Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting and to note any outstanding actions.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 March 2023 were agreed as an accurate record.

This report highlights the Council’s activities and performance in health and safety at work for the financial year 2022/2023. 

Paul Neary (Head of Corporate Health and Safety) presented the report on the Council’s activities and performance in health and safety at work for the financial year 2022/2023.  He said that no enforcement action had been taken against the Council by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) during 2022/2023 and there were no cases requiring further investigation.

In reply to Councillor Paul Alexander’s question relating to the number of reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrence regulations (RIDDORs), Paul Neary advised that all of the nine RIDDORs reported to the HSE in 2022/23 were incidents of a minor nature.  

Councillor Adrian Pascu-Tulbure asked if the lower number of safety incident reporting figures in the previous two years on Table 2 were due to lockdown.  Paul Neary responded that following more employees and teams returning to work in the office, there were more incidents in 2022/23 and more anonymously reported cases after training than the two previous years.    

On Councillor Pascu-Tulbure’s further questions about training provided to the front-facing staff to prevent violence and aggression towards them, Paul Neary said that a conflict management training module had been produced, with dates of delivery to be set soon.  As regards the action analysis of the Property and FM Statutory Compliance Report in Appendix B, Paul Neary said that the report, reflecting the overall compliance of the Council’s 69 buildings, was a snapshot of circumstance on the 1^st of every month, and these could go up and down on a daily basis.

Councillor Ashok Patel referred to holding his Councillor surgery alone at St Matthew Church Hall and expressed concerns about Councillor safety. Paul Neary noted that Corporate Health and Safety had carried out site risk assessments for all surgery locations, looking at security and suitability of the premises, including lighting, CCTV provision, and accessibility. Solo Assist Monitors had been provided to Councillors for use during surgeries.  Councillor Alexandra Sanderson advised that, if necessary, arrangement could be made for councillors to conduct surgeries together to make sure no Councillor would be on their own.

The Chair noted that working from home was becoming more prevalent and enquired whether risk assessments and staff training were provided under the Hello Hybrid Future programme to avoid staff injuries. He also asked if homeworkers had requested adequate equipment. In response, Paul Neary referred to the display screen equipment training and self-assessment compliance completed by all staff working in the home environment.  Staff could request equipment required for working from home through an online questionnaire.

Sharon Lea (Chief Executive) said that some of the Council’s workforce were able to do hybrid working involving some home working while others due to their job nature could not perform duties from home and needed to be present in Borough.  Staff were provided with a laptop for use at home or in the office, they received training, and engaged in development opportunities via teams or in person.  She remarked that the health and safety of staff was a top priority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

This report provides an account of fraud-related activity during the past year to minimise the risk of fraud, bribery and corruption occurring within and against the Council.

Andy Hyatt (Head of Fraud) presented the report which provided an account of fraud-related activities during 2022/23 to minimise the risk of fraud, bribery and corruption occurring within and against the Council.  He highlighted the following:

·       The Corporate Anti-Fraud Service (CAFS) identified 154 positive outcomes with a total notional value of over £857,000, recovering 36 properties by detecting the tenancy fraud (Council and registered providers).  CAFS was able to recover 14 more properties than last year by focusing resources on detecting tenancy fraud;

·       The ongoing lack of affordable housing and the cost-of-living crisis meant individuals taking more risk than before to look for additional income from subletting or via moonlighting (working at a second job) which, though still rare due to effective controls in place, was on the rise.  The two cases reported had come to light due to the effective operation of management controls; and

·       The Council's Anti-Fraud & Corruption Strategy covering 2020/23 was based on five key themes: i) Govern, ii) Acknowledge, iii) Prevent, iv) Pursue and v) Protect.

Councillor Paul Alexander noted that under some tenancy fraud, the original tenant who signed the tenancy agreement was not a resident in the property. Andy Hyatt echoed his observations that of the 36 property recoveries, some were unlawful sublets while others were abandonment (where the original tenant no longer lived in the property and there were suspicions of unlawful subletting).   He also noted that in 9 out of 10 cases, the sub-tenant and the original tenant had used the same address to apply for housing benefits or the Council Tax Relief Scheme, hence alerting officers to investigate further.  Andy Hyatt advised that local authorities no longer had a jurisdiction over housing benefit fraud which was controlled by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) but could still consider issues relating to fraud under the Council Tax Relief Scheme.  

Councillor Florian Chevoppe-Verdier welcomed the report which brought about more positive outcomes than the past years.  He was keen to find out whether the Council was investing more to get greater returns. Andy Hyatt said that in arriving the aforesaid notional value, the Council’s actual spending in housing a family’s temporary accommodation was taken into account, instead of adopting the cost of buying a new unit which was ever-increasing.  On staff cost, Andy Hyatt noted that the cost of his team was in the region of half a million per year.  He highlighted the resource-intensive investigative work, with staff working in pairs at odd hours in order to track down unlawful sublettings.  David Hughes (Director of Audit, Fraud, Risk and Insurance) noted that of the 36 recoveries, 24 involved the return of keys which was a much quicker and cheaper process to re-possess the unit for reallocation without the need for lengthy and costly legal action.

Councillor Chevoppe-Verdier asked about the working mechanism of the London FraudHub.  Andy Hyatt noted that the London FraudHub is a data matching exercise.  The Council used that data in a range of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The purpose of this report is to provide members of the Audit Committee with an update on risk management across the Council.

David Hughes (Director of Audit, Fraud, Risk and Insurance) introduced his new colleague, Jules Binney (Risk and Assurance Manager) who briefed members on his background and private sector experience in risk and assurance.  Then, David Hughes presented the report which provided members with an update on risk management across the Council, including the Corporate Risk Register (CRR) set out in Appendix 1.   

Councillor Ashok Patel asked about the initial cost involved due to “Failure to deliver the Civic Campus Programme” (CRR #14). Sharon Lea (Chief Executive) advised that the additional cost was not known yet because discussions with the contractor involving commercially sensitive matters were still underway. 

On Councillor Patel’s further enquiry about “Unable to retain talented people in key posts at LBHF” (CRR #12), David Hughes noted that London boroughs relied heavily on agency workers in job areas like social care and planning as these professional roles were difficult to recruit and retain. While all London boroughs were facing similar challenges, H&F’s retention and turnover rates were stable, as the People and Talent team continued to lead on activities to attract and retain staff.  The Council was committed to developing existing staff. Sharon Lea added that it was easy for employees to move around among the 32 London boroughs, but she was impressed with the significant number of H&F staff receiving the Long Service Awards between 20 to 40 years.

Councillor Florian Chevoppe-Verdier appreciated the authority keeping the CRR with granular details. He observed that following Brexit, the country was building up its skilled labour market locally. Echoing his observation, David Hughes cited the field of social care as an example whereby smaller local providers offering smaller contracts helped stimulate market resilience.  The successful apprenticeship programme in H&F also helped sustain the ageing workforce by attracting and retaining new talents. Sharon Lea remarked that new staff were encouraged to move through the ranks via the Get Ahead Programme.  H&F also encouraged gender and ethnic diversity amongst colleagues for the Council to benefit from the best from a mixed team.

Councillor Paul Alexander referred to the experience of some tenants on their request for downsizing from 2-bed to 1-bed between the Council and housing associations’ units. Sometimes, the process took 3 to 4 months to complete or the request record was purged after 6 months and had to re-start again. He called for streamlining the transfer system so that the 2-bed could be released earlier for reallocation. Sharon Lea said that the Council supported tenants to downsize and undertook to look into the matter and revert with more updated information. 

ACTION: Sharon Lea / David Hughes 

Councillor Adrian Pascu-Tulbure noted performance concerns persisted with regard to completion of repairs and resolving complaints which had aroused the attention of both the Housing Ombudsman and Social Housing Regulator. Sharon Lea responded that the Council had achieved good results in key standards, decent homes standards such as fire, gas and electricity monitoring etc.  However, the Council had regrettably received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report summarises the work of Internal Audit in 2022/23 and provides the opinion of the Director of Audit, Fraud, Risk and Insurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of governance, risk management and control. 

Moira Mackie (Head of Internal Audit) introduced the report which summarised the work of Internal Audit in 2022/23 and provided the opinion of the Director of Audit, Fraud, Risk and Insurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of governance, risk management and control.  This opinion was used to support the Council’s Annual Governance Statement. The report also set out a consistent level of assurance being obtained and provided for 2022/23 through the work of internal audit, including Limited Assurance reviews for a few areas with a total of 5 audits, and five Substantial Assurance reviews involving three schools.

Councillor Ashok Patel asked why the percentage of audits receiving a positive assurance opinion had dropped from 91% in 2021/22 to 86% in 2022/23.  David Hughes (Director of Audit, Fraud, Risk and Insurance) assured that the systems of internal control were effective and the audits undertaken received a consistent positive assurance opinion. He said that the small fluctuation was just denoting that two areas, ie. tenant service charges and disrepair legal claims, were at higher risk.

Addressing Councillor Patel’s further question relating to Old Oak Primary (2021/22), David Hughes and Moira Mackle recalled that at the March Committee meeting, 4 high priority recommendations were made for the school.  The school had agreed to take corresponding actions and there had been a lot of changes going on. However, as evidence could not be provided during this period, follow up on the recommendations would be carried out in Autumn.  That was why the high priority recommendations remained as 4. 

RESOLVED

That the Committee noted the Head of Internal Audit’s opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of governance, risk management and control environment.

This report provides an update on Hammersmith & Fulham’s cyber-security readiness.

This item includes appendices that contain exempt information. Discussion of the appendices will require passing the proposed resolution at the end of the agenda to exclude members of the public and press.

Tina Akpogheneta (Interim Chief Digital Officer, Digital Services) introduced that the report provided an update on Hammersmith & Fulham’s cyber-security readiness.

Exclusion of the public and press

The Committee resolved, under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business, on the grounds that they contained the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the said Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption currently outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Committee held further discussions in private session.

RESOLVED

That the Committee noted the report, including the exempt Appendix 1.

To note the following dates of future meetings:

·       12 September 2023

·       27 November 2023

·       11 March 2024

The following dates of future meetings were noted:

·       12 September 2023

·       27 November 2023

·       11 March 2024

Proposed resolution:

The Committee is invited to resolve, under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business, on the grounds that they contain the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the said Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption currently outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Please see Item 8.