In accordance with paragraph 2.6(a) of the Constitution, Councillors Malcolm and Stafford addressed the Cabinet with regard to the following items: 

Item 7 -   Budget Update Report 2021 -22 (Councillors Stafford)
Item 8 –  Agency Worker Contract (Councillor Stafford)
Item 9 -   Proposed Changes to the Corporate Complaints Procedure Including an Update on Performance (Councillors Malcolm and Stafford)
Item 11 - Final Report of Scrutiny Review Panel 1 2020/2021: Ealing’s Response to Covid-19 (Councillor Stafford)
Item 12 - Final Report of Scrutiny Review Panel 2 – 2020/2021: Children’s Services Ofsted Improvement (Councillor Stafford)
Item 13 - Final Report of Scrutiny Review Panel 3 – 2020/2021: Agile Scrutiny – Miscellaneous Topics (Councillor Stafford)
Item 14 - Final Report of Scrutiny Review Panel 4 – 2020/2021: Climate Emergency (Councillor Stafford)


Councillors Costigan, Dabrowska, Dhadwal and Driscoll addressed the Cabinet with regard to items 11, 12, 13 and 14 in their capacity as chairs of these scrutiny panels during 2020/21.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr J Anand and Cllr L Wall.

This meeting was held in a hybrid format with members and officers able to join the meeting remotely.

However, regulations did not allow for members attending virtually to be counted as present in the attendance section of the minutes, and their attendance would not count as attendance in relation to section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Members attending virtually would be able to speak but would not be able to vote.

Councillors joining remotely:
Councillors Dabrowska, Dhadwal, Driscoll and Malcolm

There were none.

There were none.

Item 8 contained confidential appendices but was not taken in private as it was not necessary to discuss the confidential information provided.

Resolved:
That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 13 October 2021 be agreed and signed as a true and correct record.

Resolved
There were none.

Resolved
That Cabinet: 
i) notes the General Fund revenue budget estimated outturn position of (£0.307m) net underspend (0.12%) for 2021/22 (section 4 of the report), and an underspend of £0.960m on Housing Revenue Account for 2021/22 (section 7 of the report).
ii) notes financial pressures arising from COVID in 2021/22 are currently forecasted to be met from grants and reserves (paragraph 4.4 of the report).
iii) notes the combined General Fund revenue underspend forecast position of (£0.307m) (section 4 of the report).
iv) notes the in-year Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficit forecast of £1.953m to be charged to the DSG account (section 6 of the report).
v) notes the HRA forecast breakeven position (section 7 of the report).
vi) notes the progress on delivering the 2021/22 savings (section 5 of the report).
vii) notes the 2021/22 capital programme forecast with break-even position (paragraph 8.3 of the report).
viii) approves the re-profiling of 2021/22 capital programme net slippage of £10.174m (appendix 2 of the report) into future years. 

 Reasons for Decision and Options Considered
To forecast the financial position for 2021/22 based on available information at end of 30 September 2021 for BAU and COVID pressures. The report outlines the Council’s forecasted position on revenue, capital, income and expenditure to the end of quarter 2.

Resolved
That Cabinet:
i) agrees to award a direct call off contract to Adecco UK Limited from the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) Framework Agreement for Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources (MSTAR3) under Lot 1b (Master Vendor), the “Framework Agreement”, for the provision of agency workers. The start date of the contract is 9 January 2022, and the contract would be for two years with the option to extend for a further 2 periods of 12 months each (2 + 1 +1) with a value of £25,136,198 per annum (£100,544,792 for a four-year cost of the contract).
ii) records the formal dissent by the Leader of the Opposition, Cllr Stafford, in relation to this decision

Reason for Decision and Options Considered
On 13 September 2016 Cabinet granted approval for the Council to enter into a contract with The Adecco Group from 9 January 2017 for a period of three years, with an option to extend for a further year under the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) Framework Agreement for Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources (MSTAR2).  The Adecco Group was awarded the contract under Lot 1b (Master Vendor) of the MSTAR2 Framework Agreement, following a collaborative mini-competition exercise led by the London Borough of Newham on behalf of a number of London Boroughs. 

On 10 December 2019 Cabinet granted approval to extend the current contract with The Adecco Group from 9 January 2020 to 8 January 2021.

On 10 November 2020 Cabinet authorised the extension of the existing contract with Adecco UK Limited for the provision of Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources, dated 5 January 2021, for a duration of one year from 9 January 2021 to 8 January 2022. 

On 20 April 2021 Cabinet gave authority to conduct a mini competition for a call off contract from the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) MSTAR3 Framework Agreement for the provision of a managed service for temporary agency workers which had been effective from 11 April 2019.  The start date of the contract was 9 January 2022, and the contract was for two years with the option to extend for a further 2 periods of 12 months each for an estimated value of £25,136,198 per annum. 

ESPO was a local authority owned purchasing and supply consortium. It was jointly owned by the county councils of Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk and city council of Peterborough. ESPO had over 30 years of experience in public sector procurement. All ESPO frameworks were let in full compliance with UK procurement regulations (and the EU procurement directive). ESPO was a not for profit, self-funded organisation. ESPO recovered its overheads by means of a retrospective rebate from the suppliers. The rebate levied averages less than 1% of framework turnover. ESPO’s specialist buying teams had extensive experience of providing high quality procurement solutions to the public sector on a nationwide basis. ESPO used their expertise to work with our strong and varied supply chain to bring you the best value procurement solutions possible.

Provider/suppliers on the ESPO MSTAR3 Framework Agreement could be selected in accordance with its rules.  For the preferred category – Lot 1b Master Vendor – the “ESPO MSTAR3 Lot 1 Managed Service Provider MSP Service Calculator v1 – Lot 1b Master Vendor Shopping Basket tab” was used to assess suppliers as per the ESPO rules.  

The assessment process followed was the ‘Call-off without competition’ process as per the ‘ESPO User Guide Framework 653F Issue 20 – Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources (MSTAR3)’.  This process included:

• Assessing the rates/pricing model of the unranked list of successful suppliers (see appendices 1 to 7 of the report).

• Using the current Ealing Council agency worker hours usage data to make an assessment on the pricing elements proposed by suppliers, particularly the pricing elements that the suppliers are in control of i.e., the Managed Service Provider (MSP) fee and agency fee (see appendices 1 to 7 of the report); and 

• Consideration of the costs that would be incurred in changing provider from the existing contractor.  These costs included: the costs of re-tendering; re-implementation costs (especially in respect of technology solutions); re-training users (especially all hiring managers of agency workers across the Council including on new technology solutions); and internal disruption of the provision of agency workers to hiring managers especially key agency workers such as Qualified Social Workers”

The recommendation following the assessment process was to award a direct call off contract to Adecco UK Limited from the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) Framework Agreement for Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources (MSTAR3) under Lot 1b (Master Vendor), the “Framework Agreement”, for the provision of agency workers. The start date of the contract was 9 January 2022, and the contract would be for two years with the option to extend for a further 2 periods of 12 months each (2 + 1 +1) with a value of £25,136,198 per annum (£100,544,792 for a four-year cost of the contract).

As well as tangible savings, the most significant justification for direct awarding would be removing the cost of change involved in the implementation of a new Managed Service Provider (MSP).

Suppliers were required to pay at least the London Living Wage (now the Real Living Wage) to all staff engaged on the Contract as per the Council’s Pay Policy Statement and that they had GDPR protocols/procedures in place.  The recommended supplier – Adecco UK Limited – paid the real Living Wage (rLW) to all agency workers engaged by Ealing Council as per the Pay Policy Statement agreed by Full Council each year.

Appendix 9 of the report provided the Social Value commitments/approach offered by the recommended supplier – Adecco UK Limited.
After consultation with the Commercial Hub, a direct award from the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) Framework Agreement for Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources (MSTAR3) under Lot 1b (Master Vendor), had been identified as the most appropriate procurement route:

• All public bodies have access to this Framework Agreement with the agreement of the Contracting Body

• Adecco UK Limited was one of the largest trading organisations providing agency workers

• Adecco UK Limited was a member of the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) Framework Agreement for Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resources (MSTAR3), the purpose of which was to improve the effectiveness, by co-ordination, of local authority purchasing with the object of effecting savings in public expenditure

• Using the Framework Agreement avoided the need for consultancy services to oversee and project manage an in-house tender process, thus saving time and money

• The Framework Agreement was national, fully OJEU compliant and adheres to the latest Public Contracts Regulations (2015)

• The Framework Agreement had been established with a maximum percentage on cost price for each organisation, ensuring value for money was obtained

• The Framework Agreement provided quality assurance through having already assessed suppliers based upon their price modelling, quality of service offer, and other key contractual criteria

The London Borough of Ealing used the Adecco Beeline system for procuring and paying agency workers.  It was imperative to secure a new contract from 9 January 2022 to ensure continued access to the system so that existing agency workers could be paid and to ensure business continuity.

Resolved
That Cabinet: 
i) agrees the proposed changes to the corporate complaints policy including
 - the proposal to change the corporate complaints process from a three-stage process to a two-stage process.
- agree proposal to increase of the time allowed for stage 1 responses from 10 days to 20 days.
- revised definition of a complaint
ii) notes the proposed go live of the customer digital complaints solution (customer portal) Dec 2021.
iii) notes that members will be engaged and consulted with regarding the implementation of the new digital members portal.
iv) notes the complaints and Ombudsman performance as outlined (Appendix 2 of the report)
v) notes the council’s self-assessment against Compliance with the Complaint Handling Code as required by the Housing Ombudsman (Appendix 4 of the report)

Reason for Decision and Options Considered
Corporate complaints were dealt with in different ways across the organisation depending on the volumes and complexity. Adults and Children’s and Housing Landlord services also have their own separate complaints policies or procedures with these areas having dedicated officers dealing with the inputting, administration, preparing draft replies and chasing of responses.

Until Jan 21 most complaints were logged through iCasework, a system which was now switched off as unsupported and would have required investment to improve the functionality. Some services were also using their own individual systems to manage complaints.  This made accurate reporting and monitoring at a corporate level difficult which in turn limits the opportunity to identify in a timely manner, areas of concern or failure with regards to service delivery.

The speed, completeness and quality of responses also differed quite significantly across the Council and the ability to gain insight into the nature and type of complaint was limited. 

Another challenge with the existing process was addressing a complaint that had multiple parts and required a cross directorate response, co-ordination and the provision of a unified response often proved difficult.

The report set out a summary of the current 3 stage process for corporate 
complaints:
Currently all complaints were received via email, letter, e-form or telephone, then these were manually recorded onto the new digital corporate complaints system. They were then directed to the correct service area for response and sign off by the relevant service head or their representative

Stage 1
All stage 1 complaints currently should be acknowledged within four days with the target to respond within 10 working days. These were signed off by the head of service or Assistant Director.
Stage 2
Where the customer was not satisfied with the response at stage 1, they could request the complaint to be reviewed by the director of the relevant department, by making clear what aspects of the response they did not agree with and what outcome they would like to see. (These requests should be submitted by the customer within 28 days of receipt of the stage 1 response). The target for services was to respond to Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These were received and logged as in the Stage 1 process.
Stage 3
If a customer was still dissatisfied, they could currently request to have the complaint escalated to the Chief Executive where the complaint was reviewed and responded to within a further 20 working days. The Chief Executive was only to consider cases that had already been through stages 1 and 2. Customers needed to set out why they were dissatisfied and what outcome they would like to see. (A stage 3 complaint should be responded to within 28 days of receipt of the stage 2 response.)

On reviewing a sample of the stage 3 complaints it was found that the stage 3 review did not change the outcome for the complainant (apart from a small number of cases) As with the above stages there was a significant amount of administration in logging, managing, chasing and writing responses to stage 3 complaints.

Digital Programme and refined complaints process

The digital programme played a key role in delivering improved efficiency by streamlining processes, promoting new ways of working, and making substantial improvements to IT by delivering a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system in a phased implementation approach to cover all the Council’s service. Some of the benefits are:

• Simplification of processes, allowing the adoption of a model that was efficient, fully defined and standardised across the council, and capable of improving the quality of decisions.

• Improve customer service by building a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system as the primary channel for residents to access products and services whilst providing proactive customer interactions to our service users.

• Deliver a modern, fit for purpose IT infrastructure for the Council drawing together all relevant customer information from interactions between the council and the customer, enabling a single accurate view of the customer, thereby promoting efficiency.

The complaints process was included in Wave 2 of the digital programme. Through business analysis and engagement with complaints staff, a process had been agreed to channel all customers to log their complaints through the new customer portal. This would allow for a single consolidated complaints service.

Proposal to change to a 2 stage complaints procedure
After going through the digital ‘as is’ and ‘to be’ mapping and engaging with service teams and directors including the Senior Leadership Team. All processes had been reviewed with one of the key recommendations being that it would be more efficient and an improved experience for the customer if the organisation only had a 2-stage procedure. If after stage 2 a customer was still unhappy with their response, they would be referred to the Ombudsman. This approach was supported by The Ombudsman and to support this decision we had also surveyed complaint processes for other London Boroughs.

Out of Local Authorities reviewed we have found the following:

• 23 have a two-stage process, including. Brent, Hounslow, Harrow, Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond, Barnet, and Camden

• Of the West London Borough’s only Hillingdon still retain the stage 3 process.

From December 2021 all customers would be encouraged to log their complaints through the new customer portal (Dynamics CRM) which would eliminate the need for staff to input complaints information and data which would allow for automation in respect of allocation. All complaints received in this way could be tracked internally and reminders issued to those responsible for responding within timescales improving performance.

Any additional supporting documentation could also be uploaded by the customer, linked and case notes made, which will give a full history of the complaint.

The Head of Service would still be responsible in ensuring that an appropriate response is completed at stage 1 and the Director/ Executive Director would have responsibility at stage 2.

It was appreciated that there would be some complaints received through non-digital methods, with customers unable to use this service due to no access to digital or lack of skills. These customers would be supported by staff to submit their complaints, or the complaint would be logged onto the system manually through the CRM by the appropriate staff member, which would instigate the allocation and response process. 

This reasonable adjustment was a requirement of the Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code and has been reflected in the revised corporate complaints policy (Appendix 1 of the report) Staff would still be on hand in customer services to assist customers in using the new customer portal with a portal helpline being available for any enquiries regarding registration.

Change response times – Stage 1

On reviewing complaint SLAs across London, it was found that there were varying SLAs for stage 1 with many LA’s having a longer time to respond, up to 20 days (13 LA’s) or 15 days (8). Taking this into account and after feedback as outlined above from services, the proposal for a longer response time of 20 days for stage 1 with an acknowledgement of receipt within 2 days (currently 4). 

It was thought the longer response time allowed would enable services to carry out a proper and full investigation and ensure the complaint was dealt with thoroughly which was often challenging in some areas such as Planning, Housing and Benefits due to the service complexity. With the new digital solution in place and improved reporting it would be easier to monitor the performance against response times and processes would be in place to ensure robust management of the new response times to ensure targets are met. It was anticipated with the longer time allowed to respond the quality and resolution of complaints would improve, this would be monitored closely after implementation.

The complaints policy had been updated to reflect the outlined changes in process as detailed in Appendix 1 of the report The attached policy also reflected a change in the definition of a complaint which was now in line with the Ombudsman definition.

Member Enquiries 
The digital programme had also reviewed the Member enquiry process which was currently very haphazard. Although there were dedicated members mailboxes for individual service areas, it was common practice to email free text to any number of officers with the same enquiry at the same time. This risked, duplicating officer time or not having the enquiry resolved as no one took responsibility for the enquiry. Members have raised issues in the past where they felt that officers did not respond in a timely manner or in some cases not at all.

The proposal will be for members to use the “members portal” to submit all their enquiries, as this would ensure they were allocated in a timely manner to the correct officers and would be tracked to ensure that an appropriate response was done. This ask of the Members would be a behavioural and cultural change, however if the benefits of the portal were to be realised for both efficiency and service improvement it would be a necessary requirement. Benefits were:
• Members could track cases via the portal 
• Improved response times
• Improved quality of responses
• Reduction in administration and duplication 
• Data held in one place
• Achieving economies of scale from the consolidating of activities across the council
It was recognised that we would need to have a clear consultation and engagement plan for members to implement this strategy. This would follow the same format used in the digital change programme with planned communication about the proposed changes, demonstrations of the system and training if required. The plan would be to start looking at implementing after the go live of the complaints 

Ombudsman
Currently the Ombudsman was required to use one access point to contact the council and this was at their request, and it was not envisaged that this would change, however responsibility for administration of Ombudsman enquiries sat with Customer Services who received and distribute all complaints and enquiries and would also have the oversight of Cllrs/MP’s and all complaints enquires. All Ombudsman enquiries would be logged and managed by customer services through the new customer portal.

Resolved
That Cabinet:
i) notes the current use of RIPA in relation to surveillance and acquisition and disclosure of communications data as set out in this report.
ii) approves the updated RIPA policy at Appendix 1.
iii) approves the continuing appointment of the following:
a) Helen Harris (Director of Legal and Democratic Services) as senior responsible officer (SRO) for directed surveillance, use of covert human intelligence sources, and obtaining communications data.
b) the following as authorising officers for directed surveillance and the use of covert intelligence under s.28 and S.29 of RIPA 2000 (prior to judicial approval):
- Mark Wiltshire, (Director of Safer Communities & Housing)  
- Mike Pinder (Head of Audit and Investigations) 
- Justin Morley (Head of Legal Services - Litigation)
iv) authorises the Director of Legal and Democratic Services to:-
a) make any further necessary amendments to the RIPA Policies which are necessary to maintain consistency with legislation, Codes of Practice, good practice.
b) make any necessary changes in authorising officers.
c) review the authority’s procedures, policies and training on a quarterly basis.

Reason for Decision and Options Considered
There was a requirement in the Codes of practice that members are to be kept informed about the Council’s use of powers under RIPA and that Cabinet approves a policy annually to ensure the policy remains fit for purpose.  

Resolved
That Cabinet:
i) notes the final report of Scrutiny Review Panel 1 2020/21 – Ealing’s Response to Covid-19, which is attached as Appendix 1 of the report.
ii) accepts the Scrutiny Panel’s recommendations numbered  1 to 8  in Section 12 of the final report, with the exception of recommendation number 7 which was rejected for the reasons stated in the report.
iii) directs Council officers to produce/or finalise an action plan within an agreed timescale on those recommendations that are agreed by Cabinet.
iv) reports its decisions to OSC on 02 December 2021 or 03 February 2022, as appropriate.
v) notes the chair of the panel’s thanks to Cllr Sumner, vice chair, all members of the panel and Janpal Singh Basran (Southall Community Alliance) for their work on this panel.

Reason for Decision and Options Considered
Scrutiny Panels had a role in improving decision-making and service delivery through effective scrutiny.  Recommendations from Scrutiny Panels needed to be taken forward in a timely manner and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution if the scrutiny function was to be effective.  The Scrutiny and Executive Protocol identified the timescale for Cabinet to respond to Scrutiny Panel recommendations.  This decision would mean that the response was made in a timely manner and that services could implement the accepted recommendations.

Resolved
 That Cabinet:
i) notes the final report of Scrutiny Review Panel 1 2020/21 – Ealing’s Response to Covid-19, which is attached as Appendix 1 of the report.
ii) accepts the Scrutiny Panel’s recommendations number 1 to 6 in Section 8 of the final report, with the exception of recommendation number 3 which was rejected for the reasons stated in the report.
iii) directs Council officers to produce/or finalise an action plan within an agreed timescale on those recommendations that are agreed by Cabinet.  
iv) reports its decisions to OSC on 02 December 2021 or 03 February 2022, as appropriate.
v) thanks to Councillor Millican for working with the administration on the deep dive into housing support.
vi) notes the chair of the panel’s thanks to the panel, officers, social workers and everyone involved in this sector for all their hard work.

Reason for Decision and Options Considered
Scrutiny Panels had a role in improving decision-making and service delivery through effective scrutiny.  Recommendations from Scrutiny Panels needed to be taken forward in a timely manner and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution if the scrutiny function was to be effective.  The Scrutiny and Executive Protocol identified the timescale for Cabinet to respond to Scrutiny Panel recommendations.  This decision would mean that the response was made in a timely manner and that services could implement the accepted recommendations.

Resolved
That Cabinet:
i) notes the final report of the Panel, as endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) on 21 October 2021, which is attached as Appendix 1;
ii) accepts the following Panel’s recommendations in Section 8.0 of the final report: recommendation numbers 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 for the reasons stated in the report.
iii) part accepts the following Panel’s recommendations in Section 8.0 of the final report: recommendation numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, for the reasons stated in the report.
iv) rejects the following Panel’s recommendations in Section 8.0 of the final report: recommendation numbers 16, 19, 24 for the reasons stated in the report; recommendation number 8 was part rejected for the reasons stated in the report.
v) directs service officers to produce/or finalise an action plan within an agreed timescale on those recommendations that are agreed by Cabinet; and
vi) reports its decisions to OSC on 02 December 2021 or 03 February 2022, as appropriate.
vii) notes the chair of the panel’s thanks to Harjeet Bains, Overview and Scrutiny Officer, for her support and input to this panel throughout the year.

Reason for Decision and Options Considered
Scrutiny Panels had a role in improving decision-making and service delivery through effective scrutiny.  Recommendations from Scrutiny Panels needed to be taken forward in a timely manner and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution if the scrutiny function was to be effective.  The Scrutiny and Executive Protocol identified the timescale for Cabinet to respond to Scrutiny Panel recommendations.  This decision would mean that the response was made in a timely manner and that services could implement the accepted recommendations.

Resolved
That Cabinet:
i) notes the final report of the Panel, as endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) on 21 October 2021, which is attached as Appendix 1.
ii) accepts the Panel’s recommendations number 1 to 17 in Section 8.0 of the final report.
iii) directs service officers to produce/or finalise an action plan within an agreed timescale on those recommendations that are agreed by Cabinet.
iv) reports its decisions to OSC on 02 December 2021 or 03 February 2022, as appropriate.
v) thanks Councillor Driscoll and all members of the panel for an interesting and useful report.

Reason for Decision and Options Considered
Scrutiny Panels had a role in improving decision-making and service delivery through effective scrutiny.  Recommendations from Scrutiny Panels needed to be taken forward in a timely manner and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution if the scrutiny function was to be effective.  The Scrutiny and Executive Protocol identified the timescale for Cabinet to respond to Scrutiny Panel recommendations.  This decision would mean that the response was made in a timely manner and that services could implement the accepted recommendations.

Resolved    
That Cabinet notes that the next meeting of Cabinet would be held on 8 December 2021 at 7pm.

Councillor Peter Mason, Chair

Date

The duration of this meeting was 7:05pm to 8:05pm

 

The minutes should be read in conjunction with the agenda for the meeting. They are subject to approval and signature at the next meeting of this Committee.