local authorities that had introduced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The meeting adjourned at 7.12 pm and reconvened at 7.19 pm.

Councillor Master left the meeting during the adjournment.

The Director of Finance submits a report, which provides the Commission with an update on the effect of welfare reform in Leicester during 2015/16, and to highlight the expected impact of changes to be introduced by April 2017.

The Director of Finance submitted a report providing the Commission with an update on the effect of welfare reform in Leicester during 2015/16 and highlighting the expected impact of changes to be introduced by April 2017.

The Service Improvement Manager (Revenues and Customer Support) introduced the report, reminding Members of the welfare reforms introduced since 2013 and those still to come.

One change with continued impact was that relating to under occupancy of a property, (the “bedroom tax”).  This measure aimed to encourage people to move to smaller properties, but although the number of people on the housing register had now increased to 7,000, there was a shortage of Council-managed properties.  The Council had a legal duty to protect certain people, such as those with disabilities who, due to their needs, were unable to move, despite under-occupying a property, (for example, by supporting them through discretionary payments).

With effect from 7 November 2016, the benefit income cap would decrease to £20,000 per year for families.  Existing capped households would be re-capped and it was anticipated that approximately 700 additional families would be capped in early 2017.  In total, the amount of benefits received by these families would reduce by approximately £1 million, so the Council could not provide additional support for all of them.

Other changes included:

·           Universal credit was being introduced gradually.  Just over 4,000 people currently were affected by this in the city, but this number would increase;

·           Various smaller cuts had been made to benefits over the last few years.  For example, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit now could only be backdated for one month, allowances for dependent children  had reduced and would continue to do so, people registering new claims for Tax Credit could only claim for up to two children, and the period of temporary absence from home for which benefits could be paid had been reduced from 13 weeks abroad to four;

·           It had been announced in 2015 that claimants under 22 years of age no longer would automatically receive Housing Benefit.  The draft legislation giving effect to this had not been seen yet, so it currently was not known what exceptions could be made;

·           Assistance that could be provided for new claimants with social sector housing rent would be capped; and

·           Continuing reassessment for disability benefit of people with chronic conditions would cease.

Councillor Waddington, (Assistant City Mayor for Jobs and Skills), reiterated that these changes were affecting residents that the Council would want to protect.  However, although the Council could provide some support, it did not have the resources to help all those affected.  In addition, it was recognised that people with children and those with disabilities could find it difficult to find work, despite government policy being to reduce benefits to encourage them in to work.

During discussion on this item, it was noted that:

o    Anyone receiving Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) with their benefits would not be affected by the benefits cap.  However, they would only receive ESA  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Director of Finance submits a report, which provides an overview of the Social Welfare Law and Advice (SWLA) contract outcomes for the city, highlights key outcomes and identifies any risk or issues which may have arisen during 2015/16.

The Director of Finance submitted a report providing an overview of the Social Welfare Law and Advice contract outcomes for the city, highlighting key outcomes and identifying risks and issues arising during 2015/16.

The Head of Revenues and Customer Support introduced the report, explaining that:

·           This was a review of Year 3 of the contract, which had been awarded to Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire (CAL);

·           CAL had met the targets for Tier 1, 2 and 3 advice;

·           CAL had undertaken 500 outreach sessions outside the city centre and 210 home visits.  This work was sub-contracted to Age UK;

·           Outreach sessions had been quite fractured, (for example, being held for half a day each in various locations).  This was confusing for clients, so was being addressed through contract management;

·           Clients were not required to divulge demographic data, so the information recoded reflected casework where clients were willing for CAL to collect data;

·           The target for customer satisfaction was 85%, but in all elements of the contract surveyed it was at over 90%.  The only element not surveyed was outreach provision, but data on customer satisfaction with this would be collected during 2016/17; and

·           Risks had been identified as set out in the report and a collaborative approach to addressing them would achieve improvements going forward.

Dawn Mason, Service Leader at Citizens’ Advice LeicesterShire, addressed the commission at the invitation of the Chair, in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8(2), (part 4E of the Council’s Constitution).  Ms Mason noted that:

o    Welfare reform had led to an increased number of people approaching CAL for advice;

o    In responding to this, CAL also aimed to identify issues associated with enquiries that they could provide advice on, as many client groups were very vulnerable and needed help with basic life administration;

o    All people working with clients were volunteers;

o    CAL was becoming very successful at getting people in to work using skills learned with the Citizens’ Advice Bureau;

o    Even if people raised several issues on one visit, this was counted as one contact;

o    Councillors could contact CAL about individual cases and CAL would make appointments to see those people;

o    Webchat enabled people to click on a link from the CAL website and interact with staff, (who were trained generalists), on issues.  Only general advice could be given over the website, so this was Tier 1 advice and as such was only an initial assessment of a person’s situation; and

o    Leicester appeared to have a higher number of disabled clients than the national average, but this figure was derived from self-classification by clients.

Councillor Waddington, Assistant City Mayor for Skills and Jobs, welcomed the report and the notable number of people helped, the scope of advice offered and the variety of locations used.  However, she agreed that more information was needed on outcomes for people who received advice on social welfare matters.  She also suggested that improved marketing was needed, to get information on the scope and availability of advice  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To receive a verbal update on spending reviews affecting services within this Commission’s portfolio.  Members are recommended to receive the update and comment as appropriate.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services gave a verbal update on spending reviews affecting services within his remit, as follows:

·           Neighbourhood Services

The Transforming Neighbourhood Services review was being delivered.  Regular reports were being made to the Commission and this would continue as the review progressed. 

·           Regulatory Services

These services currently were being considered by service analysts, so no decisions had been taken yet.  Although these were front-line services, opportunities needed to be identified to restructure spending.  Discussions on potential savings would then be held with the Executive.

·           Waste and Cleansing Services

Waste and Cleansing services were operated under Private Finance Initiative contracts with Biffa.  It was felt that opportunities for savings existed with regard to both contracts.

·           Standards and Development

These were smaller scale services, such as landscape design, allotments and CCTV operation.  Spending in these areas also would be reviewed.

A programme of spending reviews had been considered by the Overview Select Committee, when the need to properly engage with the scrutiny process had been stressed.  (Minute 5, “Outturn 2015/16 – Budget Strategy Update”, Overview Select Committee meeting of 22 June 2016 referred.)

The current work programme for the Commission is attached.  The Commission is asked to consider this and make comments and/or amendments as it considers necessary.

The Commission received its work programme, noting that it currently was anticipated that the following reports would be submitted to its next meeting:

·           Transforming Neighbourhood Services: North-East Area

·           Channel Shift – Update

·           Social Welfare Advice Partnership Annual Report

·           Update on Spending Reviews

The meeting closed at 8.29 pm