Agenda item

This report informs the Budget Panel of the process put in place to identify further efficiency savings whilst either maintaining or improving current levels of service delivery.

The Panel received a report of the Executive Director of Resources setting out the processes put in place to identify further efficiency savings whilst either maintaining or improving current levels of service delivery.

The Executive Director Resources informed the Panel that the report highlighted the 12 projects put in place to deliver improvement in key processes.  A benefits analysis would be carried out to assess their value and key milestones would be reported to Members.  Once these 12 projects had been completed, more would be added to the programme.  The Council needed to constantly look at the way it worked and to deliver efficiencies going forward.

Following a question from the Chair regarding the Consultant employed to assist with the programme, the Head of Strategic Finance advised that the Consultant had been working at the Council for six months and would be continuing until September.  This role was an integral part of the service programme. He added that the Consultant was not paid if he was on holiday or on sick leave.  The approximate cost was £20,000.  He confirmed that this would be offset by the savings identified.

A Member stated that this was a long-term process and asked what would happen once the Consultant left and where the strategic leadership would lie.  The Member added that the performance of revenues and benefits had been inconsistent and enquired what implications the changes would have on this.  He also referred to the Government’s proposed changes to the benefits system.

The Executive Director Resources said that there were two key projects which were crucial to the revenues and benefits shared service.  The first was to ensure that both Watford and Three Rivers staff were working on the same system and version of the software.  Once this had taken place the processes would be harmonised and the Customer Service Centre trained to answer some queries.  It was hoped this would be in place by the end of December 2011.  The service was continually improving.  There would be further changes in the future.

The Executive Director Resources informed the Panel that as the Council progressed through the first phase of the programme; dialogue would start and consider what the Council could do in 2012/13.  The strategic overview came from the Programme Delivery Board, with leadership from the Managing Director and both Executive Directors.

Planning projects – Data Cleansing

A Member asked for clarification about the annual savings referred to in the report.

The Corporate Projects Section Head explained that the savings of £19,830 were gross.  The cost of data cleansing was £20,000.  In the current financial year this cost had been covered by savings from a vacant post.  The savings would be shown in the next and subsequent years.  The data cleansing was currently in progress and the expected completion date was July or August.  A data sample had been sent back to the Council for checking.  It was important to ensure that no new errors were created.

Corporate projects – Channel Shift

The Corporate Projects Section Head confirmed that this project referred to methods of communication with customers.  This looked at the feasibility and if there were any benefits to the Council of customers being able to use other channels to interact with officers.  A benefit could be 24/7 access.  The nature of some queries would not be suitable to cheaper communication channels.

The Executive Director Resources stated that, before the Council undertook any new ways of delivering services to customers, consultation with the public would take place.  Officers were aware that some people liked the availability of self-service facilities.  Any consultation results would be reported to Members and officers would also demonstrate any new channels to Members prior to implementation.

A Member said that he was reassured to hear that officers would be consulting on this issue.  He commented that customers liked to be able to talk to ‘real people’.

General comments

A Member asked whether the Council looked at the input and output of departments.  He said that as an example the average cost of planning would increase as fewer applications were submitted.  Whereas Housing demand was increasing, but there appeared to be reduction in the service.  He was concerned how clients were being treated.  He also felt that Housing was an easy target.

The Executive Director Resources explained that the planning projects included in the programme were just the first stage.  A wider review of the planning service would need to be carried out but not in the current year.

The Head of Strategic Finance added that in 2010/11 the income from planning fees had fallen.  The service, however, had kept £100,000 of vacancies.

The Consultant advised that a planning review would look at the processes, costs and staffing structure.

The Head of Strategic Finance assured Members that there were no protected services within the Council.  The Executive Director Resources added that following the transfer of the Council’s housing stock the Council needed to look at the housing strategic function.  The housing review had been an outstanding piece of work which needed to be carried out.

The Chair referred to the backlog of benefits claims.  He understood that agency staff had been used to get it up to date.

The Executive Director Resources said that service had improved and that currently the service had the lowest number of outstanding benefit claims of four weeks in duration for some time.  The head of service would be able to provide Members with the exact number of cases.  At the recent Shared Services Joint Committee Members had agreed to a contract with a company who would help clear the backlog of benefit claims.  The contract would only be instigated as required, it was not ongoing.  The company would be doing intense work over the next six weeks.  The Shared Services Joint Committee would review the situation at its meeting in September.  The Shared Services Joint Committee had agreed to a maximum of £25,000 for the contract.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Shared Services explained that the company’s staff would have access to the revenues and benefits system.  There was uncertainty in the benefits world regarding the changes proposed to take place between 2013 and 2017.  Previously, agency staff had not been found to be satisfactory.  The cases related to Watford residents tended to be more complicated when compared to Three Rivers applications, as there was a more transient population in Watford.  In addition, the Shared Services Joint Committee had stated that once the current backlog had been resolved, application should be completed within three to five days.  Officers were unable to assess applications when there were repeat calls about outstanding applications.  A flexible solution had been required to resolve the peaks and troughs of applications. 

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the Panel that all Members should have received an email including all reports presented to the Shared Services Joint Committee.

A Member commented that he represented Watford Borough Council on the Shared Services Joint Committee.  He said that the Joint Committee Members were satisfied that there had been an improvement.

Following a question from the Chair about the cost of the contract, the Member advised that the contract was with an external company to meet the peaks and troughs in the service.  There had not been a commitment to purchase a fixed amount of time.  The approval had been for a total expenditure of £25,000 (60% falling to Watford and 40% falling to Three Rivers), but the full amount would not necessarily be spent. 

The Executive Director Resources confirmed the Member's comments and said that the Head of Service was required to report to the Shared Services Joint Committee in September on the amount of expenditure for a six-week period and on what the contract had achieved.

A Member suggested that if the Panel felt that this were a performance issue, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could possibly request a Task Group be set up.

The Chair was concerned that the Council would be spending £10,000 per month over the next six weeks to make savings.

The Head of Strategic Finance informed the Panel that the previous Parking Services Manager had asked the Consultant to negotiate with Vinci as they wanted an increase.  The Consultant looked into the figures and as a result there was the equivalent of £39,000 in savings on this piece of work alone.

A Member said that provided the Consultant generated savings more than their cost and made substantial gains then the role was justified.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Panel that the cost of agency staff for previous years, in both councils, had been substantial.  Shared Services had tried to reduce the use of agency staff.  The service had been streamlined but the work had increased.  The service was trying to become more cost efficient.  Following a question from the Chair about the different attitude between agency staff and permanent staff, the Portfolio Holder advised that it had been difficult to keep a full team in benefits.  He referred to the annual benefit claims that had to be submitted to the Government.  If any errors were found a proportion of the benefit reimbursement was withheld and the Council than had to claw it back.  It was important to be assured of the quality of the service being provided.

A Member said that it was important the Council’s money was spent well.  If it was necessary to spend money then it should be spent to help vulnerable people.

A Member asked how the Council would measure whether the work streams set out in the report were worthwhile.

The Executive Director Resources advised that the reason for bringing the Corporate Process Improvement Programme to Budget Panel was because officers had wanted to show Members the areas of work that were currently being carried out.  There was ongoing work to capture the benefits of the projects.  The steering group met on a monthly basis and would be working out how to assess the benefits.  Officers would be able to provide a further report on progress in October.

RESOLVED –

that Budget Panel’s comments be noted.