(if any) - receive.

Apologies were received from Councillors Mandy Anderson (Jane Keane substituting) and Philippa Crowder (Christine Smith substituting).

Members are invited to disclose any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.

Members may still disclose any interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

5. HAVERING VOLUNTEER CENTRE.

Councillor Christine Smith, Personal, Former volunteer with Havering Volunteer Centre.

5. HAVERING VOLUNTEER CENTRE.

Councillor Jane Keane, Personal, Trustee of beneficiary of volunteers from Havering Volunteer Centre - Havering Museum.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Board held on 29 January 2025 and 13 February 2025 (attached) and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 29 January 2025 and 13 February 2025 were before the Committee for approval.

It was noted that apologies on 29 January were received from Councillor Dilip Patel rather than Councillor Nisha Patel.

A misspelling in the name of Councillor Jane Keane in the minutes of 13 February was also noted.

Other than the items above, the minutes were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Report attached.

The Head of Communities explained that no other organisation in the borough covered the work of the Havering Volunteer Centre (HVC). Many volunteers at the Wennington fires had been from the HVC and the current £56k Council funding was a relatively small amount. It was important that Havering had a sufficient number of volunteers.

The Chief Executive Officer of the HVC felt that the organisation did represent value for money. The HVC was careful with its resources and in 2024/25 had in excess 7,000 volunteers on its books. A food bank was also operated. The volunteer hours supplied also constituted a cost saving to the borough. The volunteers supplied at the new St George’s Medical Hub in Hornchurch had been recognised as a UK flagship model of volunteering.

The provision of the existing Havering grant also helped the HVC to attract further external funding. The HVC’s current reserves were £86k with income of £160k and expenditure of £179k. The shortfall was being covered by reserves.

Should the Council funding cease, HVC officers felt that its services would likely have to cease, putting pressure on other services. There would also be a loss of community cohesion. The Council Giving Scheme would also be unlikely to succeed without support from the HVC.

The HVC was the only such organisation in Havering and only the HVC was able to produce this standard, volunteering and capacity of volunteering.

It was clarified that the HVC did not have a lease on its premises, operating instead under a tenancy at will. The level of rent was approximately £12k per year. A Member felt that HVC should be given a longer lease on its premises.

There had not been any approach from the Council for HVC to assess social value in planning applications although HVC officers were keen to explore this in more detail.

Officers explained that the most vulnerable in the community – the elderly and the young would be affected if HVC reduced its services. Some people volunteered to boost their health and wellbeing and around 500 people had entered employment as a direct result of volunteering. If the Council grant was to be withdrawn, there was a possibility that the HVC could be wound up within six months.

Members felt that further information should be provided on the level of rent that HVC would be charged and whether this was likely to increase. Officers added that the rent charged by the Council had not increased since 2015 and the Head of Property Services was looking at alternative properties for the HVC.

A Member felt that the work the HVC had undertaken during the pandemic had been vital and that resources should not be taken away from the organisation. The HVC did a lot of outreach work in the community and recruited many skilled volunteers at job fairs etc. This could not take place if Council funding was withdrawn. If further funding was available, more people or organisations could reached and health inequalities could also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Report attached.

The Statutory Scrutiny Officer asked the Board to look back at its performance over the previous year and begin to consider its work programme for the coming year. Good scrutiny from elsewhere could be identified from the recent survey undertaken by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny. Key issues for scrutiny to address had been identified resource constraints, level of community engagement and the difficulty of measuring the impact of scrutiny. Recommendations for improving the effectiveness of scrutiny could include holding meetings away from the Town Hall and seeking to ensure increased levels of attendance and participation from the public. It was suggested that a young people’s scrutiny session could take place, perhaps meeting in a school during the day.

Responses from the Cabinet to scrutiny recommendations could be reported at to scrutiny at a future meeting. It was felt important that Cabinet Members should attend scrutiny meetings if scrutiny was to be effective. Members that the scrutiny work plans and associated scopes should be set as early as possible.

Feedback was needed from Cabinet on what scrutiny recommendations would be taken forward. Members felt it would also assist if the Board or OSSC Chair and Vice-Chair could present scrutiny recommendations at scrutiny meetings. Cabinet responses to call-in comments should also be circulated to all members of the Board and other signatories.

Discussions on improving the scrutiny process had taken place between the Statutory Scrutiny Officer and the Chair of the Board with for example pre-meets being introduced as a result of these discussions. Members felt it would assist if reports could reach them say, two weeks before a meeting in order that papers could be reviewed in more detail.

The Board AGREED the following recommendations for response by Cabinet:

1.    The relevant Cabinet Member should be required to attend each meeting of the Board or Sub-Committees where there is an item relevant to their portfolios.

2.    All Cabinet responses to scrutiny recommendations or comments should be included as an agenda item at the next scrutiny meeting.

3.    Comments and recommendations to Cabinet should be presented at the Cabinet meeting by the Chairman and Vice-Chair of the Board or relevant Sub-Committee.

4.    Cabinet responses to scrutiny comments on called-in decisions should be circulated to all members of the Overview and Scrutiny Board as well as other Members supporting the call-in.

5.    Cabinet supports the Board’s request for scrutiny reports to be received two weeks ahead of publication as this will facilitate earlier pre-meets and general consideration of the material.

6.    That Cabinet supports the Board reviewing its work programme and its ongoing efforts to make the scrutiny process as effective as possible.

7.    That a protocol be developed for working practices between Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Board including, but not limited to, the issues outlined in the recommendations above.