Agenda and minutes
PDF 180 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Bryan Searle
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received
from Denise Saliagopoulos, Hazel Watson and Keith Witham.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 1 JUNE 2016
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting.
Minutes to follow. Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a true and accurate record of proceedings. |
|
|
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 made. |
|
|
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 (Tuesday 30 June 2016). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Wednesday 29 June 2016). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions submitted to the Board. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
Responses from the Cabinet to recommendations made by the Board at its last meeting are as follows:
(a) Investment Strategy: Property Portfolio
(b) Annual Report of the Shareholder Board
(c) Trust Fund Task Group Report Additional documents: Minutes: Key
points of discussion:
1.
Investment Strategy: Property
Portfolio - The Board expressed
disappointment with the response provided by the Cabinet to the
recommendation submitted to the Board. It was agreed that the
Chairman should consider how best to take forward the Board’s
concerns with the Cabinet.
2.
Annual Report of the Shareholder
Board - The Board noted that, while it
had obtained some financial information from the Shareholder Board,
the sensitive nature of the reports created some difficulties in
the publication of information. The creation of trading companies
presented a problem for open and accountable scrutiny within the
existing structure, and this was an issue which would be reviewed
by the Council Overview Board. It was requested that confirmation
be provided about the existing powers for scrutiny boards to hold
the directors of trading companies to account. 3. Trust Fund Task Group Report- The Board noted the progress of the Henrietta Parker Trust (HPT) and the Tulk Fund Trust and agreed that these trusts should not be destabilised by incorporating them into the Community Foundation for Surrey at this time, with the caveat that they be subject to a annual review.
Resolved:
(a) That the Chairman consider whether any further discussion with the Cabinet was appropriate in the light of the Cabinet’s response to the recommendation on the Investment Strategy Property Portfolio. Action by: Steve Cosser
(b) That information be provided about the existing powers for scrutiny boards to hold the directors of the Council’s ‘arm’s-length’ companies to account. Action by: Ross Pike
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Key
points of discussion: Recommendations Tracker
1.
It was noted by the Board that the Babcock 4S
pension information was imminently available and that this
information would be circulated to the Board for scrutiny as part
of the next Bulletin. Forward Work Programme
2.
It was agreed that the review of the priorities for
the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience
would be added to the agenda for September 2016. The Public Value Transformation item had been
included in the list of items in error, as it would be discussed at
his meeting. 3. The Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme were agreed to by the Board.
|
|
|
AGENCY STAFFING UPDATE
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets; and Policy Development and Review.
The report provides the Council Overview Board with an update on progress improvements to the council’s agency worker arrangements, including implementation of a new framework agreement, historical and current spending and current mark up rates. The report sets out the council’s approach to temporary staffing and controls being implemented for managing usage and costs of agency staff. Minutes: Witnesses:
Key
points of discussion:
1.
Officers outlined that the report illustrated
continuing improvement and control of the recruitment of agency
staff, but that the service was committed to further improvements
to the system and continual work towards making savings. It was
also noted that the financial outturn of agency staff for the
Council was only 5% of the overall staffing budget, but that this
did not lessen the service aspiration to improve efficiencies in
this area.
2.
The Board queried Officers regarding the large
increase in payments for qualified social workers in Adult Social
Care and for the Chief Executive’s Office. Officers responded
that the figures regarding Adult Social Care Service was reliant
upon information from Manpower and that the information provided
was felt to be incorrect, noting that the higher figure could most
likely be attributed to the erroneous addition of £1.2
million costs for unqualified care workers. The service would
provide the Board with the correct figures. It was noted that the
increased cost for the Chief Executive’s Office was due to
demand for locum lawyers. 3. A question was raised by Members querying costs listed in paragraph 29 suggesting that annualised figures do not correspond with those listed in the table. Officers responded that the figures available were a snapshot for the month of May 2016 and could not be extrapolated to provide a complete annual picture. Members suggested that a more accurate investigation could be undertaken with an analysis of quarter two and three figures for 2016. Officers suggested that the Board could be supplied with more comprehensive data later in the year.
4.
Members noted that there was currently no policy
framework in place to guide the use of agency workers. It was
suggested that there was a need to create a policy framework to
address any issues that may arise from this. Officers agreed with
the necessity to draft a policy for the improvement of contractual
arrangements. It was noted, however, that, due to the wide ranging
nature of agency staff, that a “one size fits all”
approach would be not be the ideal method. Officers suggested that
multiple avenues of approach to resolving this issue were being
considered, and the aim was to have a policy in place by October
2016. 5. Members put a question to officers regarding permanent staff recruitment and retention as an alternative to agency staffing, and whether there has been improvement regarding this. It was noted that improved staff retention was an aim of the Pay and Reward Strategy. It was also noted that the offer of competitive pay and attraction benefits had improved the prospects for permanent recruitment. It was noted, however, that some issues were still difficult to tackle, particularly emphasising the issues raised by staff of a lack of work/life balance and high levels of case work. The service was, however, seeking long term solutions to these ... view the full minutes text for item 52/16 |
|
|
MUNICIPAL BONDS AGENCY
Purpose of the report: The Council Overview Board is asked to review the report and consider whether it wishes to make any recommendations to Cabinet.
Report to Follow Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Key
points of discussion:
1.
The Board considered the report on the Municipal
Bonds Agency (MBA) Framework Agreement and Guarantee and sought
clarification from officers regarding the operation of the proposed
arrangements. The Board was keen to
understand more about the knowledge and experience of the MBA Board
members, as well as the risks and benefits of seeking loans from
the MBA compared to other existing options.
2.
Officers reported that Surrey County Council had
access to a number wide range of options to fund capital projects
and that the MBA was one such option. While it was noted that this
option was not risk-free, it was noted that there was a probability
of lower interest rates on future long term loans.
3.
The Board raised the concern over who was ultimately
responsible for the triggering process regarding bonds purchased
from the MBA. It was noted that, in the treasury management
strategy, the Director of Finance had
delegated power to make borrowing decisions but, for the purposes
of loans from the MBA, consultation was to take place with the
Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience prior
to a loan decision. It was felt that
for practical reasons relating to possible absences, it may be
better if the delegation of borrowing decisions to the Director of
Finance should be after consultation with either the Leader of the
Council or the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident
Experience, rather than just the Cabinet Member.
4.
The Board queried whether a special control should
be put in place to limit the risk of borrowing from the MBA.
Officers responded that the MBA had its own rigorous scrutiny and
assessment and would only allow authorities on its lending list if
it felt that they were capable of future repayment. It was
suggested that their scrutiny processes amounted to a sufficient
safeguard to minimise risk without unduly hindering process.
5.
Members queried how the bonds and loans system
functioned. Officers clarified that loans from the MBA could only
be used to finance capital spending commitments in the Medium Term
Financial Plan (MTFP). It was also noted that any debts undertaken
by Surrey County Council must be accounted for by law in its MTFP
and fell within its Prudential Indicators, ensuring that the
authority cannot borrow more than its means allows, limiting risk
to the authority. 6. The Board questioned officers regarding the relationship between Surrey County Council and the MBA, noting that the authority was an equity investor in the MBA and querying what the risks would be to the authority to acquiring long term loans in addition. It was noted by officers that the mechanism being proposed was not an amendment to Surrey County Council’s status as an equity investor and the possible benefits that this entails, but an extension of treasury management policy to allow for ... view the full minutes text for item 53/16 |
|
|
PUBLIC VALUE TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMME
Purpose of the report: Public Value Transformation was agreed in February Full Council as part of our response to tackling an unsustainable Council budget beyond 2017. It is not a centralised programme of service-by-service reviews but is about bringing our transformation work into a systematic and rigorous approach to secure Public Value moving forward and contributions to the Council’s longer-term financial sustainability.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Key points
of discussion: 1.
The Board put the question to officers regarding the
savings projected in the 2016/2017 Public Value Transformation
Programme report and whether the projections would be met. Officers
responded that it was unlikely that projected targets would be met
in the projected timescale. It was noted that there was confidence
in the MTFP to deliver savings, however, the longer-term vision was
not expected to be fully realised. It was noted that work was being
done to rectify this, highlighting workshops that were being
organised to raise new ideas. 2.
The Board questioned the business model of some of
the services, asking whether a commercial outlook of identifying
“cost centres” and “profit centres” within
services may give valuable insight into possible savings and
develop new behaviours within services towards savings. Officers
responded that this culture was being promoted, but that more work
could be done to improve this. 3.
It was asked by the Board if the Public Value
Transformation team could, in future,
look into new, culture shifting, opportunities for generating,
rather than saving, income as a prospective option for
services. 4.
It was noted that the Public Value Transformation
programme had, while not fully achieving its vision, accomplished a
great deal, highlighting its work in re-examining strategic
thinking regarding budgetary analysis and changing the
organisational culture regarding cost saving. It was also noted the
programme had been looking into creating a robust financial
monitoring model for services. 5.
The Board noted that Surrey County Council needed to
work with Central Government to minimise the impact of funding cuts
on its services and that there was a general concern regarding
funding cuts in services. Officers recognised that there was no
simple solution to this issue. 6.
Members expressed the concern that there was a need
for greater focus on the impact on residents with regard to
possible cost saving measures, suggesting that the team consider
the wider implications more. It was noted that the team does engage
well currently with stakeholders and considers the wider
implications of its actions fully. 7. The Board noted that the fact that the Public Value Transformation Project would not achieve the anticipated savings would need to be taken into account by Scrutiny Boards in the scrutiny of services’ current spending and the proposed budgets for 2017/2018.
|
|
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets.
To receive an update on discussions in relation to the arrangements for scrutiny of the 2017/2018 budget and consider whether to make recommendations to the Cabinet or Scrutiny Boards in relation to the process. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Kevin Kilburn, Deputy Chief Finance Officer
Key points
of discussion: 1.
The Chairman reported that he had met the Leader of
the Council and the Chief Executive to discuss the role of scrutiny
in the budget-setting process, and they recognised the importance
of effective and timely involvement. 2.
The Board recommended that all Scrutiny Boards
within Surrey County Council should put a greater emphasis on
monitoring whether current agreed savings targets were being
achieved, and that this process should be incorporated within the
scrutiny work of all of the Boards. 3.
It was suggested by the Board that figures relating
to financial savings should be made more transparent for scrutiny.
It was suggested that officers should be doing more to provide
suggestions to Scrutiny Boards as to where savings could be made
and the implications involved in any proposal. Officers informed
the Board that there was an internally available “Efficiency
Tracker” which was currently being used by the service which
could be offered to Boards as a scrutiny tool in the
future. 4.
There was a concern raised by members that financial
information was unclear for ordinary Members and that budget
scrutiny could be overly fragmented over several Boards and
services. 5.
It was suggested that Member briefings regarding the
impact of the MTFP could be a valuable information tool for members
to gain insight into budget scrutiny and provide support. Officers
responded that they were happy to work with Members to ensure that
any further briefs were more inclusive. 6.
Members raised a concern regarding the lack of
Member input on saving opportunities. Officers responded that they
were working on opportunities to help Members provide input. It was
also noted that there was an advantage in Scrutiny Board Chairmen
working with Cabinet Members to forward ideas. 7.
The Board suggested that any information on
budgetary matters should be supplied to scrutiny boards when
requested and that data could be analysed in public or private
depending on its nature. The concern was raised that some
information was being withheld on occasion, owing to the
sensitivity of some financial information, making budgetary
scrutiny difficult. 8.
The Board noted that the formulation of a good
working relationship between the scrutiny board Chairman and the
relevant Cabinet Member was a crucial aspect of future good
budgetary scrutiny and that current Chairmen should work to foster
a positive relationship. Resolved: 1. That Scrutiny Boards give greater emphasis to challenging whether the savings identified for their service areas in 2016/17 were being met, and that Chairmen decide the most appropriate way for their Board to achieve this.
|
|
|
SCRUTINY IN A NEW ENVIRONMENT
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
The financial, policy and decision making landscape of local government is changing rapidly, and overview and scrutiny committees must be able to meet the challenges of scrutinising key issues in this new environment. Minutes: Key points
of discussion: 1.
The Board questioned whether other authorities had
experienced issues in conducting scrutiny as a result of the
changing role of local government and whether any solutions had
been outlined that could be applicable for Surrey County Council.
It was noted that while there were similar problems in other
authorities, no answers to these problems had yet been established.
It was suggested that Surrey County Council seek to lead the way in
ascertaining a new scrutiny framework. 2.
The Board noted that Scrutiny Boards should not be
limited from the acquisition of any relevant information that they
request from services. 3.
It was noted that many positive aspects of current
scrutiny arrangements existed and that statutory requirements were
being met. However, it was noted there was room for improvement
regarding financial scrutiny. 4.
There was a concern raised regarding the
transparency of partnerships working with Surrey County Council as
well as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). It was noted that it
should be more closely examined how to scrutinise these entities
better in future. 5.
It was noted that the presence of Cabinet Members at
Scrutiny Boards was critical to the legitimacy and relevance of the
Boards’ work. It was noted that some Cabinet Member
attendance has been sporadic and that this could be improved upon
to improve future scrutiny and ensure that any discussion was
informed and relevant. Resolved: (a)
That a Task Group be established with the aim of reviewing the
effectiveness of the Council’s existing scrutiny arrangements
in the light of changes to methods of service delivery. (b) That the draft terms of reference for the task group be circulated to Members of the Council Overview Board for comment. Action by: Ross Pike.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at County Hall on Tuesday 21 September 2016 Minutes: The next public meeting of the Board will be held on Wednesday 21 September 2016, 10.00am in the Ashcombe Suite. |