Agenda item

This report sets out the case for a new approach to social value, rooted in national policy developments and Brent’s local priorities. It proposes a shift from a narrow, procurement-only focus to a whole-council, place-based model that embeds social value in all areas of the council’s work.

At this stage in proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a period of 30 minutes to enable conclusion of the final item and remaining business on the agenda.

Members concern regarding the limited time remaining for consideration of the item on social value was noted given the significance of the issue and substantial financial implications associated with social value.

In continuing, Councillor Rubin (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) was invited to introduce the report relating to the Social Value: Draft Policy and Whole-Council Approach, which set out the case for a new approach to social value, rooted in national policy developments and Brent’s local priorities. It proposed a shift from a narrow, procurement-only focus to a whole-council, place-based model that embedded social value in all Council activities. The report also responded to feedback from the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee (February 2025), Procurement Peer Review (April 2025) and the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge, which highlighted the need for a more consistent, strategic and outcomes-focused approach to social value across the Council.

Having thanked Councillor Rubin (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Social Value: Draft Policy and Whole-Council Approach, with the following comments and issues discussed:

·       As an initial question, members queried the absence of performance data within the report and asked whether detailed data on this matter was available. In response, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) confirmed that the data currently held was more limited and explained that the Council had previously adopted a policy which, at the time of its introduction in 2019-2020, was considered robust on paper and aligned with procurement practices. The inclusion of social value requirements within tendering activities for contracts exceeding £100,000 had been implemented effectively, and the procurement documentation was more robust in this regard. However, the delivery of meaningful social value commitments had been constrained by the adoption of a rigid set of performance measures. This rigidity had limited flexibility in negotiations with suppliers and hindered the incorporation of additional insights and contributions from residents and community groups. It was further noted that other councils and organisations, including the Cooperative Councils Network and the Social Value Portal, had moved away from reliance on nationally prescribed measures. Instead, they had adopted approaches that recognised local priorities and tailored engagement with suppliers to secure long-term legacy commitments through collaborative partnerships, rather than through rigid contractual arrangements.

·       The Chair observed that specific performance data had been requested as part of the report but had not been provided. This had made it difficult to scrutinise gaps or make suggestions for improvement regarding the new social value policy, as the Committee lacked clarity due to the absence of data. In response, Councillor Rubin (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) suggested that officers undertake analysis to address this gap and proposed the development of mechanisms to measure and monitor the implementation of social value as part of the strategy.

·       Members highlighted that the current social value policy lacked clarity on how commitments would be monitored, which was considered essential. It was emphasised that a policy without monitoring provisions was inadequate and requested a commitment to monitoring, along with consideration of what such monitoring would entail. In response, Councillor Rubin (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) confirmed that the Council could explore the development of similar measures.

·       Members referred to the policy’s reference to an annual report and questioned whether one would be forthcoming. In response, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) clarified that reinstating an annual report was among the commitments the Council intended to make. Although detailed arrangements were not set out in the current draft policy document, the focus on contract management aimed to better equip officers to negotiate and recognise the importance of social value delivery, supported by appropriate mechanisms. Steps were already being taken to strengthen this approach, and further detail would be provided on measurement and impact information, as referenced by Councillor Rubin.

·       Members referred to comments from the peer review within the committee report indicating that the Council’s social value approach should be less risk-averse and more innovative. It was questioned where evidence of this shift could be found within the new policy. In response, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) stated that the first indication of this change was the move away from rigid nationally prescribed measures previously adopted for Brent. The new approach promoted collaboration and sought opportunities to deliver meaningful outcomes. The framework provided scope to explore significant long-term legacy initiatives, such as a Social Care Innovation Academy or investment to build voluntary sector capacity. These ambitions aimed to consolidate commitments towards impactful goals rather than numerous small-scale actions. It was further emphasised that the policy alone would not achieve these outcomes but reflected feedback from various sectors and organisations.

In continuing the response, Rachel Crossley (Corporate Director Service Reform and Strategy) addressed the issue of risk, noting that a more community-led approach was envisaged. Rather than prescribing, for example, a set number of apprenticeships or equipment, the Council intended to encourage community-driven ideas through initiatives such as “Match My Project”. While this approach carried inherent risks, including challenges in measurement and prioritisation, it was considered essential to focus on what mattered most to communities. This did not prevent employment and skills initiatives but aimed to move beyond prescriptive requirements towards more innovative and locally relevant solutions.

·       Members enquired regarding the next iteration of the social value policy. In response, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) advised that the next step would be to finalise the policy and ensure it was fully prepared for implementation at the start of the new financial year. It was stated that the revised policy would extend beyond the principles of the approach and would articulate the intended outcomes, including considerations relating to risk management.

·       The Chair suggested that the social value annual report, once prepared, should demonstrate, on an annual basis, the delivery achieved through social value commitments. It was emphasised that the report should include numerical values, social value impact and community benefit, and that such a report should be submitted to scrutiny for review. In response, Councillor Rubin (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) expressed his intention to review the report at the Board established to oversee commissioning, procurement and social value but confirmed that the matter could also be referred to the Scrutiny Committee, if required.

·       The Chair questioned whether any consideration had been given to the mechanisms for monitoring social value within the Board established to review contracts. In response, Councillor Rubin (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) confirmed that no firm decisions had been made and suggested that an annual report would be a sensible approach, as it would provide comprehensive data for review.

·       Details were sought around where the resource for monitoring would originate. In response, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) confirmed that suppliers would be required to contribute information and reiterated the principle of proportionality, stating that monitoring would be aligned with the scale and value of the contract. It was acknowledged that previous approaches had been bureaucratic and resource-intensive and confirmed that the Council was seeking alternative methods. Reference was made to practices within social value networks across London, where organisations collectively reviewed achievements which was then used to feedback into an annual report. It was suggested that similar collaborative approaches could be adopted to ensure value for money and impact without imposing excessive burdens. It was additionally mentioned that officer time and priorities would need to be considered and that the process would require ongoing review and refinement.

·       Members observed that both the Procurement Improvement Programme and the Social Value Policy emphasised local benefit, community wealth building and accountability, and questioned whether the Council had considered bringing key services in-house to deliver social value outcomes directly, such as stable local employment, apprenticeships and community wealth, rather than relying on external contracts. Examples cited included housing maintenance, temporary accommodation management and street services. In response, Councillor Rubin (Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Community Power) indicated that this consideration formed part of the ideas within the development of the Procurement Strategy and expressed support for strengthening this element within the report and reiterated the importance of evaluating the benefits of insourcing and alternative methods of commissioning services.

·       Members referred to paragraph 7.0 of the committee report, which highlighted the Council’s commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) within the new approach. Further detail was requested on the steps being taken to ensure that EDI was reflected not only in the policy language but also in measurable outcomes. In response, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) assured that practical steps were already being taken and would be strengthened through the procurement and social value approach. It was stated that EDI considerations often formed part of the key performance indicators (KPIs) within contracts, which were monitored through the contract management process. It was emphasised the importance of ensuring that information on tender opportunities was published in an accessible manner and that suppliers were able to engage effectively. It was further mentioned that the Council intended to remove bureaucratic barriers that hindered smaller organisations, thereby creating a more equitable and inclusive procurement process. It was confirmed that KPIs could be developed to monitor the diversity of organisations contracted by the Council, including organisational structure, size and scale. These measures would support equity, diversity and inclusion aimed at addressing inequalities in areas such as housing and social care, which were fundamentally about inclusion.

·       The Chair requested that, in order to assist the Committee and residents in understanding the practical impact of social value commitments, an example of an agreed contract be provided following the meeting. The Chair requested that this example include a breakdown of the social value commitments within the contract, their value to the Council and details of responsibility for delivery.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, given the remaining time available, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of the Social Value: Draft Policy and Whole-Council Approach. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following information requests and suggestions for improvement identified were AGREED:

INFORMATION REQUESTS

(1)  Provide a sample of data from higher-value procurements since April 2020 (following implementation of the current strategy), detailing:

a)    Social value delivered versus committed;

b)    Performance against associated KPIs;

c)    Where relevant, financial implications for the Social Value Fund where commitments were unmet; and

d)    The resulting impact.

(2)  Provide case studies illustrating both successful and underperforming delivery of social value commitments under current contracts. Each case should outline:

a)    The social value commitments made;

b)    Actual delivery achieved;

c)    Reasons for any variance; and

d)    Lessons learned to inform the forthcoming Social Value Policy.

(3)  Provide further detail on how transparency and accountability will be maintained in measuring social value across services, given the shift from a purely quantitative approach to a mixed model that combines qualitative and quantitative outcomes.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

(1)  Leverage insights from leading councils and academic research to inform the development of the forthcoming Social Value Policy.

(2)  Embed co-production of social value commitments as a core principle in the forthcoming Social Value Policy. This should involve establishing a framework for involving communities and local organisations in shaping commitments during the tender stage, while requiring contractors to work collaboratively with these stakeholders throughout contract delivery to ensure commitments are implemented to reflect community priorities.

(3)  Establish a comprehensive monitoring framework to support the forthcoming policy, with mechanisms to guarantee consistent enforcement across the Council.

(4)  Submit an annual report on the forthcoming Social Value Policy for ongoing scrutiny, presenting detailed evidence of social value commitments made and outcomes achieved.

Please note that the specific wording of the information requests and suggestions for improvement were subject to refinement following the meeting, with the agreement of the Chair.