Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 4, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD. View directions
Contact: Toby Howes, Senior Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 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 the agenda. Minutes: None declared. |
|
Minutes of the last meeting held on 14 September 2011 PDF 117 KB The minutes are attached. Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the last meeting held on 14 September 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
Matters arising Minutes: Work programme - Brent Fairtrade task group
The Chair sought an update on progress with regard to the proposed Brent Fairtrade task group. In reply, Jacqueline Casson (Senior Policy Officer, Strategy, Partnerships and Improvement) informed the committee that Brent Fairtrade Network (BFN) were pursuing schools and businesses as potential partners and the future of the task group depended on the outcome of BFN's application for Fairtrade status this month. |
|
Arrangements for the future of Brent Housing Partnership PDF 74 KB This report summarises the progress made on implementing the recommendations agreed at the Executive on 18 July 2011 in relation to the future arrangements for the ownership, investment and management of the Council’s housing stock. Minutes: Andy Donald (Director of Regeneration and Major Projects) presented the report that summarised the progress made on implementing the recommendations agreed by the Executive on 18 July following an independent review of the council's housing stock. The decisions included:-
· Council retention of ownership of the housing stock · Undertake consultation with tenants and residents on the preferred option to manage the housing stock through an Optimised Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) arrangement with Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) · The drafting of a new management agreement between the council and BHP with full heads of terms to be completed by October 2011 · A full review to be undertaken of key functions in order to deliver improvements and efficiencies · A joint governance review is undertaken between the council and BHP
Andy Donald advised that the proposed optimised ALMO with BHP would maintain a strong relationship with residents and facilitate input from them. The arrangement would focus exclusively on housing management with the objective of achieving top quartile performer status in both delivery of housing management services and for value for money. In order to ensure success of this model, it was essential that a redefining of the relationship between the council and BHP was undertaken, with the council remaining responsible and accountable for housing management and BHP delivering the housing management service on behalf of, and being accountable to, the council. The relationship with the council and BHP would be bought forward through the governance review which was currently at draft stage, an efficiency review and a review of the Management Agreement between the two organisations.
Andy Donald advised that whilst the independent review had identified a number of strengths in the governance arrangements, some structural weaknesses had also developed particularly in respect of the council's expectations of what BHP had been expected to deliver. Members were referred to the measures to be undertaken to provide critical improvements as set out in the report. The efficiency review required 15% savings in back office costs within BHP to be achieved over a four year period, however it was possible this could be attained in three years. It was also important that this target was reached as this saving had been assumed within the context of the current remodelling of debt repayments in relation to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Andy Donald concluded by stating that following the tenants and residents consultation in January 2012, the final report would be put to the Executive in February 2012 with a view to securing a formal agreement in the summer of 2012.
During discussion by committee, Councillor Brown queried whether the comparatively high number of complaints received by BHP reflected their ability to accurately record complaints. He commented that other local authorities did not operate housing stock through ALMOs and sought further information on what were the advantages of the council continuing with the ALMO arrangement. He also enquired how long it would take for the debt repayments to be paid off. Councillor Sheth sought clarification concerning staff ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
Annual Complaints Report 2010/2011 PDF 181 KB This report provides an overview of complaints received and investigated by the Council under the Corporate Complaints procedure and by the Local Government Ombudsman. Depending on their nature, some adults’ and children’s social care complaints come under the corporate procedure while others are subject to separate procedures governed by legislation. Complaints that were dealt with under the separate statutory procedures are the subject of the two further annual reports attached as appendices A and B. Minutes: Phillip Mears introduced the report and confirmed that in terms of the number of complaints under the council's Corporate Complaints Procedure referred to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), this had been the most successful year since recording had begun. A total of 72 decisions were made by the LGO in respect of council complaints, of which only four went to local settlement, representing 6% of LGO investigations where the council was requested to take action to resolve a complaint, the lowest in London against a London average of 21% and a national average of 27%. Members heard that the number of complaints had fallen by 36% compared to 2009/10 and there had been a reduction in stage two and stage three complaints of 28% and 42% respectively. One of the largest stakeholders, Revenue and Benefits, had seen a reduction of 70%. BHP had also experienced a significant reduction and this was partly attributable to changes in maintenance and repair arrangements.
Turning to annual complaints in Children and Families, Phillip Mears reported that 97% of stage one complaints were resolved at this stage, with only six complaints being escalated. By resolving complaints earlier, this helped the council achieve savings and the council was improving in this area in terms of accepting when mistakes had been made and was better prepared to remedy complaints. With regard to Adult Social Care, Phillip Mears stated that recent significant changes to legislation had led to increases in complaints, however the number received this year was still well below the number received in 2009 when the new procedure was implemented.
Phillip Mears commented that the improvements were attributable to improved training for complaints and in seeking to resolve complaints at the earliest stage possible. It was also anticipated that the Customer Services project would help increase the ability for early resolution of complaints. Members heard that the complaints process would be reduced from three to two stages next year and this would present a different challenge to ensuring that complaints were handled in an effective manner.
During discussion, Councillor Gladbaum sought further details in respect of the move from three to two complaint stages. In noting the lack of school places, she enquired whether a large number of complaints were received in respect of school admissions and what measures were being taken to address this. Councillor McLennan welcomed the progress that had been made but asked whether further savings through the One Council programme and changes to BHP and Benefits may lead to complaints rising. She also sought information with regard to a vexatious complaints policy and what percentage of complaints had been classified as vexatious.
The Chair also welcomed the decrease in complaints, however he noted the increase in compensation given in relation to complaints relating to BHP and he sought an explanation for this. Clarification was sought with regard to the LGO receiving 79 complaints but only providing 72 decisions. The Chair enquired whether there were serious concerns about the rise in the ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
The One Council Programme - second update - 2011/12 PDF 443 KB This report provides members on an update on the status of the project within the One Council programme. Minutes: Phil Newby (Director of Strategy, Partnerships and Improvement) provided an update on the One Council programme and informed Members that some projects were in the process of closing and were now helping to deliver services. The overall status of the programme remained amber, however further savings were required so there was to be an expansion in the range of projects and there would be an element of risk involved in some of these. Individual Directorates were playing a greater role in the delivery of projects and there was an implicit need to achieve the savings targets set. Seven projects had now been completed, whilst 15 new projects were due to start. Phil Newby explained that the nature of the programme was changing, with initial goals focused on achieving efficiencies, however this now included implementing a transformation of services which sought to achieve the desired outcomes despite the fewer resources available. Risk areas included procurement, where savings were taking longer to achieve than anticipated, however efforts were being made to further professionalise staff in that area, despite the heavy demand for such skills. It was intended to undertake procurement activities at a larger scale, including working with other West London boroughs, although this would require a longer period to be achieved. There were also moves to migrate skills and knowledge more widely across the council to minimise the need for external assistance. The committee noted that the programme was on track to achieve the £27.8m savings target for 2011/12. Phil Newby then referred Members to appendix one of the report that outlined the structure of the One Council programme.
Irene Bremang (Programme Management Officer Manger, One Council Programme) then explained some of the processes involved in delivering the programme and advised that all projects were required to submit monthly project status reports to the Programme Management Office (PMO), and that the Programme Board meets every two weeks. The piloting of Departmental Portfolio Boards (DPB) was being undertaken within Environment and Neighbourhood Services, whereby the DPB ensures that greater departmental responsibility and ownership of One Council projects was undertaken, although these would still be reported back to the Programme Board, who would only intervene if problems had been identified. It was anticipated that additional DPBs would be phased in over the next quarter. Irene Bremang explained that a new project initially required the submission of a concept paper, followed by a business case outlining the justification for the project; the alignment with the Programme's strategic objectives and its relationship with other projects and activities. The next stage involved submitting a Project Initiation Document (PID) that needed to demonstrate how the project would be delivered and identify how dependencies and risks would be managed. Once the PID was signed off by the Programme Board, the project would then be reported back to the Board on a monthly basis.
During discussion, Councillor McLennan sought further details with regard to the 15 new projects, including how these would be resourced, and what the role of ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Performance and Finance Review, Quarter 1, 2011-12 PDF 193 KB This report provides information on the council's performance and financial matters from quarter one of 2011-12.
Appendices are attached separately for members. Minutes: Phil Newby advised that this report would be presented in a different format at future meetings with a more streamlined format. Members heard that some performance indicators were no longer required to be reported on. However, performance and finance data would still be presented.
The Chair asked if the increase in the number of indicators under Vital Signs being below or missing their targets altogether was of serious concern. He also expressed concern about costs in respect of pothole repairs.
In reply, Phil Newby advised that the Vital signs performance was being looked at and stated that it was complicated by the fact that a lot of the information was being provided by partner agencies. Members noted that the Highways programme was considering how costs for pothole repairs could be bought down. |
|
One Council Overview and Scrutiny work programme PDF 61 KB The work programme is attached. A separate report is also attached providing information on the One Community Many Voice event held on 10 October 2011 during Local Democracy Week. Additional documents: Minutes: Jacqueline Casson advised that Project Athena, the future of customer services and the performance and finance review quarter two would be considered at the next meeting. Councillor Brown suggested that information be given as to the proportion of projects at red RAG status. In reply, Phil Newby advised that projects’ RAG status often moved and that reasons needed to be identified for those of red RAG status. He added that RAG status of projects could possibly be included in future meetings. The Chair suggested that those projects deemed as high risk could be put before the committee at future meetings if was felt that this was appropriate. |
|
Date of next meeting The next meeting of the One Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, 25 January 2012 at 7.30 pm. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the One Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for Wednesday, 25 January 2012 at 7.30 pm. |
|
Any other urgent business Notice of items 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 64. Minutes: None. |