There were two changes of membership for this meeting: Councillor Collett replaced Councillor Counter and Councillor Rindl replaced Councillor Martins.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2015 to be submitted and signed.

Copies of the minutes of this meeting are usually available seven working days following the meeting.

(All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2015 were submitted and signed.

A work programme for 2015/16 is attached for the Panel’s comments.

The Panel received a draft work programme for consideration which outlined the proposed content of the meetings scheduled for the year.

The Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer introduced the report and asked the Panel to consider the proposed dates and discussion items.  The Committee noted the deletion of two items on the work programme: the election of the Chair on 6 July 2015; and a review of the work programme on 19 October 2015.

Members were concerned that discussion of the ICT contract was not scheduled to take place until 24 February 2016.  Councillor Dhindsa commented that the performance of the contract to date had been poor, with many promises and commitments not met.  The Panel had hoped for some clarification on a number of action points and it was disappointing that this information was not available for the meeting.  Councillor Crout advised that a report was awaited from the ICT Client Section Head.  This would be circulated to Panel members as soon as it became available.

Councillor Joynes questioned what arrangements were in place to commission a new contract should there be a decision not to renew the contract with Capita.  Competent and qualified staff were vital to securing a sound ICT contract to meet current and future needs.  Councillor Crout commented that he had been closely involved with officers in the appointment of HQ Theatres and Veolia.  Many of these individuals were still in post and had considerable expertise in the commissioning of contracts.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head added that in terms of the Capita contract external advisers having been brought in to support the development of the contract. In addition, the client team overseeing the ICT contract had been strengthened and there was significant skills and experience within the team.

Councillor Williams added his concerns to the late consideration of the ICT contract in the work programme.  Moreover, he suggested quarterly updates to the Panel on the agreed service level agreements to highlight in good time when and if problems arose.  Reporting should include the Council’s progress on ICT investment, where significant modernisation was required.

Councillor Silver reported that the issue of ICT had been raised at the Audit Committee on 30 June.  At this meeting, Members had been advised that senior officers would make a decision on Capita’s progress at the end of July.

The Chair added his concerns about the Capita contract and underlined the detrimental impact on officers and members of staff.  Concluding the discussion on the timing of the ICT contract in the 2015/16 work programme, he suggested that it be added to the agenda on 19 October 2015.  He noted that this would make a full agenda, alongside consideration of HQ Theatres, however the Panel agreed that both were important issues and should be considered at this meeting.  It was further agreed to keep the ICT contract on the agenda for 24 February 2016 in order to receive an update on progress.

As a point of clarification, the Chair reminded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Panel to discuss conclusions and recommendations arising from the work programme item.

It was agreed to remove this item, following significant discussions on the work programme under the previous agenda item.

Report of the Partnerships and Performance Section Head

The report provides the Panel with the relevant performance indicators for Quarter 4 2014/15.

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head introduced the Performance Report for quarter 4 2014/15.  She reported that Watford Borough Council collected and monitored performance data for a wide range of service areas.  This included a significant number of key performance indicators for services that had been outsourced to external providers.  The data for this meeting had been obtained from the providers of the Council’s externalised services and focussed on performance information for quarter 4 2014/15.

Explaining the measures, the Partnerships and Performance Section Head reported that a number of measures were new for 2014/15, which meant that it was not possible to undertake trend analysis in every case.  She invited comments on the performance indicators, as well as any suggestions for amendments or additions that would assist the Panel in its scrutiny role.

Councillor Dhindsa sought clarification on the target for residential household waste (ES1).  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head explained that the variance, although higher than for quarter 3 and quarter 4 last year, showed an overall improvement for the year on 2013/14.  This reverse trend from target was, in part, the result of higher Christmas consumption, since a waste amnesty was declared over this period and that would still impact in quarter 4.  She brought the Panel’s attention to the fact that the definition for the indicator had been changed by the government to exclude street sweepings and would therefore be reported under the new definition from 2015/16.

Councillor Dhindsa questioned whether high street food waste was reused to generate power.  Precedents had been set, for example in chip oil recycling, and he queried whether a similar use could be found for high street food waste.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head agreed to investigate this issue.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Dhindsa asked what hotels did with their waste, that is, did they recycle or reuse it or did it go straight to landfill?  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head said that she would look into this question.

Councillor Williams queried whether the indicators kept pace with local population changes.  This was a significant issue in parts of the Borough where there had been large housing developments.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head reported councils received an annual update figure on population from central government and council tax provided an update on household numbers.  Previously this had been in June and 31 March respectively each year and she would check to see if there had been any change in this arrangement.

Councillor Rindl asked whether targets were adjusted if they appeared unachievable.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head advised that this was not the case and that the targets were carefully chosen to be reasonable and achievable.  Sometimes a change in leadership provided the impetus to attain targets, as had been seen in Revenue and Benefits.  Councillor Rindl encouraged the council to work at the recycling and reuse targets, which were proving particularly challenging in flats and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The update on actions is attached for the Panel’s comments and for sign-off of completed actions.

The Panel received an update on different actions which had arisen from previous meetings.

The main area of discussion was item ICT7 concerning payments by Capita to its employees.  In particular, the Panel wanted to establish whether these were above the living wage.  Councillor Joynes stated that commercial confidentiality did not provide suitable grounds for failing to give this information to the Panel.  Councillor Dhindsa agreed, adding that all agencies working for the Council should be required to demonstrate that they paid a living wage to their workers.

The Chair suggested that it could be argued that a requirement to pay the living wage would increase the price of contracts.  Councillor Williams commented that many IT contractors were self-employed and, as such, set their own rates of pay.  These were likely to be in excess of the living wage.  Councillor Silver added that the comments against item ICT7 suggested Capita employees were being paid above the living wage.  In addition, some thought would need to be given to an appropriate wage rate, since different figures were used for inner and outer London.

Councillor Dhindsa expressed concern that a main contractor might charge the Council one rate, but pay its employers a lower one.  He felt that Council policy should be to respect living wage rates.  Councillor Rindl agreed with this statement and suggested that this should be a core Council policy.

Seeking to resolve the issue, the Chair agreed to consider how Members’ views on implementing a living wage policy could be taken forward.  At its simplest, service providers who came to the Panel’s meetings could be asked if they paid the living wage to their employees and, if not, why not.  At another level, it was Cabinet who approved contracts and therefore set contractual standards.  Some pressure might be exerted here.  The Chair agreed to report back to the Panel.

ACTION: OSSP Chair

·        To report to the Panel on Council policy and practice regarding paying a living wage to its employees and its contractors’ employees.

RESOLVED –

1. that the Panel’s request for information on the Council’s policy and practice in regard to the living wage be noted

2. that the update on actions be noted.