Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 4, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD. View directions
Contact: Toby Howes, Senior Democratic Services Officer 0208 937 1307, Email: toby.howes@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Personal and Prejudicial Interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: None declared. |
|
Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 28 October 2009 PDF 135 KB The minutes are attached. Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the last meeting held on 28 October 2009 be agreed as an accurate record subject to the following amendment:-
6th line, 3rd paragraph, page 5, replace ‘continued use of the’ with ‘proposed’.
|
|
Matters Arising Minutes: None. |
|
Community Safety Units were set up to deliver the Crime and Disorder Reduction Act 1998. This act made statutory what many authorities were already doing, namely working in partnership to increase community confidence by cutting crime and by curbing Antisocial Behaviour. Research had shown that where the Local Authority, Police, Probation and other public and voluntary sector organisations worked together, much better results were obtained. These studies highlighted that all the agencies were working with predominantly the same people in the same geographical areas. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair welcomed Mark Toland (Borough Commander, Brent Police) to the meeting who gave a presentation on this item. Mark Toland began by stating that Brent was classified as a trident borough which meant the police specifically targeted the high incidences of shootings and murders amongst black members of the community. Some areas of the borough had high levels of deprivation and although it was one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs in the UK, race crime levels were relatively low. He then provided Members with some crime statistics in Brent, including:-
· 12% of all crime committed was classified as violent crime, including robberies and serious violence · Total recorded offences committed was 27,193 in 2008/09, compared to 35,582 in 2004/05 · 1,680 robberies recorded in 2008/09, compared with 2,084 in 2004/05 · 3,075 incidences of vehicle crime in 2008/2009, compared with 4,209 in 2004/05 · 83 incidences of gun crime in 2008/09, compared with 164 in 2006/07 · 502 incidences of knife crime in 2008/09, compared with 526 in 2006/07
Mark Toland commented that the statistics had shown that crime overall had been falling in Brent over the last five years, however confidence in the police remained low at 28%, the lowest of all London boroughs. The police were undertaking a number of initiatives to improve their image and help prevent crime amongst young adults. This included visiting schools and tackling anti-social behaviour on buses and improving relationships with the local and national press. The police had also agreed a Joint Community Safety Strategy with the Council and its partners. Mark Toland then highlighted some of the police’s achievements, such as the ‘Not Another Drop’ against knife crime campaign, the Safer Neighbourhoods scheme and successful operations involving residents in Stonebridge, South Kilburn and Harlesden which had led to better relations with the community. He added that following a complaint from the Hillside Housing Association, 23 arrests had been made in relation to drug dealing activities. A similar operation in Church End had resulted in 36 arrests.
Mark Toland then focused on initiatives to tackle crime in future, stating that one of the areas of concern was the need to address the 15% rise in burglaries Brent, an upward trend experienced by most London boroughs. The Select Committee heard that a Hub Team had been set up to patrol Wembley Central and worked closely with the British Transport Police, whilst a Team also specifically covered Harlesden Town Centre. From January 2010, a series of road shows were also planned to inform the community of the police’s activities, with venues such as schools and churches being used in order to reach large audiences. A mail-out of dvds to residents containing information about the police was also being considered. In order to ensure maximum use of resources, single patrols would be allocated to places where appropriate. A pledge would also be launched, detailing what service the police would provide and when they would be expected to respond to the various categories of crime.
Mark Toland concluded that ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
Options for Revenues and IT Delivery from 2011 PDF 120 KB This report summarises the outcome of an options appraisal for the provision of Revenue and IT services, following the expiry of the existing Capita contract on 30 April 2011. The current contract includes the collection of revenues for council tax and national non-domestic rates and the provision and maintenance of IT systems specific to both Revenue and Benefits services. Additional documents: Minutes: Margaret Read (Head of Revenue and Benefits) introduced the report which summarised the outcome of the options appraisal for Revenue and IT services as the existing Capita contract expires on 30 April 2011. The appraisal considered what type of model and vehicle delivery was desired. The three main options considered were:-
· Providing the service in-house · Shared service with another council · Re-tender of the contract with the same or a revised scope
A soft market targeting involving research to establish potential market interest in a Brent contract was undertaken as part of the assessing the re-tendering option. The Select Committee heard that it was difficult to establish the type of financial modelling required for a shared service option as there was no other London borough operating in this way to undertake a benchmarking exercise.
Margaret Read then drew Members’ to the various advantages and disadvantages of each option as set out in the report. She advised that it was felt that both the in-house and the re-tendering options offered potential to improve on the existing performance, however the in-house option was unlikely to be the most cost effective option. In addition, there was a risk of potential loss of key management and specialist support resources and the loss of shared risk incorporated in the current arrangements. There was also little prospect of developing a successful shared partnership with another local authority in the timescales available. Margaret Read advised that re-tendering of the service was perceived to provide the most cost effective and successful option if the specification included some or even all provision of customer service for revenues. Research had indicated that there was likely to be sufficient market interest to ensure that the Council secured a competitive procurement environment that would provide value for money. It was therefore recommended that the re-tendering option be pursued and that consideration be given to increasing the scope of the contract to provide customer service for Council Tax or a re-configuration of existing arrangements with the One Stop Service to increase effectiveness.
During discussion by Members, Councillor H B Patel commented that the shared service option did not seem to be a realistic one and there were value for money issues with the in-house option. He sought views regarding what Capita’s intentions were with regard to a possible future contract. Councillor Butt asked what the Council Tax collection rates were for London boroughs who provided the service in-house and suggested that an in-house arrangement would beneficial and staff could be transferred under TUPE arrangements. Councillor Mendoza sought views as to the potential of the three options to increase revenue from Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) collection.
The Chair enquired whether extending the scope and length of the contract would be more attractive to potential tenderers and if it was intended to add future clauses for under performance in the event of a contract being awarded to an external organisation. With regard to a change of contractor, the Chair asked what steps would ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
Complaints Annual Report 2008/09 PDF 629 KB This report provides information about complaints against Brent Council considered by the Local Government Ombudsman; comments on the Council’s performance under our own performance; and reports on developments in the Council’s complaint handling. The annual reports on the operation of the statutory social care complaints process are presented with this report to give Members a comprehensive picture of complaints made against the Council. Minutes: Susan Riddle (Corporate Complaints Manager, Policy and Regeneration Unit) introduced the Complaints Annual Report for 2008/09 and confirmed that complaints made to the Local Government Ombudsman were at the lowest for a number of years. Figures to date for 2009/10 suggested that these numbers would remain low. However, Susan Riddle warned that although complaints under the Council’s procedure had also fallen at the first stage of the complaints process, there had been an increase in complaints being escalated to the second and third stages across the service areas. This highlighted the need to resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity. Susan Riddle reported that the new Adult Social Care Complaints Process launched in April 2009 had performed well and other areas of the Council could benefit from using similar processes.
Councillor Bessong sought more information on the review of the complaints process and asked if the relevant contacts were actively publicised for those wishing to submit a complaint. Councillor Mendoza enquired about the number of complaints submitted by frequent complainers. Councillor Van Kalwala enquired if statistics were available breaking down complaints submitted according to ethnicity and asked if residents were being informed of the need to identify their ethnic background. He also asked if there were resource limitation issues with regard to retrieving some information.
The Chair sought further details as to what measures were untaken to attempt to resolve a complaint at stage one of the complaints process.
In reply, Susan Riddle stressed the need for proper engagement with the complainant at the first stage in order to resolve the complaint as soon as possible and the Complaints Team were working closely with service areas to address. She advised that the present economic circumstances had seen a rise in the number of complaints involving compensation claims. The Select Committee noted that the Complaints Process was due to be reviewed this year and that there had been an earlier internal audit review of it. The internal audit review focused on processes and had identified that some service areas were not meeting corporate objectives and work was being undertaken to address this. Information on the Complaints Process was also available on the Council’s website, at post offices and medical centres in the borough and at area consultative forums and service user forums.
Susan Riddle advised that there were only a small number of complaints submitted by frequent complainers although each complaint was taken seriously. Only a small proportion of complainants provided details of their ethnicity on the complaints form and it was felt that this was because many felt the information irrelevant or that it would disadvantage them in some way. In addition, some complaints were not submitted using the Council’s complaint form. The low uptake of providing ethnic information was reflected across London boroughs as a whole. However, Susan Riddle advised that community groups were being approached and informed of the need to provide ethnicity details. Members heard that it was a time consuming process in obtaining information on complainants from ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Brent 2009 Residents Attitude Survey PDF 66 KB This report provides an update on the findings from the 2009 Brent residents’ attitude survey. The objective of the survey was to find out how residents feel about living in Brent, their views on the council and the services it provides as well as other issues of importance for people living in the area. Additional documents: Minutes: Cathy Tyson informed Members of results of the most recent Brent Residents’ Attitude Survey. She suggested that the methodologies employed during the survey made it more robust in comparison with the 2009 Place Survey, in particular it was felt that it provided a fairer reflection of the improvements the Council had undertaken to deliver better quality services to residents. The Select Committee heard that Residents Attitude Survey was based on face to face interviews with 2,243 people aged 16 years and over at their homes. Cathy Tyson then drew Members’ attention to the results of the survey, with 65% of residents expressing overall satisfaction with the way the Council operates its services, an improvement of 17% from the previous Residents Attitude Survey in 2005 and the highest recorded satisfaction levels since the surveys had begun in 1990. By contrast, the Place Survey had recorded a decline in satisfaction levels from 52% in 2006/07 to 45% in 2009. Other headline Residents Attitude Survey results for 2009 included:-
· 83% satisfaction in area as a place to live, up from 75% in 2005 · 25% felt their area had improved, 23% that it had got worse and 40% that it had not changed much, compared with 27% who thought it had got worse and 37% that it had not changed much in 2005. · 51% thought there was a strong sense of community, compared with 37% in 2005 · 74% thought that Brent is a place where people from different cultural backgrounds get on well together · 32% felt that they could influence decisions in their local area, an issue that the Council needs to focus on
Cathy Tyson advised that residents perceived levels of crime as the issue most needing improvement, followed by activities for teenagers, road and pavement repairs, clean streets and level of traffic congestion. This mirrored the results from 2005, with activities for teenagers up from fourth to second, clean streets down from second to fourth and road and pavement repairs down from second to third. Satisfaction levels increased in 24 of the 28 services surveyed since 2005, with the 86% satisfaction in refuse collection and 81% in recycling facilities reflecting the Council’s upgraded waste contract and the introduction of compulsory recycling. The single largest increase in satisfaction for local services was 18% in sports facilities. Members heard that there had also been a decrease in dissatisfaction for 19 of the 28 service areas surveyed since 2005, with the largest decrease of 11% in public conveniences. Less than 10% thought Council services had got worse, 18% better and 63% about the same. Cathy Tyson explained that the 36% of respondents who felt that the Council provided good value for money, a 10% increase from 2005, reflected increased communication with residents, and 59% of residents felt that the quality of Council services overall was good. The Select Committee noted that there had been a significant rise in those using the Council’s website as a source of information about the Council, up to 22%.
During ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Community Use of Council Owned Buildings - Update on the Implementation of Recommendations PDF 72 KB This report provides an update on the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Community Use of Council Owned Buildings task group report. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair asked that this item be deferred to a future meeting because of time constraints. He also requested that the report include more detail. |
|
Performance and Finance Select Committee Work Programme 2009/10 Members are asked to consider future topics to be included in the Select Committee’s Work Programme for 2009/10. Minutes: The Work Programme for 2009/10 was noted. |
|
Items requested onto the Overview and Scrutiny Agenda (if any) None. Minutes: None. |
|
Recommendations from the Executive for items to be considered by the Performance and Finance Select Committee (if any) None. Minutes: None. |
|
Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Performance and Finance Select Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, 16th February 2010 at 7.30 pm. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Performance and Finance Select Committee was scheduled for Tuesday, 16 February 2010 at 7.30 pm. |
|
Any Other Urgent Business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order No 64. Minutes: None. |