The minutes of the previous meeting were
agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.
3.
Declarations of Interest
Share this item
All
Members present are required to declare, at this point in the
meeting or
as
soon as possible thereafter:
i.any disclosable pecuniary interests and /
or;
ii.other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary
interest;
·as well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner); and
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Purpose of the
Report:To respond to the interest of the
Highways and Growth Select Committee in understanding how the
Council works with local businesses and partners to address skills
gaps and future workforce demands in Surrey.
Paula Neal,Relationship
Manager Skills for Business
Bob Pickles, Chairman of the Employment and Skills Board,Head of Corporate & Government
AffairsCanon UK & Ireland
Tracie Evans, Executive Director of Economy, Growth and
Commercial
Key points
raised in the discussion:
Officers provided context to the formation of the
Employment and Skills Board (ESB) in 2013, noting that it was aimed
to encourage economic growth in partnership with the local
authority, employers, higher education authorities and other key
stakeholders. It was stressed that this was a volunteer, employer
led body. It was noted, however, that the ESB had received
dedicated officer support from Surrey County Council as of early
2018.
The Chairman of the Employment and Skills
Board highlighted that one of the key assets of the ESB was its
capability to create a network of employers, local
authorities,higher education
authorities, and others which would work
to identify skills gaps and provide a collective voice to suggest
resolutions to these skills gaps.
Members questioned whether there was a
significant gap between public and private sector ways of working.
The Chairman of the Employment and Skills Board noted that there
was a difference in working cultures, but that the public sector
had been changing to more match private sector ways of working,
which ensured that this issue was not acute. It was noted, however,
that there was still a cultural difference in the way that schools
work, but that the ESB had worked to outreach to schools to bridge
the gap.
Members questioned how the ESB could outreach more
to businesses and to improve its visibility. The Chairman of the Employment and Skills Board noted
that it had been working with the Relationship Manager, Skills for
Business to further develop the digital reach of the ESB, and that
more work needed to be done to improve upon this.
Members questioned whether disability groups were
represented sufficiently on the ESB and whether there was any
opportunity to outreach to these groups to potentially engage with
a project to improve disabled employability. The Chairman of the Employment and Skills Board stressed
that all representatives of the ESB dealt with issues relating to
disability on a regular basis, but that there was no specific
representative. The Chairman of the ESB did note that he would like
to see improved engagement with disability groups, and welcomed
input from the Committee as to how to potentially engage better
with these groups. Members offered to provide suggestions to the
Chairman of the ESB after the meeting.
Members questioned gaps in membership and
outreach, asking whether there was scope to include NHS and school
organisations more. The Chairman of the ESB explained that it was
working to regain school representation on the Board; it was noted
that it had been the case historically that there was a
representative of schools on the Board, which the Board was hoping
to rectify. It was also stressed that the Board was currently
seeking a representative from the NHS. The Chairman ...
view the full minutes text for item 6.
Purpose of
report:To provide members with an
overview of the current contract arrangements across Highway
services and improvements made to date.
The report will also outline the Service’s journey towards
retendering when the current contracts come to an end many of which
do so in April 2021.
Paul Wheadon, Business Improvement & Consultancy Team
Manager
Lucy Monie, Head of Highways and Transport
Bernard Hodgkinson, General Manager, Kier
Colin Kemp, Lead Cabinet Member for Place
Key points
raised in the discussion:
TheLead Cabinet Member for
Place explained that the aim of the session was to consider the
complexities of the Highways contracts to understand the
development of the current contract structure, with the aim of
informing future understanding of the development of the future
Highways contracts upon re procurement in 2021.
The Lead Member and Officers provided an overview of
the current contract, highlighting the background of the contract,
value, scope, functions, high level performance information and
improvements to the contract. The representative from Kier
explained that Kier had secured an extension to the contract in
2016 with some changes to how the contract was delivered, which had
provided some cost savings. It was also explained how the service
operated and the hubs that the service utilised to effectively
maintain the network.
On behalf of the
Committee, the Chairman voiced disappointment that this was the
first time the Select Committee members had the opportunity of
seeing the presentation slides. It was stressed that, for the
Committee is to perform its scrutiny role effectively, it was
essential that all notes and presentation material be made
available to the Committee in advance for members to have adequate
time to prepare questions and comment in an informed
manner.
The representative from Kier and the Lead Member
noted that the service was undergoing a “managed
deterioration” of the network based on current funding
levels. It was stressed that this was not an acute problem at
present and that the road network quality of Surrey compared
favourably to other authorities. Members asked Keir and the Lead
Member to provide a comparison of Surrey road quality compared to
other authorities to help design how the contract will be designed
in future, as well as understand the value for money of the
contract and whether there is good return on investment in light of
the managed deterioration of the asset.
The representative from Kier noted that the current
model was a transparent and open model which allowed for good
partnership work. The Officers agreed to supply the key
indicators.
Officers highlighted the performance measures and
the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the contractor. It was
noted that the contractor did measure its own performance, but that
Surrey County Council officers audited and monitored the accuracy
of these measures. It was noted that, generally, the contractor had
performed well against these KPIs. Members did note that there was
a low measure of resident satisfaction, which could be improved
with better communication with residents regarding disruptions. The
Lead Member noted that he had undertaken a significant amount of
work on this, but that there was more that could be done to improve
resident’s perception. It was also suggested that how the
service works to communicate better as part of the new contract
needed to be examined ...
view the full minutes text for item 7.
PDF 104 KB