Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no Reserve Members in attendance at this meeting.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2011 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting.

To receive any references from Council and/or other Committees or Panels.

None received.

Report of the Divisional Director Partnership Development and Performance.

The Sub-Committee received a report that set out issues considered by the Chair since the last meeting of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub?Committee.

Referring to the update on indicators selected for further monitoring at the previous meeting, specifically the ‘housing voids’, a Member queried why the report stated that no further monitoring of this issue was required.  The Chair responded that the length of time taken for empty Council properties to return back into use had been cause for concern, however, this situation was now in hand.  Further information on the number of voids was included in the appendix to the report. 

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Interim Director of Finance.

In the interests of economy, the report which was circulated on the agenda for the 15 December 2011 Cabinet meeting is not being reprinted in this agenda.  Members are therefore requested to bring their copy witht them to the meeting.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Interim Director of Finance, which had been previously considered at Cabinet on 15 December 2011.   The report set out the Council’s revenue and capital monitoring position for Quarter 2 as at 30 September 2011.  The Interim Director stated that this report had been superseded by the Quarter 3 report which was just about to be considered by Cabinet and which covered the period up to 31 December 2011 and she would be referring to this later report.

The Interim Director stated that:

·                    she was pleased to inform Members that the overall forecast position was now a revenue underspend of £190,000 compared to a forecast overspend at Quarter 2 of £1.566 million.  This was partly due to a virement of £300,000 from a specific reserve for homelessness, but nevertheless the swing was a very positive outcome and demonstrated the impact the Spending Protocol was having;

·                    an underspend of at least £1.4 million was now being targeted and there were still some risks in some areas of the budget and therefore the Spending Protocol would continue to operate until the year end;

·                    there was also a significant underspend in the capital programme amounting to approximately £16 million due to projects being rephased.  However rather than athe usual methodology of Directorates requesting carry-forwards, Directorates had been asked to re-bid for these projects in the new capital programme for 2012/13, therefore there was effectively a one-off saving of this amount of capital spend.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Report of the Divisional Director for Business Transformation & Customer Service.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Divisional Director for Business Transformation and Customer Service which set out information on Access Harrow performance, included details of popular service requests and levels of avoidable contact.

An officer stated that Access Harrow used both the SAP CRM (Customer Relationship Management) and Cisco telephony systems to capture and manage data relating to Harrow residents and their contact with Council.  The report highlighted the level of performance sustained by Access Harrow over Quarter 3, the most common enquiries handled and the areas of higher avoidable contact.

The officer stated that avoidable contact focused on unnecessary contact made by the customer.  He added that the reasons behind the high levels of avoidable contact figures could be as follows:

·                    where the caller was progress-chasing;

·                    where the Council had not delivered a service as expected;

·                    where information provided by the Council had been unclear.

The officer added that the following measures had been implemented in response to the above and to improve Contact Avoidance:

·                    the supply of information through cheaper channels, for example, the introduction of a payment line or ‘auto-attendants’,  the use of other artificial intelligence means, the promotion of the ‘My Harrow Services Account’, pro-active messaging, and managing customer expectations;

·                    analysis of CRM data had shown that a large proportion of customer telephone calls to the Parking Team related to parking tickets, and the automated phone message had therefore been adapted to take this information into account; 

·                    a brief explanatory covering letter had been included with the Housing Benefits letter sent to residents and had led to a 40% reduction in calls regarding Housing Benefits;

·                    an increase in the levels of staffing at periods of high demand through the multi-skilling of staff;

·                    the webpage relating to fly tipping now allowed residents to see what had already been reported and provided updates on progress;

·                    data was collated on a monthly basis and both he and the Team Leaders met regularly to discuss further strategy with the relevant Service Managers.

A Member questioned why the percentage of phone calls answered within 30 seconds was lower for enquiries relating to Council Tax and Housing Benefits than any of the other categories listed.  The officer responded that twelve months ago this figure had been 20% lower.  He added that Access Harrow dealt with a high volume of calls relating to these two areas, where the initial call may take longer to deal with in order to resolve the issue and prevent further enquiries, and which meant the queues for these service areas were longer.  However, Harrow’s record was good when benchmarked against other neighbouring authorities.  The telephone system let callers know where they were in the queue and an expected answer time, which allowed them to choose whether to hold on or call back later.  Three Kier staff were now part of Access Harrow, which enabled better response to those customers who were progress-chasing about repairs.

A Member sought clarification as to whether additional staffing and resources  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Report of the Divisional Director for Business Transformation & Customer Service.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance which provided an update against the implementation of the recommendations made in phase 1 of the Scrutiny Review.

The Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance stated that the recommendations of Phase 1 of the Review had been considered by Cabinet in April 2011 and the responses agreed.  Directorates had reported on progress through Improvement Boards during the Quarter 2 reporting cycle.  The next report on progress against agreed actions would address both Phases 1 and 2.  He added that not all the actions set out in the report had been completed and officers were consulting Scrutiny and Executive Members on specific aspects.

A Member queried if the indicators relating to Licensing had been added yet.  The Divisional Director responded that these would be picked up in the next round of improvement boards.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the report be noted;

(2)               that a further update be combined with the first progress report against Phase 2 of the Review, when programmed.

Report of the Divisional Director for Business Transformation & Customer Service.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Business Transformation and Customer Services which provided an update against the recommendations made by the Standing Scrutiny Review of the Better Deal fro Residents Programme in June 2011 and responses made to Cabinet in July 2011.

An officer stated that the Project Management Office (PMO) had:

·                    put a robust project management process in place;

·                    offered dedicated support to project managers;

·                    developed a new project management framework, with a new online tool to help officers manage their projects;

·                    offered Corporate training in this area and commissioned Prince 2 training;

·                    implemented lessons learnt from Phase 2 of the Transformation Programme.

The officer added that the Standing Scrutiny Review had contributed to raising the profile of the Project Management initiative and she would welcome additional feedback from the Sub-Committee.

A Member requested clarification as to the link between project management and projects that had budget savings built into them and questioned whether the system would automatically flag up any projects that were in danger of going off track.  The officer responded that savings and benefits were tracked through the Transformation Programme and that the Transformation Board reviewed progress, risk-management and its impact on savings and identified areas for improvement.

The Interim Director of Finance added that the link between the two areas was evolving.  Some significant savings that were built into the Budget may not be reflected in some Transformation Projects.  Officers were working closely with PMO colleagues to track any significant savings programmes.

A Member queried whether there was any regular reporting and monitoring mechanism in place to evaluate these projects.  The officer responded that a monthly progress report was submitted to the Transformation Board regarding each project.

The Interim Director of Finance stated that this reporting process was evolving and that not all projects were currently linked to the Budget.  Officers were evaluating any projects with savings of over £250k on an informal basis, and that although these had been reported to the Corporate Strategy Board, this data was not yet in the public domain.  However, officers would be willing to share this information with Members of the Sub-Committee at future meetings.

A Member stated that recommendation 10 of the summary of progress, which dealt with additional points of political oversight, reporting and challenge should be built into the project management criteria, was lacking in clarity and transparency and that this should be highlighted.  The Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance responded that this would be taken forward and officers would request the relevant Portfolio Holders to feedback to the Leader.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee asked how many projects were currently going through this process.  An officer responded that there were currently approximately 25 to 30 projects, with more likely to be added at the next phase.  Most projects were planned over three years.  The PMO might not be aware of any small projects within Directorates, however, the Commissioning Panel process and the VERTO system would help to enhance the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment setting out information on the performance of the new leisure management contract for the period May to December 2011.

The Divisional Director of Community and Culture stated that:

·                    the handover process from the previous to the new contractor, Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL) had been successful, without any loss of service to the public;

·                    officers and contractors had established a strong working partnership and a more robust client team was now in place;

·                    regular monitoring visits were undertaken and the relevant Portfolio Holders were updated on a suite of performance indicators;

·                    under the new contract, the number of customers had increased as had the number of visits by customers;

·                    there had been a number of other improvements such as staff training, new promotions and membership schemes, repairs and investment in Harrow Leisure Centre (HLC);

·                    the recent increase in the number of complaints could be attributed to the increased numbers of visitors, however, a robust system of complaint monitoring was in place;

·                    there had been some unforeseen financial implications, such as increased utilities costs.

A Member questioned what level of support had been given to the staff at HLC during the change of contractor.  The Divisional Director responded that most staff had been transferred over to GLL under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) TUPE, the previous centre manager was still in post, and additional staff had been hired.

A Member asked the following questions with regard to evaluating the performance of the GLL contract:

·                    what benchmarking was being used to evaluate the performance of the contract and whether more robust targets should be set;

·                    how the contract was performing in terms of income generation in comparison to private sports clubs and whether increased membership of HLC was due to a decrease in membership of private sports clubs, and therefore a seasonal blip caused by the recession;

·                    the financial implications of any necessary major repairs to the leisure centre in the future, particularly in view of its asbestos content and the age of the building.

The Divisional Director responded that a full asbestos and building survey had been carried out recently.  The Leisure Centre was one of four major development sites identified in Harrow for re-development.  It had been part of the ‘Heart of Harrow’ consultation.  Officers had not compared the Leisure Centre to private sports clubs, however, this data would be included as part of the monitoring of the contract over the next six months.  The ‘Active People’ survey had shown that more residents in Harrow were becoming active and the contract with GLL stipulated that membership should be maintained and increased.  She added that GLL were currently exceeding their monthly sales targets and that their targets might need to be raised.  She added that the Police had confirmed that crime rates at the HLC were reducing.

The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services made the following points about the GLL contract:

·                    joining rates were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.