Agenda item

The Director of Policy and Regeneration will provide the committee with an overview of the One Council Programme and set out the key areas for the year ahead.

Phil Newby introduced this item and circulated a paper detailing the current stage of One Council projects at tranches one and two.  In respect of the Brent Business Support project, Phil Newby advised that the project’s objectives were to create a sharper, improved and more modern business support function.  The Children’s Social Care project addressed a number of key issues, including fostering in the Borough, whilst the Income Generation project was currently at the concept stage.  The Reshaping Customer Contact project sought to look at other ways of contact with customers, such as through the web, e-mail and telephone as face to face contact was the most expensive method of customer service.  Wave One of the Review of Lower Priority Areas (ROLPA) project had been stopped as its activities had either generated new projects or merged with existing ones, however this project was presently under reconsideration under Wave Two.  Members heard that the Strategic Procurement Review project was a key one which would yield considerable savings.  Similarly, the Strategic Property Review project would also make significant savings and looked at how Council buildings were used, with some 14 buildings either up for sale or having their leases ended.  Phil Newby advised that the Structure and Staffing project looked at the need to balance the manager to staff ratio and a further 300 posts were due for deletion by September 2010, with compulsory redundancies avoided where possible.  Members noted that Price Waterhouse Coopers had been recruited to provide a supporting role, although the Council was solely responsible for the delivery of this project.   It was confirmed that the Waste and Recycling project’s outcome had developed a new Waste Strategy and this was due for consideration at the 11 August meeting of the Executive.

Phil Newby informed Members that the New Ways of Working project’s objective was to ensure that the Council was fit for purpose when it moved to the Civic Centre.  The Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review project was necessary as it needed to address the impact on SEN facilities following the withdrawal of the Building Schools for Future programme.  In respect of the Total Place project, this was to be be re-named Community Budgets and the Committee heard that the Council was in discussion with its partners as to how resources would be used and it was conceivable that the Council could help with back office functions and sharing buildings with some partners.  The Willesden project sought to investigate options in re-developing the Willesden Centre and enhance its role as the south of the Borough’s main customer contact point.

With the approval of the Chair, Robert Dunwell addressed the Committee.  Robert Dunwell commented that the contractors were obliged to remove dumped items and therefore he suggested that the loss of revenue from removing the bulky waste removal charge should be made up through renegotiating the contract with the contractor.

During Members’ discussion, the Chair asked what steps were taken to ensure there was not disruption to services whilst they were in transition.  He sought views on what particular projects this Committee should focus on and he asked that payments to external organisations supporting the projects be tracked for Members’ information.  He also advised that Members could request that specific projects be considered by the Committee.  Councillor Clues sought views as to how the proposed new scrutiny structure would be an improvement on the previous one.  He also commented that there should be a coordinated approach to addressing SEN and Children’s Social Care, stating that a lack of progress for a child’s SEN would impact upon their social care too.   Councillor Kabir commented that in some cases SEN facilities were sought from other boroughs because they were not available in Brent and suggested that in the SEN review, the Concept Paper should take into account the need for flexibility in order to not impinge unnecessarily on residents. 

Councillor Long enquired on the duration of the projects to be fully implemented and what stage would they be considered by the overview and scrutiny committees.  With regard to the Reshaping Customer Contact project and increasing telephone contact, she commented on the need to be mindful of the frustration customers experience when they cannot get through and she asked what steps would be taken to ensure that they would.  Councillor Lorber sought further details on the Income Generation, Reshaping Customer Contact and Waste and Recycling projects and whether Deloitte were still being used to support the projects.  He commented that there were a significant proportion of properties that did not have sufficient room for green boxes, whilst there were also too many grey bins provided which meant that the contractor would collect more waste that would hen be sent to landfill. It was suggested that a proportion of the grey bins be replaced with green boxes.  Councillor Mashari enquired whether dumped bulky items could still be recycled.

In reply to the issues raised, Phil Newby advised that provision to ensure services were not disrupted during the transition phase had been built into the projects’ remit.  He suggested that project leaders could be invited to address the Committee and respond to Members’ questions, whilst the renamed Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Health Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee would consider the important issues regarding SEN and Child Social Care and changes to Health Service provision respectively.  Phil Newby confirmed that the new scrutiny structure had been agreed by the Constitutional Working Group and would facilitate more focused scrutiny on how the Council’s partnerships worked.  Members heard that there would be regular reports on the progress of the projects and these would give opportunities for the Committee to consider to what extent these projects were delivering.  Phil Newby agreed that it was important that the SEN review should ensure that there was flexibility for SEN users and consideration of what services could be provided within Brent.  He confirmed that a report on Income Generation was due to be published, whilst a model had been created for Reshaping Customer Contact.  A Customer Journey Project was being piloted in Adult Social Care and it was anticipated that this would be rolled out to other service areas over time.  Phil Newby advised that work continued on the detail of the processes in improving customer contact, including by telephone which he acknowledged did generate a number of lost calls and a key objective would be to ensure that the customer was connected to the appropriate officer at the earliest stage.  There were also moves to increase the ratio of front line staff in relation to back office positions.  Members heard that in terms of Procurement, consideration of renegotiating some contracts was being considered and it was anticipated that this would generate considerable savings.

Phil Newby advised that during consideration of what resources were necessary to deliver projects, if more needed to be spent to achieve this, then the project needed to demonstrate that it would achieve a corresponding increase in savings.  He added that whilst projects’ success should not be totally dependent on consultants, their expertise was sometimes required in certain areas where the Council’s knowledge may be lacking.

Cathy Tyson added that, in respect to Income Generation, a fundamental review of what services were being provided and the basis of their provision, including whether there should be a fee for such a service, was being undertaken.  The Waste and Recycling project had focused on improving recycling access to a wider range of properties, such as flatted properties.