Brent admits single Scrutiny Committee failures and proposes a change to two committee system

Less than two years after the adoption of the controversial decision to have just one Scrutiny Committee in Brent proposals are to go before the Cabinet to have two Scrutiny Committees. If adopted this would go to the May Council AGM.

The proposal outlines the issues that have arisen from the single committee structure, some of which were forecats by a guest blog on Wembley Matters in May 2014 LINK:

.        The purpose of moving to a single Scrutiny Committee meeting on a frequent basis was to enable a more consistent, holistic and streamlined approach to all scrutiny activities commissioned by a single committee. The introduction of a single committee to replace the previous four themed scrutiny committees also made a considerable saving in terms of member allowances. Prior to May 2014 each scrutiny committee had a chair, vice-chair and six members with respective allowances. The annual potential cost of each committee was £38,020 in member allowances, making a total for the whole scrutiny function of potentially £152,080. The current cost of member allowances for a single scrutiny committee is potentially £36,190 making a potential saving of £115,890 on the previous model. These costings are maximum potential costs only as members already in receipt of a special responsibility allowance would not be entitled to a second special responsibility allowance for their scrutiny role. The costings nonetheless provide a useful illustration of the indicative costs implications. 


.        It was considered that operating separate scrutiny committees produced a fragmented approach to scrutiny with each committee developing its own work programme which did not always reflect the cross-cutting aspects of complex policy issues. It was also felt that a single committee would be a more effective use of the finite officer resources available to support scrutiny given the pressure on resources. 


.        However after nearly two years of operating the single Scrutiny Committee structure, the anticipated advantages have not outweighed the logistical issues of monthly meetings and has resulted in a concentration of scrutiny activities into a relatively small group of members and officers. 


.        Having one committee responsible for all scrutiny activities has meant that the committee has not developed in depth specialism and understanding of services or key policy agendas. With a wide variety of issues being considered at each meeting the agendas can be incoherent and this makes it difficult to develop continuity on specific subjects or issues between committee meetings. 


.         In particular the move away from themed committees has resulted in less active engagement of service areas in working constructively with scrutiny members as there is less perceived ownership of one corporate Scrutiny Committee. This has both distanced service departments from scrutiny and meant that less members overall are activity engaged in debate and discussion on the policy issues and performance of Council services. In practice the current model means that only eight members are actively engaged in scrutiny discussion on a regular basis (although other members who are not part of the formal scrutiny committee do contribute to task groups). Previously around 30 non–executive members regularly contributed to a scrutiny committee at least once a quarter. 


.        The single Scrutiny Committee model has also impacted on the development of a productive scrutiny relationship with statutory partners, particularly in relation to the duties of the Council to scrutinise the provision of local health services and partnership work on community safety. It has proved difficult to accommodate a consistent work programme on health issues, children’s services and adult social care within the single work programme. This has limited the development of an in depth understanding of these complex and critical service areas, which was noted in the findings of the recent Ofsted inspection of Brent’s Safeguarding and Looked After Children’s services. 


.        The disadvantage of a single Scrutiny Committee structure could not necessarily have been foreseen. Brent is still the only Council in London to operate a single scrutiny committee structure, although three others have a main committee with themed sub-committees. However as the Council enters the next phase of change with the development of the Brent 2020 Vision and the programme of outcome based reviews, it is vital that we reconsider the most appropriate scrutiny structure which will facilitate the effective engagement of members in shaping the future direction of the Council via the Scrutiny function. This is particularly important given the political composition of the Council and the challenging nature of the issues the borough faces. 


The report goes on to propose a two committee structure to remedy the situation after setting out the role of Scrutiny:

 

.        There are a number of key objectives which any new scrutiny structure should be designed to achieve. These are:-

·      To enable non-executive members to develop a thorough understanding of key policy and service issues which supports effective and constructive scrutiny of performance and decision-making across Council services and meets the statutory requirements of scrutiny. 


·      Maximises the number of Members engaged in regular scrutiny activities and enables non-executive members to contribute to the shaping of Council policy at the right point in the policy development process. 


·      A structure that covers both the breadth of internal and external issues but also provides sufficient scope for the committee to develop specialisation and become experts in their subject areas. 


·      The frequency of scrutiny meetings is aligned to the decision-making timetable and enables high quality reports to be produced with scrutiny input made at the right time in the development of options and proposals. 


·      Can take a holistic view of partnership, performance and resourcing issues in relation to the individual service or issue under scrutiny. 


·      Enables clear accountability of Lead members and senior officers for decisions and service performance. 


·      The scrutiny function should be responsive to the views and concerns of service users and residents, actively seeking their opinions to shape their work programme. 


·      Is properly resourced and supported by senior officers and services within the Council and the contribution of scrutiny members is a valued part in the process of defining the Council’s future policy direction. 


.        3.15  In order to achieve these objectives it is therefore proposed that the future Scrutiny committee structure should, as set out below, be more closely aligned to the organisational structure of the Council as well as providing more opportunity for in-depth scrutiny.

 
Proposed Scrutiny Structure 


The proposal is to have two scrutiny committees combining the following remits:- 


·      Community and Well being Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover Housing, Adult Social Care, Public Health and the statutory responsibilities with regard to scrutiny of local health services and major reconfigurations of provision. It would also scrutinise the children and young people’s service, partnership work undertaken by the Children’s Trust and scrutiny of Safeguarding arrangements. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). The four voting education co-opted members and the two non voting education co-opted members would be part of this committee. 

·      Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover corporate resources, (including Customer Services, Policy, Partnerships and Performance, Procurement and IT) as well as regeneration, environment and community safety. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). 

The indicative cost implications in respect of special responsibility allowances are set out below. As previously stated, however, these costings are potential maximum costs only and actual costs are likely to be lower as some of the members will already be in receipt of a special responsibility allowance. 
In addition, in accordance with the provisions of the Members’ Allowance Scheme, a 1% uplift in allowances has been factored in. On this basis the total potential costs are £40,614 higher than the current scrutiny structure. 


2 x Chairs allowance at £14,140
2 x Vice Chairs at £5,050
12 x SRA allowance for committee members at £3,202

Total

£28,280 £10,100 £38,424

£76,804

  

The full report can be found HERE

VOTE ON WHETHER BRENT COUNCIL SHOULD INCREASE COUNCIL TAX

Please see the side panel to take part in this poll.

You can add a reason for your vote as a comment below this posting.

Brent Budget Scrutiny Panel recommend Council Tax rise to protect the most vulnerable

In a report to be discussed at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on January 6th 2016, Brent Budget Scrutiny Panel recommend that the Council raise Council Tax by the maximum of 2% which is allowed without a referendum as well as the 2% ring-fenced rise for adult social care.  Last year there was much controversey when Cllr John Duffy proposed an increase in Council Tax. LINK

The Panel  also call for the proposed 10% cut in road and pavement repairs to be abandoned.

On Council Tax their reasoning is set out as follows:

.        7.1  The minimum legal requirement on the Council this year is to set a balanced budget 
and a level of Council Tax for the forthcoming financial year. As noted above, we are satisfied that they will do the former, but we anticipate much further debate around setting the level of the latter. 


.        7.2  During the last Parliament, the government offered a freeze grant to local authorities who froze or reduced their basic level of Council Tax. This was the equivalent to a 1 per cent increase in Council Tax in each financial year. Along with most local authorities, Brent accepted this grant in every year of the last Parliament and never increased its level of Council Tax. 


.        7.3  The advantage of this policy was that the Council were able to receive some additional funds without asking local people to contribute any more through the Council Tax system. 


.        7.4  This disadvantage was that the Council’s overall tax base would decline each year, as the additional funds provided could not increase cumulatively. Accordingly, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) has estimated that had Council Tax risen in line with the Retail Prices Index measure of inflation of the course of the last Parliament, average council tax bills would be £168 higher next year, yielding an extra £2.8bn in funding for local authorities. This amount is equivalent to the entire road maintenance budget for the UK or the public health grant for local authorities. 


.        7.5  In their Local Government Settlement announced before Christmas, the government announced both that the freeze grant would henceforth be abolished, and that Councils would continue to only be able to raise Council Tax up to 2 per cent without having a run a referendum. 


.        7.6  We feel that these dual announcements leave the Council with little option but to increase Council Tax by the maximum allowed in this budget. It is understandable that the Council has decided not to increase Council Tax in previous years to protect residents, but in accepting the freeze grant, Brent has left its Council Tax base at a level several years out of date, and if action is not taken soon this baseline will be far behind what is required to run services in the future. 


.        7.7  We also understand that this will have an impact on our residents. We therefore recommend that the Council reviews its Council Tax support scheme including any potential increase which might need to be made to protect the most vulnerable in the borough. 


.        7.8  Likewise, the government have also announced that they will allow Councils to increase Council Tax by a further 2 per cent if the money is ring fenced to spend on social care. We feel that this option should also be carefully considered by the Council as a way to prevent the most drastic of cuts in this area. 
 


The recommendation on road and pavement repairs states:

.        6.4 ….we are very concerned about proposal MGF002, which proposes to cut the core budget for core highways maintenance by 10 per cent. It was noted that the list of potential risks associated with this item was longer than many others, something particularly alarming in light of the overall saving being relatively low at £50,000. 


.        6.4  The report notes openly that this cut will lead to fewer active repairs, something which could be dangerous for residents, but also severely damage the reputation of 
the Council, particularly at a time when Council charges and taxes may be set to increase. It also risks additional costs in litigation arising from possible accidents arising as a result of poorly maintained roads and pavements.

.        6.5  We recommend that this proposal be dropped and that instead the Council examines if alternative ways to repair the street scene will decrease the need for reactive action in the long term. 


.        6.6  For example, it was noted that tarmacking or concreting pavements leads to more even surface than paving slabs and does not give space for plants to grow upwards and damage the surface. Prioritising such alternatives may help to save the authority in the long term rather than always replacing paving stones on a like-for-like basis. 


.        6.7  Another idea raised was to seek an outside partner to doggedly pursue illegal rubbish dumpers in the borough. The partner would be incentivised by being able to keep a large percentage of fines generated but the Council would realise long term savings as levels of illegal rubbish dumping – and associated clean-up costs – decrease. A similar approach could also be taken to people who drop litter or who do not clean up after their dogs. 


The Panel  calls for Scrutiny Committee involvement to be much earlier in the budget making process and makes an overall critique of the package:

.        4.4 Our main broad critique of the package is that it lacks a common thread or philosophical story. The package instead appears to be a collection of disparate ideas brought together in order to reach the final figure required. 


.        4.5  A clear example of this would be in the DOE001 proposal to increase the take up of direct payments for home care and community support. This is simply presented as a savings proposal rather than as part of the Council’s long-term vision of how to deliver care. 


.        4.6  We feel that setting out the Council’s concrete vision at the start of the process, and ensuring that each proposal made aids progress towards that vision, rather than stalling it, would be an approach which would better ensure this continuity of purpose in future years. 


There is much else of interest in the full report that can be found below:

Brent Cabinet to discuss 'transforming' adult social care and budget cuts

The Brent Library 'Transformation' project, which really meant closures, has given the word a bad name but it is back again at Cabinet on Monday July 27th with a report 'Adult Social Care Transforming Day Care - Direct Services'. LINK

Given the history it is worth careful perusal.

KINGSBURY RESOURCES CENTRE

The Kingsbury Resources Centre provides day care services to older people aged 65+ at its premises in Stag Lane. The reports says that it currently supports about 60 people with average daily attendance 25 including 4 wheelchair uses. Eight users have a learning disability. It operates between 9am and 4pm and users attend for an average of 6 hours 3 days a week. There are 8 staff.

The consultation about its future found that 'users do not want to lose the day centre as a meeting place and they value and do not want to lose the friendship groups they have formed at the centre'.

One worrying aspect is the comment that 'Some people expressed that the repeated focus on day centres made them feel like a burden to the council and did (sic) that they did not feel valued.'

The reports says that the concerns raised were 'not unexpected' and officers were 'able to reassure both users and carers by clarifying that the consultation was about providing services in different ways, not reducing or removing services.'

Various options are discussed and rejected in the report including asking 'the voluntary and community centr'( MF that may mean 'sector') to take over the  the Centre's running, a Council partnership with another organisation to share risk and jointly manage the Centre, the council continuing to own and run the Centre but to develop it into a specialist dementia care service.

The reasons for rejection of the options include under-utilisation, spare capacity in existing dementia day opportunities and the lack of any appetite for risk share or joint management.

The report therefore opts to close down the Kingsbury Resource Centre and either sell it off or transfer it as part of a community assets transfer project.  'Spot purchase placements within the voluntary sector' would be made:

Closing Kingsbury Resource Centre would generate a potential saving of £150k on the current budget and a potential capital receipt if the buildings is sold.

NEW MILLENNIUM DAY CENTRE

This is a purpose built Centre close to Willesden Centre for Health and Care and the Council has a 90 year lease. It provides day care to 87 people who have a physical disability, 28 people who have a learning disability 'of which 8 are between the ages of 55 and 77 and could be considered eligible for older people and dementia services'. An average of 35 people use the day centre on any given day and some have been attending for up to 30 years 'and have become very attached top the Centre.'

It operates Monday to Friday 9am to 4pm and has 14 full time staff.

The report states:

'The focus at this centre was to explore the opportunity to support users to access alternative existing provision and to involve them in a co-production process to develop new services which will not only meet existing needs but also support greater independence.'

All laudable but likely to raise suspicion when the Council is also anxious to save money. Rather than consultation the process here was 'co-production' and consisted of 13 users and carer meetings, followed by further meetinsg with carers, visits to Thurrock council to review their service model, further meetings to share a potential model with users and carers and meetings to get feedback on the models.

The report states:

Users were worried about the centre closing and felt that the changes to their services seem to be a continuous process and have been ongoing for at least the last 6 years. They felt the change needed to stop. 

Then comes the reassurance:

However, through discussion users were confident that a co-produced solution would be the best way to ensure that they had more control over changes to that service, and they were clear that the aim of co-production was to develop a more sustainable service which would hopefully mean that there would be less need for a change to the services in the future.

Referring to lack of trust in the Council the report states:

Discussions showed  that this was primarily as a result of the many users having been through changes to in house day services in 2012 and some issues with the process.  Through the co-production process people were able to separate their feelings about previous experiences and the need to bring a positive attitude and open mind into the discussions about the future of the service.

The centre itself was strongly supported:

All users and carers spoke in strong terms about how much they valued their day centre. Users were clear that the centre is special and that they feel like one big happy family....Many users raised concerns that they do not want to lose the relationship they have with staff.

The report says that the co-production process established that  it order to maintain quality sustainable services and end uncertainty an enhanced 'social enterprise model' would be most suitable to include:

• Using the centre as a hub but supporting users to access the community more
• Make better use of the buildings through extended hours, potentially including evenings and weekends
• Offering 'different and more personalised respite support for carers as well as users - including the  possibility of pooling budgets so groups could make  'holiday arrangements at Centre Parks or ehsewhere'.

There are many more claimed advantages listed in the report. Officers recommend that they bring a full business case to Cabinet in the Autumn to include details on structure, governance, finance, risk, timescales and other potential implications. The financial implications would recognise 'the long term challenge for the council so any community enterprise would be seeking to reduce operating costs.'

That is is perhaps the sting in the tail when  the wider 'transformation of direct services initiative has a full saving requirement of  £755,000 over 2015-16 and 2016-17  (£432,000 and £323,00).'

TUDOR GARDENS RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME

Tudor Gardens is a relatively new residential care home. Most of the staff and residents moved from Melrose House 4 years ago.  It is the only in-house, directly provided residential care home left ion Brent.  It currently provides support for 14 people who have a learning disability and has capacity for 15. 24 staff provide support.

The proposal LINK is to de-register the home which the report argues will give tenants greater security and enables them to claim a wider range of benefits, including housing benefit. Housing benefit would reduce the council's Adult Care costs with an expected income stream from rents of £100k annually.

The Tudor Gardens budget for 2015-16 is £872,000  and conversion to a 'Supported Living facility' is expected to save £300,000.

This would include savings through out-sourcing care and support and would affect the current care workers.

Residents wanted to keep the existing staff, specifically individual key workers.  Officers told them that this may be possible through TUPE but could not be guaranteed.

Since the Cabinet agenda was published  an addendum has been added which I think speaks for itself:

Subsequent to publishing the Tudor Gardens report, one of the consultees, requested that two changes be made to the report. The changes requested related to the specific reporting of the consultation and what was said at the consultation meetings.

The first change is in the main report Section 3.6 to provide further clarification.
From:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change but supported the supported living model.

To:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change. They would prefer Tudor Gardens remain as a residential care home. However, they also said that they would work with Brent officers if the decision was made to move to Supported Living, especially if this meant no-one moving out."

The second change is a point of accuracy in the consultation report. The change is required on the last but one page of the consultation report, page 13.
From:
"Most of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

To:
"None of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

Clearly the last change is hugely significant.

Inserting a personal note a similar process took place in my mothers' care home in Bedfordshire and I well remember the confusion, anxiety and depression of residents when they realised that they might lose the care staff with whom they were familiar and often saw a friends.

In turn the care staff knew the individual histories, character and idiosyncrasies of the elderly people which resulted in especially sympathetic and supportive care.

The value of those relationships and that background knowledge must not be under estimated.

As with all out-sourcing the eventual reduction in the pay and conditions of workers is a major concern and particulalrly when care workers are already underpaid.

Brent Council: those who survived the axe (for now) and the victims

The cuts recommended to the Cabinet have now been published LINK. As expected the gap between the cuts of £54m required over two years and the £60m actually tabled during the consultation enables the Council to claim to have saved some services.

Despite recent moves by some backbench councillors to propose a rise in Council Tax of 1.99% to save some services, Council Tax is frozen for the 6th year. The councillors' move may have been too late to meet statutory deadlines.

The Budget Report itself does not refer to the petition from Stonebridge Adventure Playground in detail or, as far as I can see on first perusal, does not mention the number of signatories, and instead the future of its funding is dealt with in a separate report which ties the funding into the issue of the expansion of Stonebridge Primary School, which serves to complicate the matter.

It refers to alternative provision with a complete lack  od evidence or detail and it is hard to see how they could make up for what the playground provides (from their report):

The SAP enables children and young people to take part in a range of outdoor and indoor play experiences. Outdoor activities at the SAP include: outdoor adventure play, go-karting, gardening, and sports.

Indoor activities at the SAP include: games, arts and crafts, a ball pond, Wii games, and cooking. Other linked activities include trips, access and use of a narrow boat.

The scheduled opening hours are:

• Monday – Friday term-time, 2-7pm;

• Saturdays, 11am-4pm;

• School holidays (summer, Christmas, Easter, and during the three School half-term breaks), 7am-6pm.

Some of the services which appear in the above list as 'not agreed' have other actions which will still impact on services.  Despite concersn about the capacity of the voluntart sector to take over Council functions this is a strategy adopted by the Council.

For example both CYP16 (Closing 10 children's centres) and CYP17 (Closing youth services) have agreed options (CYP1 and CYP3) that will out-source them to the voluntary sector and have the potential to reduce provision by the back door.

The proposal to transfer the management of the library services to a trust (ENS18) is to go ahead.

Energy Solutions will be expected to become self-financing but will receive a cushioning grant of £50,000 for 2015-16  during the transition,

It is worth looking at the rather contradictory statements in the Cabinet report on supporting people, that appear to doubt the capacity of the voluntary sector to provide the service but nonetheless recommend the cuts:

Proposal R&G27a would reduce the supporting people budget by £1m in 2016/17. This would be in addition to proposal R&G27, which would reduce the budget by £1.8m over two years. The current budget is £7.1m.

6.75    This additional saving would mean a significant reduction or selective cessation of services to provide supported housing and floating support of vulnerable individuals and families to assist them to maximise their independence and prevent homelessness. The service provides support to individuals with mental health needs, homeless families, ex-offenders, victims of domestic violence, young people at risk and isolated older people.

6.76    However, these services are not statutory requirements. There may be potential for VCS organisations to take on a greater burden of support for these client groups but it is very doubtful that there is capacity to do so to the extent implied by this saving in addition o the significant savings identified elsewhere in this area.

6.77    Supporting People services is a catch-all term for a variety of housing support services aimed at people who do not meet the council’s eligibility threshold for social care services. The services provided are intended to prevent clients developing greater caneeds by addressing housing issues. No significant comment has been received from the general public on this proposal, although  this may be because the term ‘supporting people’ is not well understood

6.78    Taking all of this into account leading Members have requested that officers prepare the budget on the basis that proposals R&G27 and R&G27a are agreed

The bulky waste original proposal has been modified to one free collection a year and  £25 for each additional collection.

Despite petitions opposing the cutting of school crossing patrols (ENS21) the Cabinet are recommended to approve it with schools expected to pay for the patrols themselves if they wish to retain the service. The fact that school budgets have not been reduced is cited to justify this.

The report outlines the devastating impact of the cuts on particularly groups but also argues that some have no equality implications as they affect all equally:

-->

The proposals for budgetary savings are extensive and will affect everyone living and working in Brent. The Council h as already made extensive efficiencies and is now at a point where it is not possible to achieve the level of savings required without impacting on service delivery. It is inevitable that there will be a significant impact on those vulnerable people who are the greatest users of council services, particularly older people, disabled people and children. Many of the proposals would also have some negative differentia l impacts in relation to ethnicity or gender; one or two proposals would have a severe impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and in relation to pregnancy and maternity. The collective set of proposals will only have minimal impacts in relation to religion o r belief.

 Some of the proposals will have a negative impact on large numbers of people, regardless of their equality characteristics. Although these proposals will be unwelcome and are likely to attract significant public reaction, they are not considered to be problematic from an equalities perspective as they will not unfairly impact on any equality group

This is necessarily only a summary of a complex document but I hope that readers will feel moved to attend the 'Brent Fight Backs' meeting on Tuesday February 17th 7pm, at Tavistock Hall, off Harlesden High Street where people affected by the cuts will have a chance to speak out.

Lastly it is worth noting the very low number of individual written responses which totalled 37 but because some covered several topics have been counted altogether as 54. Day Centres and Adult Social Care (12), School Crossing Patrols (6) and Council Tax (5) were the highest.