Agenda and minutes
PDF 66 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Bryan Searle or Andrew Spragg
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Mark Brett-Warburton, Denise Turner-Stewart and Chris Townsend. Tom Phelps-Penry acted as a substitute for Chris Townsend.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 1 February 2013 & 13 February 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meetings. Additional documents: Minutes: These were agreed as an accurate record of the meetings. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (7 March 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (6 March 2013). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions to report. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
No issues were referred to Cabinet at the last meeting, so there are no responses to report. Minutes: There were no issues referred by the Committee at its last meeting, so there were no responses to report. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was informed that in reference to COSC 132 the following update had been provided by the Transformation and Development Manager: “There have been a number of technical difficulties in the build of the Finance Dashboard but the project team have worked hard to overcome these difficulties and are in the process of testing the technical solution. However, these difficulties have resulted in a delay in the planned go live. A project healthcheck is being undertaken this week and the project plan is being revised to reflect activities outstanding and resource requirements to ensure that there are no further delays to the project. A full update will be presented to Council Overview & Scrutiny Committee in April 2013.”
2. It was noted that details of the influence of Select Committee recommendations on the Cabinet (COSC94) would be reported as part of the 2012/2013 Scrutiny Annual Report at the April 2013 meeting.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
The Committee will receive an update regarding the progress of the implementation of the financial dashboard at the April 2013 meeting.
|
|
|
FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to review its Forward Work Programme and Task Group Tracker, which are attached. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was asked to note that two additional items had been added to the Forward Work Programme for April 2013. These were a progress report on the implementation of the financial dashboard, and a discussion around potential future agenda items for the Committee.
2. The individual Select Committee Chairmen were invited to give verbal summary on the status of their respective Select Committee Task Groups.
3. The Chairman of Environment & Transport informed the Committee that the following Task Groups would continue their work in order to monitor the progress and implementation of their recommendations: Countryside Management Task Group, Utilities Task Group, and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Task Group. It was commented that the work related to the Prioritisation of Highways and Highways Structures Maintenance Task Group would be monitored at a Local Committee level.
4. The Chairman of Communities Select Committee commented that the Engagement with High Needs Area in Surrey Task group would commence its work after May 2013. Both the Fire Governance Review Members Reference Group, and the Combined Cultural Services PVR Implementation Members Reference Group would both continue their work after May 2013.
5. The Chairman of Communities Select Committee commented that the Registration Members Reference Group and Library Members Reference Group had both concluded their work. It was queried whether the savings proposed by the reduction in mobile libraries and the introduction of Community Partnership Libraries had been validated. The Chairman of Communities Select Committee confirmed that this would be followed up with the Service.
6. The Chairman of the Children & Families Select Committee informed the Committee that the Supporting Families Task Group was due to make its recommendations to Cabinet. Following this, monitoring would be conducted both by Local Committees and the Children & Families Select Committee. It was commented that the programmes were being implemented on a District & Borough level, but that the Children & Families Select Committee would monitor how the programmes co-ordinated strategically at a County level.
7. Members raised that the Communication Review Members Reference Group was not included on the Task Group Tracker. It was confirmed that this would be updated.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
FOLLOW UP OF TASK GROUP REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF VACANCIES
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To provide an update following the recommendations made by the Council Overview & Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 1 February 2013 regarding the management of vacancies.
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Neil Bradley, HR Group Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was provided with a report that outlined the proposals for implementing recommendations following the Task Group report on the Management of Vacancies. It was highlighted that there was a level of complexity in the relationships between staff budgets, contracted staff and agency staff. The Committee was informed that there were two specific areas in terms of where the control of costs lay: with the authority to recruit and with the establishment budget.
2. Members commented that the proposed actions addressed the recommendations and offered clearer definitions around staff vacancies. It was noted that the next step would be to begin discussions with individual services for comment on the feasibility of the proposals.
3. Members queried whether the difficulty of identifying agency and bank staff occupying contracted vacancies on the Organisational Management structure was a technical or organisational issue. The HR Group Manager clarified that the tagging of positions within the Organisational Management structure would potentially create a significant additional volume of work if applied to every agency worker however short their tenure. The Committee was informed that there were 120 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) work vacancies at any one time, with over 200 new appointments a month. It was also outlined that Manpower provided over 400 shifts a month in a diverse range of roles. As consequence it would not be feasible to map every position covered on a temporary basis, but it was confirmed that there would be efforts to tag OM where agency workers or locum staff were covering a vacancy for a medium term.
4. Members asked for clarification about the term “delimited”. The HR Group Manager confirmed that the Organisational Management structure would hold vacant positions until a budget was reduced. At that stage the vacant post would be removed from the structure.
5. One Member raised concerns about the number of temporary staff who could become entitled for staff benefits and rights over the long-term, and what legal implications might come as a result of this. It was suggested that the Council should be looking to reduce the number of temporary workers that it employed. The HR Group Manager commented that there was a positive aspect to maintaining a degree of flexibility through the use of temporary workers, as this enabled services to meet increases in volumes or funding reduced. The Committee was informed that agency workers are the employees of the agency for example, Manpower.
6. Members queried the volume of appointments that were being made on a monthly basis. It was clarified that this included internal and external appointments, with a roughly even split between the two. The Committee raised a question about the number of internal appointments being made, but it was clarified that this included restructuring and transfers between positions, as well as internal promotions.
7. Members commented that they would like to see an analysis of how the use of temporary staff ... view the full minutes text for item 34/13 |
|
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets
This report presents the revenue and capital budget monitoring up-date for January 2013 with projected year-end outturn.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Kevin Kilburn, Financial Reporting Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Select Committee provided an update on the discussions held by the Finance Sub-Group in relation to the January 2013 budget report. It was noted that there was a favourable variance of £3.5 million within the Properties budget. There were also an underspend of £1 million in the planned maintenance budget, and savings of £1.2 million in relation to the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) budget. This saving was a result of a reduction in the likelihood of a fine from the CRC commission.
2. The Committee was informed that these savings were offset against an overspend of £1.7 million within the Information Management Technology (IMT) budget. This was attributed to changes in the network that did not take place within the projected timeframe. It had been highlighted that a number of the savings were being made through the management of vacancies, and would not be guaranteed in the future.
3. Members asked for clarification around the £0.2 million increase in spending in the Customer & Communities budget. It was confirmed that this was in part due to a number of late invoices in relation to the Olympics look and feel government grant.
4. Members raised a query regarding the savings being made by the Strategic Director for Customers & Communities acting as Chief Executive for Mole Valley District Council, and when these savings would be permanently built into the directorate’s budget.
5. Members raised a query about an underspend in staffing budget in relation to Highways, and asked whether further detail could be provided.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
The Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport to be invited to the next Committee meeting to provide comment regarding the underspend in staffing budgets.
Action by: Bryan Searle/Andrew Spragg
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
DETAILED SERVICE BUDGETS 2013/14
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Kevin Kilburn, Financial Reporting Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman presented the key points from the Finance Sub-Group meeting to the Committee. With regards to Central Income & Expenditure it was noted that there had been an increase in the Risk Contingencies budget to £13 million. The Sub-Group had raised projected cash-flow as a possible future item for the Committee’s agenda.
2. The Chairman highlighted that a loan repayment of £68 million was due in September 2013, and that the minimum cash level had been reduced in order to repay this. The view was expressed that it may be prudent to refinance at that stage instead, given current Public Sector borrowing rates were favourable.
3. The Committee was asked to note that the Change & Efficiency budget for 2013/14 had been reduced by 2% with £1.4 million savings anticipated as being ‘amber’ risk. The Chairman noted that there had been an increase in the staffing budget for Shared Services and it had been confirmed that this had been a result of taking on additional staff due to partnership work. It was clarified that the increase in staffing costs had been offset against an increase in income.
4. The Committee highlighted that there was a decrease in the Transformational Change budget to £1.8 million. Members commented on the staffing figures for the Chief Executive directorate, and expressed the view that there should be a consideration around how this staffing was configured in the future.
Recommendations:
a) That a review of staffing levels in the Chief Executive’s Office be included in the Committee’s future Forward Work Programme.
Action by: Andrew Spragg
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the Internal Audit reports that have been completed since the last report to this Committee in February 2013.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chief Internal Auditor presented a summary of the Internal Audit Reports completed since the last Committee meeting in February. There were no further comments.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
PROCUREMENT PARTNERSHIP WITH EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Laura Langstaff, Procurement & Commissioning Manager Julie Fisher, Strategic Director for Change & Efficiency
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Procurement & Commissioning Manager gave an update as to the progress of the Procurement Partnership between East Sussex Council and Surrey County Council. The Committee was informed that there had been some staffing changes within the leadership of the Procurement team, but the view was expressed that officers were confident the structures and people in place would effectively manage any transition. It was highlighted that an interim head of service was due to be appointed in East Sussex.
2. Members asked for clarification on how the joint procurement process worked when it involved both authorities. The Procurement & Commissioning Manger explained that this process was decided on a project by project basis, in order to identify the best resource in each instance. When it was the case where the procurement relationship was already established with one authority then they would take the lead. In some cases procurement was done jointly in order to ensure that the best value for money.
3. The Strategic Director for Change & Efficiency clarified that the procurement process did not involve duplication, and that it was the case that the majority of procurement projects were undertaken using one staff member. It was highlighted that there were areas where more than one individual was required, for example in the case of particular procurement projects for Adult Social Care.
4. Members raised a question about policy differences between the two local authorities and asked for clarification about the governance arrangements for the partnership. Officers confirmed that Member oversight lay with the respective portfolio holders for each local authority. It was confirmed that they met on a regular basis to ensure a consistency of vision.
5. Members asked a question as to how differences in practice had been managed, with particular reference to Highways. It was confirmed that Surrey was seen to have an innovative approach in some areas. However, it was also stated that joint procurement allowed both local authorities to maximise their savings. The May Gurney contract was highlighted as a positive example of this.
6. Members queried how well joint procurement reconciled with the commitment to sourcing 60% of goods and services from local businesses, given that procurement was taken across two counties. It was clarified that what was procured on a local level was category specific, and that officers were yet to see any detrimental impact on Surrey-based suppliers. The Committee was informed that the partnership was focused on common commissioning and procurement processes, and that it was not always the case of combining spend in securing one single contract. It was confirmed that there was still a focus on securing local suppliers where appropriate, particularly in cases where 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers were required. The launch of the Surrey Build portal was highlighted as a particular example of the commitment to sourcing local suppliers.
7. The Committee ... view the full minutes text for item 38/13 |
|
|
SUPPORT FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
To provide the Committee with details of the paper ‘Supporting Economic Growth’. This was considered by the Cabinet at their meeting on 26 February 2013.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Kevin Lloyd, Senior Policy Manager Trevor Pugh, Strategic Director for Environment & Infrastructure Julie Fisher, Strategic Director for Change & Efficiency
Peter Martin, Deputy Leader
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Deputy Leader outlined for the Committee the details of the recent Cabinet paper on supporting economic growth. It was recognised that Surrey’s economy was comparatively successful despite the national economic downturn of recent years. The Committee was informed that the paper set out ways of developing this economic growth in the future, and proposed a number of initiatives that ranged from immediately achievable to very challenging.
2. The Committee was informed that amongst the most challenging of the initiatives was addressing congestion through infrastructure improvements. It was also highlighted that there was a plan to develop an innovation agenda that would be focused on economic redevelopment and regeneration. Partnership working with both Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) and Districts & Borough councils was recognised as an integral part of this.
3. Members raised the question of how the Council intended to proceed with approaching central Government to gain greater support for economic growth. The Deputy Leader stated that a number of conversations were taking place with civil servants about possible ways of working together, but that it was still in the early stages of the discussions.
4. There was a question raised regarding the proposals to provide small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with advice, support and access to finance. It was clarified that work was being undertaken with the University of Surrey to identify possibly ways of developing this. The Committee was informed that Surrey had a comparatively high number of SMEs and business start-ups.
5. The Committee asked how the Council intended to measure its success in relation to its role in supporting economic growth. The Deputy Leader highlighted Surrey Connects as sharing a common target with the Council, in that it set out an aspiration to double the size of the County’s economy by 2030. The Committee was informed that this meant a 3.5-4% increase on a year by year basis.
6. Members queried what resources had been identified with regards to the plan to support economic growth. Officers commented that a large part of the Council’s work already contributed to developing the economy. However, the Strategic Director for Environment & Infrastructure commented that there were identifiable budget figures that would be shared with the Committee.
7. Members commented that there was a potential role for Local Committees in improving congestion, in particular around investment for semi-regional projects. It was commented that the congestion programme developed through Surrey Futures did not identify bigger sub-regional and regional schemes that affected the Surrey economy. The Committee asked how this would be done now that the regional planning bodies had been disbanded. The Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure responded saying that South East England Councils (SEEC) and South East Strategic Leaders (SESL) groups had recently produced a report identifying these strategic infrastructure schemes. They would be ... view the full minutes text for item 39/13 |
|
|
PROPERTY SERVICES: STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To provide the Committee with details of the proposed Strategic Asset Management Plan for Property Services.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee and officers agreed that the nature of the Strategic Asset Management Plan did not require discussions to be held in Part 2.
2. The Committee was informed that the Strategic Asset Management Plan was intended to be a reference point for officers within Property Services. It was commented that the principal drafting had been undertaken by the various departments within the service, the intention being to create an evolving document. It was clarified that a series of actions plans sat behind the Strategic Asset Management Plan, and that these would be updated as new elements developed. The Committee was invited to make comments on the draft plan, which was due to be published in the forthcoming week.
3. Members commented on concerns with regards to current office occupancy, and asked when a review would be undertaken to address low occupancy. The Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration confirmed that there was ongoing work to address this. It was stated that survey data would be essential for deciding what the next steps would be in terms of addressing occupancy concerns; however, it was also highlighted that there was a need for this data to be accurate. The Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration informed the Committee that office occupancy was considered a priority for Property Services.
4. Members queried the absence of overall financial targets contained within the Strategic Asset Management Plan and asked for clarification around the drivers behind the document. The Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration commented that the main objective of the Strategic Asset Management Plan had been developing a one team approach and ethos. The paper was intended to bring together Property Services under one framework to ensure they were co-ordinating better. The schools building programme and its co-ordination in relation to the increase in demand to schools was highlighted as being a successful example of this one team approach. The Chief Property Officer clarified that the financial targets were embedded in the contracts, and that the Strategic Asset Management Plan was intended as a reference document that defined the joined-up process and acted as a starting point for the work of Property Services.
5. Members asked for clarification regarding the proposals for the rural estates, in particular what was meant by the development of new income streams. The Chief Property Officer commented that the intention was to enhance rural estates, with an identification of what would improve and benefit the estates. The setting up of apprenticeship programmes with Merrow College was highlighted as an example of what was being proposed. It was also clarified that housing would be a long term strategic consideration, but was not currently planned as part of the development of the Council’s rural estates. Members commented that this needed to be made clearer in the documentation, as the current wording was felt ... view the full minutes text for item 40/13 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10am on 17 April 2013. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be on 17 April 2013 at 10am. |