Agenda item

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

 

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are also attached for information.

Before the start of Opposition Business, it was reported that a petition of over 4,000 signatures had been received.  The Assistant Director, Legal and Governance, advised members that the petition had been received on the day before the Council meeting, that officers were in the process of verifying signatures, that it was subject to legal proceedings but that it would be brought forward to a future Council meeting if appropriate.

 

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

 

Issues highlighted were as follows: 

 

1.          She began by stating that Opposition Business enabled the opposition to bring forward issues affecting the community and that the level of customer service being provided was currently an issue of great concern to the local community.

 

2.          She felt that the problems were acknowledged by all and well documented on social media.  Members of the public were often being kept waiting, at times 42 and more minutes, to get through to the call centre.  The main Council number was frequently engaged, callers received no automatic message, were often kept on hold for long periods, and in her opinion there was little chance of speaking to anyone. 

 

3.          Customers were being asked to use the new website, but the website was not working well.  Problems logged on line were not responded to, the relevant pages did not appear and customers were sent backwards and forwards in a loop between the old and new websites.  The online payment system was frequently out of order.  There were long queues of people waiting to speak to officers on the reception desks, queues, on many occasions, out of the door.  It was also taking members much longer than the agreed standard of eight days to get any response through the Member Enquiries System. 

 

4.          An organisation which did provide help to members of the public was being threatened with closure by the administration. 

 

5.          These problems could not be blamed on a Government lack of funding, as it had been the current administration’s decision to adopt the transformation programme responsible.  On top of this the people in charge of implementing the new services had since left or were due to leave the Council. 

 

6.          She felt that it was the poorest and most vulnerable residents who were suffering the most.  This was a real issue for Enfield residents and particularly those that relied on the Council’s help: the Council owed it to them to sort out the problems as soon as possible. 

 

Councillor Levy, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting: 

 

1.     The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had set up a work stream to look into the Enfield 2017 Transformation Programme, including this area.  On 14 December 2015, a paper had been considered setting out the scale and scope of the work.  On 8 March 2016, a joint session with the Audit and Risk Management Committee had been entirely given over to an in depth study of the issues. 

 

2.     Work was also being carried out to look at the quality of communications including on a one to one basis and it had been found that they were not always as clear as they could be.

 

3.     He felt that this was not a party political issue. The issues raised were already known and they were being taken in hand as part of the scrutiny process.  If the Opposition group had had these specific concerns earlier, he felt that they should have raised them at the start and that they could have been included in the original scoping document for the scrutiny review. 

 

4.     The IT and the website did have shortcomings, Councillor Levy said he himself was an arch critic, but these were being addressed.  He had visited the call centre in April, listened in to many calls and had been amazed at the patience and empathy of the staff, guiding people through the processes and dealing with these calls.  There was no denying that some people had waited 42 minutes, but for others it was 42 seconds. 

 

5.     Councillor Levy had also spent some time on the front desk with floorwalkers whom he saw as flexible and versatile, dedicated to helping people through the processes. 

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows: 

 

a.          The need highlighted by the members of the Opposition Group:

 

·             To recognise that the customer service provided over the past few months had been unacceptable and that people had been subjected to very long waits.  Examples were put forward where vulnerable people in need of Council help had been subjected to severe delays over several months. 

 

·             To recognise that there had been a failure of planning and management, that was not due to lack of money.  Any change such as this should have been carefully planned and should have involved experienced staff, those with high levels of expertise capable of dealing with the public’s issues. 

 

·             To understand that changes were needed immediately, not following a slow and bureaucratic possible sixth month review.

 

·             To recognise that a responsible leadership would act immediately to resolve the problems: problems which were costing much officer time and money. 

 

·             Although accepting that the current administration had acknowledged that things had gone wrong, members felt that this was not good enough, the Council was there to serve the residents and the service needed immediate improvement. 

 

·             To admit the repercussions from reducing staff numbers by 792, as detailed in answer to Council Question 14, and the effect on standards that had not been handled well. 

 

·             To acknowledge concern about the eviction facing the organisation in the Eastern part of the borough who were providing support and advice to people trying to access customer services. 

 

Members were advised by the Assistant Director Legal and Governance that this matter was sub judice as it was a live court proceeding and should not be discussed.  Councillor Lavender asked for her to provide some written guidance. 

 

b.          The need highlighted by members of the Labour Group:

 

·             To recognise that funding was paramount.  The Council had suffered from £100m worth of Government cuts since 2010 and would be subject to a further £56m by 2020.  Providing services in the light of these was a considerable challenge.  The transformation was being dictated by the finances and would result in £28m worth of efficiencies.

 

·             To recognise that this was a big and complex programme and that there had inevitably been teething problems.  The Council dealt with 50,000 calls, 30,000 electronic communications and 16,000 face to face meetings every month.  The average wait time for calls was 4 minutes. 

 

·             To acknowledge that the Labour councillors carried out ward surgeries and the Council had more libraries than any other London borough. 

 

·             Five extra members of staff had been employed as a stop gap.  The website was continually being reviewed and feedback acted upon.  Improved access and staff training was being carried out so that everyone met the required standard.  Improvements were being made to make the buildings more accessible.  The whole process was under review and more people would be bought in if needed.  Processes were in place to ensure that the problems were addressed. 

 

·             To recognise that despite the challenges, customer satisfaction levels with services including waste, door step recycling, parks and open spaces had increased.  There had been a 200% increase in on line reporting of incidents.  New 24 hour, 7 day a week services were being introduced including the ability to upload pictures, to choose days for the collection of bulky waste items, booking for on line events and sports pitches.  Thus empowering residents who could use IT and leaving officers free to help those who could not and needed more support.  Officers who were effective, tactful and well informed. 

 

·             To agree with the Opposition that services must improve and to recognise that work was being done to achieve this.

 

·             To understand that the plight of many residents was a result of the imposition of Government cuts.  Demand for Council services was increasing because of this. 

 

During the course of the debate, the time for Opposition Business was extended by 15 minutes.

 

At the end of the debate Councillor Neville summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group as follows:

 

·             That there was no excuse for poor service and he did not feel that the administration had provided adequate responses to the Opposition concerns.  Customer satisfaction levels and polls were not to be relied upon. 

 

·             That local people were very dissatisfied and the impact fell most heavily on those least able to help themselves.

 

·             It was the duty of the Opposition to hold members to account.  The response that scrutiny would be reviewing the issues was not enough.  Action was needed now. 

 

·             The speed of progress was insufficient and he felt that each of the Opposition’s recommendations should be addressed together with an explanation as to what work was already taking place.  Simply, he felt more staff were needed. 

 

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou then summed up on behalf of the majority group by saying that

 

·             He felt that the Opposition paper was unnecessary as the matter was already in hand.  The Administration was already doing more to improve customer services than was proposed in the Opposition recommendations.  All the recommendations were being acted upon. 

 

·             Services were improving.  Customers were now able to access services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The Council was one of the first local authorities in England, possibly Europe, to use Amelia, a robot with artificial intelligence, to deal with customer queries.

 

·             It was misleading to say that the changes were nothing to do with funding, savings had to be found.  Services had to be transformed in order to find ways of continuing to provide excellent services in challenging financial circumstances, against a background of increasing demand.  Increasing demand, the result of Government’s policies, such as welfare reform.

 

As an outcome of the debate the Councillor Alessandro Georgiou requested that a vote be taken on the recommendations within the Opposition Priority Business Paper.  In accordance with section 17.4 of the council procedure rules this was on a roll call basis, with the results as follows:

 

AGREED not to approve the following recommendations within the Opposition Priority Business Paper:

 

1.              Recruit the necessary number of staff needed for the call centre to cope with the level of demand from our customers.

 

2.              Review the new website to ensure that if it cannot show a certain information page, then the previous website can be accessed and used.

 

3.              Carry out a full scale review of the effectiveness of the Gateway Services Hub.

 

4.              Review of the number of Members’ Enquiries (MEQ)s that are not responded to within the Service Level Agreement (SLA).

 

5.              Those departments that are not meeting the SLA from investigating MEQs will implement an action plan to improve the service as soon as possible.

 

6.              Provide the necessary number of staff at the front desk of the Civic Centre to adequately deal with demand.

 

7.              Establish a cross party working group on specific remit of customer services to report its work to Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

In support of the recommendations:  20

 

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Jason Charalambous

Councillor Lee David Sanders

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Elaine Hayward

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Joanne Laban

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Terry Neville

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against the recommendations: 31

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Ali Bakir

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Bambos Charalambous

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Pat Ekechi

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Ahmet Hassan

Councillor Suna Hurman

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Dino Lemonides

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Haydar Ulus

 

Abstentions: 0

 

At the end of this item, the meeting was suspended for a 10 minute comfort break.