Issue - items at meetings - Interim report of the Innovation Group

Report of the Head of Housing & Social Inclusion (copy attached).

108.1     The Committee considered a report of the Head of Housing and Social Inclusion which shared with the HMCC the work and recommendations of the Innovations Group. Members were informed that the Innovations Group had been meeting since November 2011 to look at ways that resident involvement could be widened to include as many residents who wished to contribute to their housing management service in ways that they preferred and to modernise the Council’s approaches while strengthening support for tenant and resident associations (TRAs).  The recommendations in the report were designed to achieve this.

108.2     The Chair advised that the Committee were being asked to comment on the suggestions and recommendations that had been made by the Innovations Group and stated that there would be an opportunity for further discussion at the City Assembly on 19 May.  All these comments would be fed into the report before coming back to the HMCC when there could be further discussion and additions before the final report was submitted to the Housing Committee for a decision.  

108.3     Trish Barnard asked why the report was not going to the Area Panels.  The Head of Housing and Social Inclusion explained that an interim report had been submitted to the Area Panels.  The report was being submitted to the City Assembly as it had city wide implications.  

108.4     The Committee received a PowerPoint presentation from Sam Murphy and Julie Nichols who were both residents on the Innovations Group.  Copies of the slides were circulated to members.  

108.5     Roy Crowhurst stated that although the Area Panels had received a presentation, they had not seen this report.  It was bypassing the Area Panels and going direct to the City Assembly.  He expressed the view that the report might lead to some residents leaving the tenant’s movement rather than attracting new members.  A great deal of effort had been made over the years to get more tenants involved.

108.6          John Melson considered that there was a good consultation process at the moment and he felt that the Area Panels should not be bypassed.  He stated that when the Innovations Group had been created, it had co-opted people without any consultation with tenants.  Members of the Hi Rise Action Group completely rejected the methodology of the Innovations Group.  Mr Melson stated that he was talking to fellow residents and they were in the process of forming a Residents’ Action Group.  Mr Melson said he was disgusted with the report which he considered was bypassing residents’ views.   

108.7          The Head of Customer Access and Business Improvement reported that the Area Panels had received an interim presentation on the work carried out so far.  It had been decided at the Area Panels to let everyone know about the work of the Innovation Group.  In answer to Roy Crowhurst’s point about resident involvement, there was a great deal in the report about this issue.  Tenants had spoken about a lack of support in local areas and poorly attended meetings.  The report was recommending a new approach with additional support through training, and having the tenants’ representatives themselves training newly elected tenants’ representatives.  There were a range of suggestions in the report that would help tenant involvement.  In terms of the assumption that the proposals would put people off wanting to be involved, the aim was to have a strong, vital tenant movement.

108.8     The Head of Customer Access and Business Improvement referred to John Melson’s comments and stated that the Tenant Compact Monitoring Group were contacted first in terms of electing people to the Innovations Group.  They had decided the matter should be considered at the Area Panels.

108.9     Julie Nichols remarked that members of HMCC had been elected to the Innovations Group.  She stressed the importance of working together to go out and engage tenants who currently did not want to get involved. 

108.10   Councillor Mears had a number of concerns about the report.  She stressed the importance of the HMCC as a platform for tenants to express their views.  She felt that the report did not reflect that.  Although she understood the move to a scrutiny panel she noted that matters were often scrutinised after the event.  Councillor Mears felt the wording of the report was trying to stifle debate and she did not want to see tenants being sidelined.  She stated that it was important that the tenants should feel comfortable with the recommendations. 

108.11   The Chair stated that she believed tenants were crucial to decision making.                       

108.12   Councillor Peltzer Dunn said that he considered the report to be interim bearing in mind that there was no feedback from the constructive meeting in April.  He had considerable sympathy with the report but felt that he should not comment until the report had been submitted to the City Assembly and came back to HMCC before being submitted to the Housing Committee.  

108.13   The Head of Tenancy Services thanked members for their comments. She stressed that she did not want members to think that members of the Innovation Group did not think HMCC important.       

108.14   Councillor Mears referred to the comment in the report that HMCC was used as a political platform.  She felt this was a misleading and inappropriate comment.  There had always been debate and shared views in HMCC.   

108.15   The Head of Housing and Social Inclusion replied that the report had been drafted by officers with feedback from the Innovation Group.  Officers had tried not to change feedback.  The Head of Customer Access and Business Improvement stated that the comments were representative of the feeling of people who were involved.  For all its good points there was some negative feedback from HMCC.  Officers wanted to acknowledge that outside there was that perception. 

108.16   Julie Nichols stated that she was pleased to hear the committee’s views.  She and Sam Murphy had given collective views to the committee.  There was no intent that HMCC should disappear or that there should not be discussion.  They wanted HMCC to be a platform where people could have discussion and make considered views. 

108.17   The Chair stated that the report was stating feelings expressed by tenants across the city.  They wanted a wide and vibrant tenant movement. It would be wonderful to attract new people with a range of ages. 

108.18   Stewart Gover expressed concerns that the report of the Innovations Group came into conflict with S98 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.  He has spoken to Simon Kirby MP who will be sharing this information with Eric Pickles, Secretary for State.

108.19   The Head of Tenancy Services stated that in her reading of the Housing and Regeneration Act, there was nothing to suggest the Innovation Group was contravening the Act.  When the report was submitted to again to HMCC and the Housing Committee there would be legal implications regarding that point. 

108.20   The Chair invited Stewart to the next meeting of the Innovation Group and asked him to bring the legislation he quoted from.           

108.21   Heather Hayes asked for abbreviations to be explained in the document in future and the Chair agreed this should happen.

108.22   John Melson stated that the report was a history of what tenants had tried to achieve before with the exception of tenant scrutiny.  He did not think more tenants would become involved as a result.

108.23   Tom Whiting stated that he felt there was some good sense in the report, but he considered there was not enough material in front of the committee to express a clear view.  

108.24   Councillor Randall thanked members of the Innovation Group for the work they had carried out.  It was an honest and thorough attempt to involve more people in the tenant movement.  The burden was put on too few people at meetings. 

108.25   Ted Harman stated that he considered it to be a good report. There was a lack of trust among tenants which was why they did not come to meetings.   The Chair stressed that building up trust was important to the tenant movement. 

108.26   Councillor Farrow stressed the need to work collaboratively.  The report needed to be carefully considered and brought back to the HMCC.     

108.27   The Head of Tenancy Services stated that the current report was part of a consultation and was not dictating anything.  HMCC’s feedback was needed.  If members disagreed they should let officers know how they would like it to be done differently.  The proposals were about further legitimising the tenant movement.  If nothing was done the tenant movement would die on the vine.  Having a vibrant tenant movement was critical to the Council as social landlords and the Council had no interest in undermining it.

108.28   RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee’s comments, as set out above, on the proposals listed below be noted.

        (i)   Code of conduct 

                    (ii)   Framework for resident involvement

(iii)  Creation of a Tenant Scrutiny Panel   

(iv)   Menu for involvement

(v)  Training offer with some compulsory training

(vi)   Recommendations to form an action plan for taking forward suggestions to make them happen (summarised on page 36).

(2)       That it is noted that there will be further discussion and consultation at City Assembly on 19 May, before recommendations are presented to HMCC and the final report to the relevant committee.