Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

Personal interests were declared as follows:

• Councillor Sheth – Lead Governor of Central and NWL NHS Foundation
• Councillor Matin – employed by NHS
• Councillor Collymore – member of palliative care and end of life steering groups
• Councillor Ethapemi – spouse employed by NHS
• Councillor Smith – employed by NHS
• Councillor Fraser – works with NHS and member of CNWL Carers Council
• Councillor Moeen – works with children and young people’s department

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

There were no deputations received.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 22 November 2022 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting on 22 November 2022 were approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

There were no matters arising.

The report provides the Scrutiny Committee with an update and overview on the performance of Brent Housing Management (BHM).

Councillor Knight (Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security) introduced the report, which provided an update and overview on the performance of Brent Housing Management (BHM), most notably how BHM was dealing with damp and mould following the death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale. The report also provided an update on planned and major works and how BHM communicated with tenants throughout that process. She highlighted that, as the Cabinet Member, she was conscious that engagement was key, and welcomed the Committee’s thoughts on the key engagement activities outlined in section 9 of the report.

In concluding the introduction, Hakeem Osinaike (Director of Housing, Brent Council) highlighted that, while the report detailed what BHM had done and continued to do around damp and mould, he wanted to state this did not mean BHM were in a perfect place for damp and mould because there were still cases that might get missed, such as people who may have damp and mould issues that they had not reported to BHM or anyone else. Publicity and communications were ongoing with all residents to attend to any damp and mould problems.

The Chair thanked councillors and officers for their introduction and invited the Committee to raise comments and questions, with the following issues raised:

The Committee were heartened that the report stated that Brent took a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, and that Brent were doing more than employing basic methods to resolve the issues through new technology and tools. They highlighted that there were around 880 households that had been reached out to in relation to damp and mould and, of those, around 440 households had been engaged. Members were concerned about those who had not been reached, as it may be possible that those were vulnerable residents who may have a lack of capacity to respond. Ryan Collymore (Head of Housing – Property Services, Brent Council) informed the Committee that officers were now doing a deep dive into their systems to see whether there were any tenants whose first language was not English, and then writing to those tenants in their preferred language where it was not. Housing Officers were also conducting focused tenancy verification audits on the individuals they had not reached. A damp and mould leaflet had gone to all residents and had now been redesigned with pictures to be sent to all residents. He felt that outreach was being tackled from many different angles, and everyone that would come into contact with residents through their duties were advising them about damp and mould. There was also a damp and mould email address set up for residents and councillors to email, and contractors were doing toolbox talks with their teams about reporting damp and mould to BHM as well as taking mould wash kits to properties when visiting. Councillor Knight reassured the Committee that the stance on damp and mould was had changed to ensure the attitude of staff was not to attribute issues to resident lifestyle, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report provides the Scrutiny Committee with an update on delivery of the Mental Health and Wellbeing priority as part of the Borough Based Partnership, which brings together commissioning and provider organisations to support the improvement of local health and wellbeing outcomes and reduce inequalities across Brent’s communities and residents.

Phil Porter (Corporate Director Adult Social Care and Health, Brent Council) introduced the report, which provided an update on the mental health and wellbeing Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) subgroup. The Committee heard that mental health and wellbeing was one of the 4 priorities of the ICP, which was now known as the Brent Borough Based Partnership. Phil Porter and Robyn Doran (Director of Transformation, CNWL, and Brent ICP Director) co-chaired the ICP, as well as the mental health and wellbeing subgroup. The subgroup had four priorities; access and demand for services; employment outcomes for those with a mental illness; housing options for those with a mental illness; and children’s mental health services. Within those priorities there were programme plans for each, which were all at different stages of development with some more developed than others. In all cases, the subgroup had tried to respond to a mixture of data, evidence and feedback from the voluntary and community sector, the community, and statutory partners, in order to understand where the biggest difference could be made. He highlighted that this subgroup did not look to monitor individual organisation’s performance but was focused on working together and looking at what could be done better together. Robyn Doran added that these priorities were also interfaced with the Brent Children’s Trust work, inequalities work in the borough, and housing, as mental health interfaced with lots of other aspects of the work being delivered in the borough.

The Chair thanked Phil Porter and Robyn Doran for the introduction and invited comments and questions from those present, with the following issues raised:

The Committee asked who the key stakeholders of the borough based partnership were. Robyn Doran advised the Committee that the stakeholders who were part of all ICP groups included all of the health providers in the borough – Central and North West London University Health Trust (CNWL), Central London Community Health Trust (CLCH), and London North West University Health Trust (LNWUHT) – and primary care partners, as well as voluntary and community sector organisations, community champions, and representatives of the local authority. For the mental health subgroup, the voluntary and community sector organisations who were involved were Ashford Place, Brent Centre for Young People, Hestia, Rethink, and Brent Young People Thrive.

In response to whether there were any representatives from organisations who worked particularly with Black communities on the mental health subgroup, Robyn Doran confirmed that there were no specific organisations focusing specifically on Black communities as part of the mental health subgroup. Each subgroup did not necessarily have every community and voluntary sector partner at the table, but there was a lot of interface work with Thrive, Brent Health Matters, and faith groups, and through those links, who had reach with all communities, the subgroup heard the voices of all communities. For example, Danny Maher, who was the group mental health theme lead and worked with Thrive, engaged a wide range of people with mental illness, and had presented a manifesto to the subgroup  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report provides the Scrutiny Committee with an update on progress of the Social Prescribing Task Group.

Councillor Ketan Sheth introduced the interim task group report. He advised the Committee that the task group had now concluded evidence gathering and thanked the Lead Cabinet Member, Officers involved, and the members of the task group for their assistance. He highlighted that there was good work at a primary care level across the borough in relation to social prescribing, and there was a willingness for the Council and Cabinet Member to take that to the next level and grow social prescribing services so that they were accessible to even more different groups. The task group would now be taking stock of the evidence gathering and formulating recommendations to be brought to the Committee for a future meeting.

The Chair then invited comments and questions from the Committee, with the following issues raised:

Councillor Nerva (Cabinet Member for Public Health and Adult Social Care) felt that the task group had been a very useful journey to take services on to learn about social prescribing and the opportunities to integrate those services into the wider Brent health and social care offer.

Phil Porter (Corporate Director Adult Social Care and Health, Brent Council) agreed that there was a solid foundation for social prescribing to build on and an opportunity to take a whole partnership approach to that. Robyn Doran (Director of Transformation and Brent ICP Director) agreed, adding that it was essential Primary Care Networks (PCNs) worked at a neighbourhood level, and she believed that message had came across.

The Committee wanted a focus on carer duties and responsibilities in the list outlined in section 4.1 of the report. Phil Porter reassured the Committee that there was a clear focus on carers, with a discussion with senior managers held recently which focused on how Brent could put together a clear carers offer across health and social care. He agreed elements of that could be done through social prescribing.

The Committee asked whether consideration had been given to outreach, for those people who may not be able to attend hubs or access social prescribing. Robyn Doran advised the Committee that they were working with the principle that services were difficult to access rather than that communities were hard to reach, so were focusing on how to provide services in every place the community might be, such as in a hub, or where people worked, or in a community centre. If services were taken to where people were, people were more likely to engage. Councillor Sheth added that, while residents registered with a GP had been able to access the offer, the task group were aware not all residents were registered with a GP and therefore were not able to access the service, so the task group was looking to see how everyone, irrespective of their GP registration, could access the services.

As no further comments were raised and there were no recommendations, the Chair drew the discussion to a close.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or her representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.