Agenda item
Call-in of Executive Decisions from the Meeting of the Executive on Tuesday, 15th September 2009
None received at time of publication of the agenda. The deadline for call-ins is Tuesday, 22nd September 2009.
Minutes:
Addendum to the West London Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy
Councillor Powney began the discussion by expressing a concern over the achievability of the LAA NI 192 target of reaching a 40% recycling rate for 2010-2011. In response, Councillor Van Colle, Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture, explained that the current performance for the borough, as set out in the executive report, was 30% and that rates tended to vary month by month. He stated that in April, June and July the council was achieving in access of 30%, yet in May it was 29%. He explained that when comparing the same months year by year, recycling rates had greatly increased. Councillor Van Colle commented that he hoped that the 40% recycling rate would be achieved but that it could not be guaranteed. He explained that the financial costs of reaching 40% were high. The cost of diversion, he stated, was over half a million because of the number of lorries which needed to be used. He explained that the Council was mostly diverting plastic and that this was not terribly economical to recycle.
Councillor Van Colle explained that the council would continue to do everything it could to encourage people to recycle, such as educating residents. Chris Whyte, Head of Environment Management, added that a piece of work which was being undertaken this year was to update the Waste Strategy. He explained that the current system used should allow the council to achieve a 35% recycling rate but could make it difficult to achieve a 40% rate. In order to reach the 40% rate he stated that a waste composition analysis would be carried out, along with the creation of a new modelling system. He explained that it was hoped that new proposals would be available middle part of next year.
Councillor Farrell asked whether there were any financial implications for not reaching the 40% target. In response, Chris Whyte explained that there could be a financial reward linked with this target, but that there would not be any financial penalties if the target was not met. Councillor Farrell requested that information, on what this possible reward entailed, be sent to all members of the committee.
Councillor Farrell raised a concern that leaves on the streets were not being put into the appropriate bag for composting. She explained that she was concerned that the reduction in the use of street care ward officers was resulting in the council carrying out less monitoring on the streets. In response, Chris Whyte explained that leaves may have been put in disposal bags and not recycling bags because the waste may be predominantly litter and therefore not recyclable. Chris Whyte informed the committee that the council was currently developing a leafing plan and that he would take note of this concern and pass it onto the relevant officers.
Modernisation of the Council’s financial management arrangements and approval for appointment of consultants
Councillor Castle welcomed Duncan McLeod, Director of Finance and Corporate Resources to the committee. The committee agreed to deal with just the lead officer for this item. Duncan McLeod began by providing the committee with some background information as to why a review into the Council’s financial management arrangements was carried out and why there was a need to modernise the arrangements. He explained that the proposals had been developed as part of the ‘One Council’ stream of work as set out in the Council’s Improvement and Efficiency Strategy. He advised that the Council’s current financial system was developed in the early 1990s and whilst this system was suitable for the time, it had now become outdated and therefore the service level was not as good as it should be. He commented that there were high standards in some areas and lower standards in others. He added that the Council was already in the process of implementing a single accounting system and so the opportunity was right to review the Council’s financial management arrangements.
Members discussed the item and the issues raised in respect of the reasons for call-in. Councillor Powney began the discussion by enquiring whether the reduction, mentioned in item 10 of the executive report, to 105 or 97 staff from 144, would have an impact on service delivery. He explained that he was concerned that the loss of 30% of the staff could reduce the quality of service delivered. Councillor Powney commented that he was also concerned about diversity implications and that the new arrangements would lead to standardisation, which may affect some individuals more than others and could lead to a decrease in the standard of service quality. Councillor Farrell also raised a concern about standardisation and that it could impact negatively on residents. She was concerned that those who do not have access to computers and therefore, for example, could not access online payments would be disadvantaged by the new arrangements. She commented that there was a body of evidence which suggested that gender, race etc may determine the service that residents receive and therefore equalities impact assessments were very important and should be specific in what they include.
In response to Councillor Powney’s first concern about staffing and its effect on service quality, Duncan McLeod stated that he did not believe that service quality would be reduced. He explained that by making the system more efficient, service quality would be improved. He stated that there were activities in the current system that were being carried out which were not value for money. He gave the committee an example of how the Council had been paying individual invoices for every electricity meter in the council and how it would be moving to a system where there would be a single invoice from the electricity company. He explained that by making the system more efficient, less staff would be required to carry out the finance functions and that there would be significant savings to be made from the reduction of staff. He informed the committee that the 144 posts were spread across the Council and that a significant amount of staff were agency staff. Furthermore, a sizeable number had been carrying out other activities as well, so amalgamation would be looked at. Finally, he explained that it wasn’t a loss of 30% of the staff as there were a number of vacancies.
In response to Councillor Powney’s and Councillor Farrell’s concern about standardisation and the possible diversity implications and impact on service quality, Duncan McLeod explained that by making the service more efficient it would improve the service for everyone. He felt the standardisation issue was a wider issue over how residents interact with the Council. Online transactions, he explained, had increased and would continue to do so. However, he stated that this doesn’t mean that the Council would not encourage other forms of payment or would necessarily withdraw types of services. He believed that the Council had provided people with more flexibility over how to pay by increasing the number of outlets available and had therefore actually made it more convenient for people. Furthermore, the savings made would be put back into council services. He also assured the committee that telephone contact would still be available. He added that many of the changes focused on transactional services which were not directly front line services and therefore would not greatly affect residents, as long as they were working well. In response to an enquiry about equality impact assessment, he stated that the modernisation process would take place over a number of stages, thus an assessment would need to be carried out at each stage of the process.
Councillor Castle expressed an opinion that it was difficult to predict the impact on equality that the new arrangements would have at this stage. He therefore requested that a briefing note be presented to the committee in four months time to update the committee as to whether there has been any impact on equality. Duncan McLeod also informed the committee that the Performance and Finance Committee would receive reports on the progress of the project at regular intervals.