Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 80 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Vicky Hibbert or Anne Gowing 020 8541 9938 Email: anne.gowing@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Mr Goodman and Mr Cosser. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Additional documents: |
|
|
Members' Questions
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Public Questions
Additional documents: Decision: Three questions have been received from members of the public. The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 1.
Minutes: Three questions have been received from members of the public. The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 1.
Both Mr Crews and Mr Catt asked detailed supplementary questions, which the Leader of the Council said would receive a response outside the meeting.
|
|
|
Petitions
Additional documents: Minutes: No petitions were received. |
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
Additional documents: Minutes: No representations were received. |
|
Additional documents: Decision: Children and Education Select Committee:
(i) Recommendations relating to Surrey County Council Safeguarding Unit Report – the response from the Cabinet Member for Children and Families is attached as Appendix 2.
(ii) Recommendations relating to the School Governance Task Group report – the response from the Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning is attached as Appendix 3. Minutes: Children and Education Select Committee:
(i) Recommendations relating to Surrey County Council Safeguarding Unit Report – the response from the Cabinet Member for Children and Families is attached as Appendix 2.
(ii) Recommendations relating to the School Governance Task Group report – the response from the Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning is attached as Appendix 3.
|
|
|
Surrey Waste Strategy
Additional documents: Decision:
1. That the Surrey Waste Partnership’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy Revision 2 (2015) be endorsed and recommended to County Council for adoption.
2. That a further report on the Eco Park be brought back to the Cabinet in April 2015 with an updated value for money and affordability assessment.
3. That the consultation process for potential changes at Community Recycling Centresbe approved and that the proposals for consultation be finalised and agreed by the Strategic Director Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning.
4. That a report outlining the results of the consultation and recommendations for implementation of cost saving measures at Community Recycling Centres be brought back to Cabinet by July 2015. Reasons for Decisions:
Adopting the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy will enable Surrey County Council (SCC) to work closely with Surrey districts and boroughs to improve performance and manage waste in a way that offers best value to the Surrey taxpayer.
Revisions to pricing for the Eco Park have arisen due to delays, associated with planning beyond the control of the Council. This has led to further time being required to complete the assessment process. To allow this to happen it is proposed that a further report including an updated value for money analysis should be brought to the Cabinet in April 2015.
Given the current financial climate, it has been necessary to investigate opportunities for making savings through optimising and rationalising the way in which Community Recycling Centres are managed. This will help address a funding gap that arises from increasing costs and reducing funding, in addition to contributing to other savings that will be required across SCC in the coming years. Minutes: In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding explained the background to the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy Revision 2(2015) and said that authorities in two-tier counties such as Surrey worked together to manage their waste in a coherent way and the law required these authorities to produce a joint strategy for the management of municipal waste, and also to keep it under review. The Surrey Waste Partnership prepared the revised strategy which is now recommended for adoption by partner authorities, including Surrey County Council and the Cabinet would be recommending its adoption at the next County Council meeting on 17 March 2015.
He was also pleased to report that Surrey’s recycling rate had increased from 31% to 52% in 2013/14 and waste to landfill had decreased from 67% to 11 % during the same period. He highlighted the aims and targets of the waste management strategy, as set out in paragraph 13 and in Annex 1 to the submitted report.
Referring to the Eco Park, he explained that, due to delays associated with planning beyond the control of the County Council and other issues, a further report including an updated value for money analysis would be brought back to Cabinet in April 2015.
He also updated Cabinet on the progress of the initiatives for cost savings at the Community Recycling Centres.
Finally, he referred to the Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA), of which a summary of the key impacts and actions were set out within the main report, with the full EIA attached as Annex 2 to the submitted report.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Surrey Waste Partnership’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy Revision 2 (2015) be endorsed and recommended to County Council for adoption.
2. That a further report on the Eco Park be brought back to the Cabinet in April 2015 with an updated value for money and affordability assessment.
3. That the consultation process for potential changes at Community Recycling Centresbe approved and that the proposals for consultation be finalised and agreed by the Strategic Director Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning.
4. That a report outlining the results of the consultation and recommendations for implementation of cost saving measures at Community Recycling Centres be brought back to Cabinet by July 2015. Reasons for Decisions:
Adopting the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy will enable Surrey County Council (SCC) to work closely with Surrey districts and boroughs to improve performance and manage waste in a way that offers best value to the Surrey taxpayer.
Revisions to pricing for the Eco Park have arisen due to delays, associated with planning beyond the control of the Council. This has led to further time being required to complete the assessment process. To allow this to happen it is proposed that a further report including an updated value for money analysis should be brought to the Cabinet in April 2015.
Given the current financial ... view the full minutes text for item 33/15 |
|
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL:
Recommendation 1 That, subject to Connaught Junior School also agreeing to introduce a reciprocal sibling link with Bagshot Infant School, a reciprocal sibling link for Bagshot Infant School is introduced with Connaught Junior School so that Bagshot Infant School would be described as operating shared sibling priority with Connaught Junior School for 2016 admission. Reasons for Recommendation · It would support families with more than one child as families with a sibling at Connaught Junior School would benefit from sibling priority at Bagshot Infant School · This proposal is in line with a separate proposal by Connaught Junior School to introduce a reciprocal sibling link with Bagshot Infant School. This recommendation is therefore conditional on Connaught Junior School implementing this change before this recommendation is ratified by Full Council · It would provide continuity and a clearer transition for parents, children and schools and would reduce anxiety for parents · If Connaught also introduce a feeder link from Bagshot as they have proposed, it would enable families to benefit from a sibling link for Reception even if they had a child who was due to leave the infant school before the younger child was admitted · It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children together or at schools with agreed links · It is supported by Connaught Junior School and by the Headteacher and Chair of Governors of Bagshot Infant School
Recommendation 2 That a new criterion for Hammond Community Junior School is introduced for September 2016 to provide priority for children attending either Valley End or Windlesham Village infant schools as follows:
a. Looked After and previously Looked After Children b. Exceptional social/medical need c. Children attending Lightwater Village School d. Siblings not admitted under c) above e. Children attending either Valley End CofE Infant School or Windlesham Village Infant School f. Any other children
Reasons for Recommendation · It would introduce a feeder link for infant schools where currently none exists and in doing so would provide continuity and a clearer transition for parents, children and schools and would reduce anxiety for parents · It would help ensure that a school within a reasonable distance could be offered to all children within the area · It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children at schools with agreed links · It would support viability of Valley End and Windlesham Village infant schools · It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of Hammond Community Junior School and by Valley End and Windlesham Village infant schools · Eligibility to transport is not linked to the admission criteria of a school and as such attendance at Valley End or Windlesham Village infant schools would not confer an automatic right to transport to Hammond Community Junior School
Recommendation 3 That a feeder link from Meath Green Infant to Meath Green Junior School is introduced for September 2016 as follows: a. Looked After and previously Looked After Children b. Exceptional social/medical need c. Children attending Meath Green Infant School d. Siblings not admitted ... view the full decision text for item 34/15 Minutes: Following statutory consultation on the proposed changes to Surrey’s admission arrangements for September 2016 and Surrey’s Relevant Area, Cabinet was asked to consider the responses set out in Enclosure 5 of the report and to make recommendations to the County Council on admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools, Surrey’s coordinated schemes for September 2016 and its Relevant Area.
The report covered the following areas in relation to school admissions:
· Bagshot Infant School (Bagshot) – Recommendation 1 · Hammond Community Junior School (Lightwater) - Recommendation 2 · Meath Green Junior School (Horley) – Recommendation 3 · Wallace Fields Junior School (Ewell) – Recommendation 4 · Worplesdon Primary School (Worplesdon, Guildford) – Recommendation 5 · Cranleigh Primary School (Cranleigh) – Recommendation 6 · Own admission authority schools to be included in assessment of nearest school – Recommendation 7 · Start date to primary admissions round – Recommendation 8 · Surrey’s Relevant Area - Recommendation 9 · Published Admission Numbers for other community and voluntary controlled schools – Recommendation 10 · Admission arrangements for other community and voluntary controlled schools – Recommendation 11 · Coordinated Admissions Schemes – Recommendation 12
The Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning presented the report and said that it was a complex and lengthy report, which following the eight week statutory consultation period, had twelve recommendations.
She drew attention to:
· Recommendation (1) – the reciprocal sibling link between Bagshot Infant School and Connaught Junior School and said that this recommendation was subject to agreement of the Connuaght Junior School Governing Body who were meeting today (24 February) · Recommendation (8) – the start date to the primary admissions round. She said that, due to the low response rate and the reluctance to introduce such a process change without broad support from primary schools, this proposal would be deferred until 2017 at the earliest to enable more targeted consultation to be carried out. As Chairman of the Admissions Forum, the Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Families confirmed that all the recommendations had been discussed by all representatives of this forum and had been supported.
Cabinet Members were given an opportunity to comment on the proposals for individual schools and the Cabinet Member for Community Services confirmed that there was a comprehensive and upto date Equalities Impact Assessment that had addressed issues of concern.
Members were reminded that these recommendations would be considered by the County Council at its next meeting on 17 March 2015.
Finally, the Cabinet Team thanked the Principal Manager Admissions and Transport (Strategy) and her team for the excellent report.
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL:
Recommendation 1 That, subject to Connaught Junior School also agreeing to introduce a reciprocal sibling link with Bagshot Infant School, a reciprocal sibling link for Bagshot Infant School is introduced with Connaught Junior School so that Bagshot Infant School would be described as operating shared sibling priority with Connaught Junior School for 2016 admission. Reasons for Recommendation · It would support families with more than one child as families with a sibling at Connaught Junior School would benefit from ... view the full minutes text for item 34/15 |
|
|
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL AND EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL PARTNERSHIP
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the proposal to create a new business services partnership arrangement with East Sussex County Council, with effect from 15 April 2015, be approved and pursuant to that arrangement to place those of its staff employed in the delivery of those functions at the disposal of East Sussex County Council. 2. That the functions of the Council, which are within the remit of the services in scope be discharged by a newly constituted Joint Committee, to be established with East Sussex County Council with effect from 15 April 2015. 3. That the Joint Committee will comprise up to three Cabinet Members from Surrey County Council and up to three Members from East Sussex County Council. 4. That the responsibility for agreeing the detail of an Inter Authority Agreement with East Sussex County Council, and other related issues including establishing the Standing Orders of the Joint Committee, be delegated to the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Business Services, in consultation with the Chief Executive, the Strategic Director for Business Services, the Director of Finance and the Director of Legal and Democratic Services. 5. That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be requested to prepare amendments to the Scheme of Delegation and to the Constitution to reflect the changes arising from this report and the Inter-Authority Agreement, once it is concluded, and submits them for approval by the Leader of the Council. Reasons for Decisions:
The proposed transformative public service partnership will build upon the strength of the existing arrangements, delivering resilient and affordable services to both Surrey County Council and East Sussex County Council. The partnership will deliver significant savings by taking advantage of economies of scale, streamlining processes and reducing duplication. Investment required for transformative change and continuous improvement will become a more affordable proposition than if undertaken by one council alone. In the longer term, the partnership will benefit from growth, delivering further economies of scale for the benefit of each council and their residents.
The recommendations satisfy the legal requirements to enable the formation of a Joint Committee, appoint Members to it and to enable staff to be shared with East Sussex County Council. East Sussex County Council will pass similar resolutions and taken together these form the foundations of the governance arrangements for the partnership.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Business Services said that she was pleased to present this new partnership venture with East Sussex County Council to Cabinet. She said that since November 2011, this Council had been working in partnership to build resilience, deliver efficiencies and strengthen its service provision for the residents of Surrey. The Council’s business support services had developed effective collaboration with East Sussex County Council through its shared procurement team, and transactional service provision, led by Laura Langstaff, and this had been in operation since April 2013. The proposed partnership would deliver resilient and sustainable services whilst providing savings to both authorities and the bringing together of services from Surrey County Council and East Sussex County Council would create sufficient scale to allow the recruitment and retention of the best staff, drive shared efficiencies and invest in new technology that might otherwise be prohibitively expensive for each organisation alone. The partnership was expected to develop and grow over time, attracting further public sector partners (as members of a Joint Committee). Finally, she said that a more detailed business plan for the partnership, including confirmation of the investment requires would be brought back to Cabinet for consideration in July 2015.
The Leader of the Council invited Mr Kevin Foster, from East Sussex County Council to address the meeting. He began by thanking Members for allowing him to speak and said that he thought this was an exciting opportunity for both Councils. He considered that a strong sense of trust and common values was key to the development of the partnership and said that it was the preferred choice for both Councils as a way of meeting future financial challenges.
Key points made by other Cabinet Members were:
· To date, the partnership work with East Sussex County Council had been very successful · Key words were: digital transformation, staff, trust and value for money · The proposed savings achievable from the partnership were estimated at £6-8m per annum, by the end of year 4 · The proposed transformative public service partnership would build upon existing arrangements, delivering resilient and affordable services to both councils. It would also deliver significant savings by taking advantage of economies of scale, streamlining processes and reducing duplication · It was also expected to develop and grow over time, attracting further public sector partners · Reference to the recent arrangements agreed for the Trading Standards Service, with a joint committee being set up with Buckinghamshire County Council · It was One Team, working together · Finally the Leader of the Council, paid tribute to the Leader and Chief Executive of East Sussex County Council for working together with Surrey to achieve this partnership
RESOLVED:
1. That the proposal to create a new business services partnership arrangement with East Sussex County Council, with effect from 15 April 2015, be approved and pursuant to that arrangement to place those of its staff employed in the delivery of those functions at the disposal of East Sussex County Council. 2. That the functions of the Council, which ... view the full minutes text for item 35/15 |
|
Additional documents: Decision: That it be agreed to enter into section 75 agreements with seven Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), in accordance with the principles set out in the submitted report, to enable pooled funds to be established and to govern the delivery of the Surrey Better Care Fund Plan 2015/16 and for an agreed period thereafter (by the Cabinet and relevant CCG Governing Body).
Reasons for Decisions:
The Care Act 2014 requires that funds allocated to local areas for the Better Care Fund must be put into pooled budgets established under section 75 agreements. Authority is required from the County Council’s Cabinet and each CCG Governing Body to enable each organisation to enter into the section 75 agreements. These agreements need to be in place by 1 April 2015 to allow the funds to be pooled and invested in line with the Surrey Better Care Fund plan – this will support the joint working with the Surrey CCGs and other partners to achieve better outcomes and high quality coordinated care for Surrey residents through greater integration and alignment of health and social care services. There are six CCGs in Surrey: East Surrey CCG; Guildford & Waverley CCG; North West Surrey CCG; North East Hampshire & Farnham CCG; Surrey Downs CCG; and Surrey Heath CCG. The seventh, Windsor and Maidenhead CCG, is also included because its population crosses Surrey in a small area of North West Surrey. Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead CCG is consequently making a small contribution to the Surrey Better Care Fund but does not form part of the Surrey planning area. [The decisions on this item can be called in by either the Adult Social Care Select Committee or Health Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Public Health and Health and Wellbeing Board said that this report was a legal document which allowed officers to proceed with the necessary integration for the Council to enter into partnership arrangements under section 75 of the National Health Act 2006 (‘section 75 agreements’) with each of the seven Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) covering the population of Surrey, enabling pooled budgets to be established to support the delivery of the Surrey Better Care Fund (BCF) plan for 2015/16.
RESOLVED:
That it be agreed to enter into section 75 agreements with seven Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), in accordance with the principles set out in the submitted report, to enable pooled funds to be established and to govern the delivery of the Surrey Better Care Fund Plan 2015/16 and for an agreed period thereafter (by the Cabinet and relevant CCG Governing Body).
Reasons for Decisions:
The Care Act 2014 requires that funds allocated to local areas for the Better Care Fund must be put into pooled budgets established under section 75 agreements. Authority is required from the County Council’s Cabinet and each CCG Governing Body to enable each organisation to enter into the section 75 agreements. These agreements need to be in place by 1 April 2015 to allow the funds to be pooled and invested in line with the Surrey Better Care Fund plan – this will support the joint working with the Surrey CCGs and other partners to achieve better outcomes and high quality coordinated care for Surrey residents through greater integration and alignment of health and social care services. There are six CCGs in Surrey: East Surrey CCG; Guildford & Waverley CCG; North West Surrey CCG; North East Hampshire & Farnham CCG; Surrey Downs CCG; and Surrey Heath CCG. The seventh, Windsor and Maidenhead CCG, is also included because its population crosses Surrey in a small area of North West Surrey. Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead CCG is consequently making a small contribution to the Surrey Better Care Fund but does not form part of the Surrey planning area.
|
|
|
Implementing the Care Act - Charging Policy
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the new charging policy for Adult Social Care, set out at Annex 2 of the submitted report, be approved. 2. That the Deferred Payment Policy and schedule of charges, set out at Annex 4 of the submitted report, be approved Reasons for Decisions:
The Council must revise its current Charging and Deferred Payment Policies to meet the requirements of the Care Act 2014. The proposed policies provide an open and transparent framework which will enable people to make informed decisions about how their care and support needs may be met.
The proposals do not significantly change charging for the majority of people currently receiving care and support.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Adult Social Care Select Committee] Minutes: From 1 April 2015, local authorities must implement part 1 of the Care Act 2014.Under part 1 of the Act, new rules for charging will apply when a local authority arranges care and support to meet a person’s support needs. These rules include discretionary powers to be determined by local policy.
At the Cabinet meeting on 25 November 2014, it was agreed that the Council would consult on the proposals to revise the charging policy for adult social care services and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care said that the consultation process had covered five main areas:
· The power to make a change for putting arrangements in place · The percentage of available income taken in charges · Treatment of capital · Charging Carers · Universal Deferred Payment Scheme
The report had summarised the responses to the consultation and set out a new charging policy for adult social care services (Annex 2 to the submitted report) and a new deferred payment policy and schedule of charges (Annex 4 to the submitted report).
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care drew Members attention to the summary of comments from the consultation, as set out in Annex 1.
Referring to the percentage of available income taken in charges, he highlighted the fact that this Council’s current charging policy was to take 80% of the net available income in charges, whilst many neighbouring local authorities took between 90% – 100% of net available income so the recommendation was to increase the percentage of available income taken in charges from the current 80% to 90%.
He confirmed that an Equalities Impact Assessment had been produced for this report and that it detailed the impact of these proposals on residents and service users with protected characteristics.
RESOLVED:
1. That the new charging policy for Adult Social Care, set out at Annex 2 of the submitted report, be approved.. 2. That the Deferred Payment Policy and schedule of charges, set out at Annex 4 of the submitted report, be approved Reasons for Decisions:
The Council must revise its current Charging and Deferred Payment Policies to meet the requirements of the Care Act 2014. The proposed policies provide an open and transparent framework which will enable people to make informed decisions about how their care and support needs may be met.
The proposals do not significantly change charging for the majority of people currently receiving care and support.
|
|
|
Finance and Budget Monitoring Report for January 2015
Additional documents: Decision:
That the report be noted, including the following: 1. The council forecasts an improved revenue position for 2014/15 of £7.9m underspend, up from £3.5m at 31 December 2014, as set out in Annex1, paragraph 3 of the submitted report. (This position includes the need to fund planned commitments that will continue beyond 2014/15) 2. Services forecast achieving an improved position on efficiencies and service reductions by year end of £72.7m, as set out in Annex1, paragraph 70 of the submitted report. 3. The council forecasts investing £202.3m through its capital programme in 2014/15, as set out in Annex1, paragraphs 74 and 75 of the submitted report. 4. Services’ management actions to mitigate overspends, as set out throughout Annex1 of the submitted report, be noted.
Reasons for Decisions:
This report is presented to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for approval and action as necessary.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: The Leader of the Council presented the budget monitoring report for month ten of 2014/15, the period up to 31 January 2015 and said that the forecast revenue position was currently an underspend of £7.9m at year end, an improvement on December’s forecast outturn of £3.5m underspent. He said that this was the fifth consecutive year the Council had delivered more than £60m of savings for the people of Surrey and that the Council continued to face demand growth and funding reductions. As such, the financial strategy had four key drivers to ensure sound governance in managing the finances and to provide value for money. These were: (1) To keep any additional call on the council taxpayer to a minimum Currently, the end of year revenue forecast was for services to underspend by £7.9m and that this was the fifth consecutive year that the Council had a small underspend or a balanced budget. He said that the Chief Executive and Director of Finance would continue to hold support sessions with Heads of Service to help maintain the rigour of services’ savings plans and to continue to report their progress at the Council’s all Member briefings. (2) To continuously drive the efficiency agenda He reported that at the end of January, Services forecast delivering efficiencies of £72.7m against a target of £72.3m and of the £72.7m forecast efficiencies, 88% had either already been achieved or were on track. (3) To develop a funding strategy to reduce the Council’s reliance on council tax and government grant income. He said that reducing reliance on government grants and council tax was key to balancing the budgets over the longer term and the Revolving Infrastructure and Investment Fund had already invested £6.4m this year and forecast delivering £0.5m net income. (4) To continue to maximise the Council’s investment in Surrey Finally, he said that the Council’s capital programme not only improved and maintained the Council’s services, it was also a way of investing in Surrey and generating income for the Council and that the reprofiled capital programme planned £780m investment for 2014-19, including £206m in 2014/15. The current forecast was to invest £195m in the Council’s mainstream capital programme, with £7.5m in long term investments.
He also confirmed that any carry forward requests from Services would be considered by Cabinet at their meeting in April.
Other Cabinet Members were invited to highlight the key points and issues from their portfolios, as set out in the Annex to the report.
The Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning was pleased to report that the Government had awarded Surrey County Council more than £41m in extra funding, as part of the Priority Schools Building Programme.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted, including the following: 1. The council forecasts an improved revenue position for 2014/15 of £7.9m underspend, up from £3.5m at 31 December 2014, as set out in Annex1, paragraph 3 of the submitted report. (This position includes the need to fund planned commitments that will continue beyond ... view the full minutes text for item 38/15 |
|
|
Leadership Risk Register
Additional documents: Decision: That the content of the Leadership risk register, as set out in Annex 1of the submitted report be noted and the control actions put in place by the Statutory Responsibilities Network be endorsed.
Reasons for Decisions:
To enable the Cabinet to keep the Council’s strategic risks under review and to ensure that appropriate action is being taken to mitigate risks to a tolerable level in the most effective way.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Business Services said that the Leadership Risk Register was presented to Cabinet each quarter and this report set out the Council’s key strategic risks, as at 31 January 2015. Since it was last presented to the Cabinet in November 2014, the Leadership Risk Register had been reviewed by the Audit and Governance Committee, the Strategic Risk Forum, the Statutory Responsibilities Network and the Directors reporting to the Chief Executive.
She also referred to the residual risk levels for each risk, as set out in the report, and said that there would be a workshop on 24 March 2015 to specifically review the Leadership Risk Register.
The Cabinet Member for Public Health and the Health and Wellbeing Board referred to risk L4 and said it should be noted that the Surrey Better Care Fund Plan had now been approved.
RESOLVED:
That the content of the Leadership risk register, as set out in Annex 1of the submitted report be noted and the control actions put in place by the Statutory Responsibilities Network be endorsed.
Reasons for Decisions:
To enable the Cabinet to keep the Council’s strategic risks under review and to ensure that appropriate action is being taken to mitigate risks to a tolerable level in the most effective way. |
|
|
Award of Contract for the Provision of Insurance Services - Excluding Broker Services
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the contracts be awarded to the suppliers in the following lots: Lot 1 Property – Zurich Municipal, Lot 2 Fidelity Guarantee – QBE Insurance (via Risk Management Partners), Lot 3 Commercial Properties – Zurich Municipal, Lot 4 Casualty – QBE Insurance (via Risk Management Partners), Lot 5 Motor Fleet – Travelers, Lot 6 Group Personal Accident and Travel – AIG (via Risk Management Partners), Lot 7 Terrorism - Pool Reinsurance
2. That the contracts be awarded for three years, with an option to extend for two further years for all lots. Reasons for Decisions:
A full tender process, in compliance with the requirements of Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Council’s Procurement Standing Orders has been completed. The recommendations provide best value for money for insurance cover in association with the lots as listed for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Business Services introduced this report which sought approval to award contracts for the provision of Insurance Services, excluding Broker Services for the benefit of the Council to commence on 1 April 2015.
Due to the commercial sensitivity involved in the contract awards process, the financial details of the potential suppliers were set out in a Part 2 report, to be considered later in the meeting.
RESOLVED:
1. That the contracts be awarded to the suppliers in the following lots: Lot 1 Property – Zurich Municipal, Lot 2 Fidelity Guarantee – QBE Insurance (via Risk Management Partners), Lot 3 Commercial Properties – Zurich Municipal, Lot 4 Casualty – QBE Insurance (via Risk Management Partners), Lot 5 Motor Fleet – Travelers, Lot 6 Group Personal Accident and Travel – AIG (via Risk Management Partners), Lot 7 Terrorism - Pool Reinsurance
2. That the contracts be awarded for three years, with an option to extend for two further years for all lots. Reasons for Decisions:
A full tender process, in compliance with the requirements of Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Council’s Procurement Standing Orders has been completed. The recommendations provide best value for money for insurance cover in association with the lots as listed for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
|
|
|
LEADER / DEPUTY LEADER / CABINET MEMBER DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE THE LAST CABINET MEETING
Additional documents: Decision: That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members since the last meeting, as set out in Annex 1 of the submitted report, be noted.
Reasons for Decisions:
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members under delegated authority. Minutes: To note the delegated decisions taken by Cabinet Members since the last meeting of the Cabinet.
RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members since the last meeting, as set out in Annex 1 of the submitted report, be noted.
Reasons for Decisions:
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members under delegated authority. |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED that under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
PART TWO – IN PRIVATE
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF BUSINESS WERE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE BY THE CABINET. SET OUT BELOW IS A PUBLIC SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN.
|
|
|
Award of Contract for the Provision of Insurance Services - Excluding Broker Services
Decision: 1. That contracts be awarded to the suppliers by lot with an estimated total annual value and contract term, as set out in the submitted report, with an option to extend for two further years for the provision of Insurance Services excluding Broker Services for the benefit of the Council to commence on 1 April 2015: Lot 1 Property – Zurich Municipal Lot 2 Fidelity Guarantee – QBE (via Risk Management Partners) Lot 3 Commercial Properties – Zurich Municipal Lot 4 Casualty – QBE (via Risk Management Partners) Lot 5 Motor Fleet – Travelers Lot 6 Group Personal Accident and Travel – AIG (via Risk Management Partners)
2. That for Lot 7 Terrorism, a quotation be obtained from Pool Reinsurance and agreed with the Leader of the Council for cover to take effect from 1 April 2015 as the proposal put forward by a sole bidder for the lot does not meet the requirements of the Council. Reasons for Decisions:
The existing agreements will expire on 31 March 2015. A full tendering process, in compliance with the requirements of Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Council’s Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: This report was the confidential annex relating to item 13 on the agenda, which set out the commercial and financial details of the competitive tendering process.
A revised recommendation (2) was tabled at the meeting.
RESOLVED: 1. That contracts be awarded to the suppliers by lot with an estimated total annual value and contract term, as set out in the submitted report,with an option to extend for two further years for the provision of Insurance Services excluding Broker Services for the benefit of the Council to commence on 1 April 2015: Lot 1 Property – Zurich Municipal Lot 2 Fidelity Guarantee – QBE (via Risk Management Partners) Lot 3 Commercial Properties – Zurich Municipal Lot 4 Casualty – QBE (via Risk Management Partners) Lot 5 Motor Fleet – Travelers Lot 6 Group Personal Accident and Travel – AIG (via Risk Management Partners)
2. That for Lot 7 Terrorism, a quotation be obtained from Pool Reinsurance, and agreed with the Leader of the Council, for cover to take effect from 1 April 2015, as the proposal put forward by a sole bidder for the lot does not meet the requirements of the Council. Reasons for Decisions:
The existing agreements will expire on 31 March 2015. A full tendering process, in compliance with the requirements of Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Council’s Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process. |
|
|
PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS
Additional documents: Minutes: That non-exempt information relating to items considered in Part 2 of the meeting may be made available to the press and public, if appropriate.
|