Agenda item

UPDATE ON CABINET MEMBER PRIORITIES 2016/2017

Purpose of the report: To report on Denise Le Gal’s priorities for the year 2016/2017 which focus on her portfolio: Business Services and Resident Experience, and how these have progressed so far.

Minutes:

Witnesses:

 

Denise Le Gal, Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience.

 

Karan Persand entered the meeting at 10:35am

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1.    The Board sought clarity on the Cabinet Members responsibilities within the Resident Experience brief of her portfolio.  The Cabinet Member explained that there was an overlap with her portfolio and that of the Cabinet Member for Localities and Community Wellbeing, particularly with regard to the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service.  The Contact Centre was seen to be a key responsibility in this brief, as it was important that the experience of first point of contact by the resident was considered to be a good one.  All Business Services support frontline services across the organisation with the aim of improving Resident Experience.

 

2.    The Cabinet Member stated that she was of the view that Resident Experience should feature in the portfolio of every Cabinet Member, as all strategies implemented by the Council sought to improve Resident Experience.

 

3.    The Board asked the Cabinet Member as to what she considered to be her greatest achievement to date.  The Cabinet Member explained that she worked alongside a very successful team.  She stated that the creation of Orbis was something of which she was very proud.  Since the programme began in 2013, issues relating to sovereignty had been overcome.  The transformation of teams was positive and despite teams getting smaller, the culture of the organisation remained and delivery was achieved ahead of schedule.

 

4.    A Member commented that converting cost centres into profit centres should feature in the Cabinet Member’s priorities and enquired if there were any plans in place to achieve this.  The Cabinet Member explained that work had been done towards this, through the Local Authority Trading Companies that had been set up.  This was exemplified in that South East Business Services Ltd and Babcock 4S had both generated significant dividends for the Council last year, and TRICs was also a profit centre for the Council.  The Cabinet Member went on to explain that not all investments would be profitable, however they were constantly under review for value for money as the economic environment evolved.

 

5.    The Board enquired as to where the Investment Strategy was heading, given that the authority would become more dependent on Return on Investment (ROI) due to the budget shortfall.  The Cabinet Member suggested that the plan was to upscale the investment portfolio to £2 billion and grow the portfolio over a period of time.

 

6.    In response to a question on the deals being offered to the Council, the Cabinet Member stated that the investment community recognised that this Council was open to doing business.  Members were assured that all opportunities to invest were assessed using the risk-adjusted return on capital framework, and that the Investment Advisory Board had taken a decision to primarily invest in low risk assets.

 

7.    The Board stressed the importance of a clear public message on the Council’s investment strategy.  Cabinet Member acknowledged the potential gap in public perception with regard to the investment strategy, explaining that challenge was to balance statutory obligations of service provision with investments that generated income for the Council to safeguard future provision.

 

8.    The Cabinet Member reported that the current Council budget planning featured a £22.4m shortfall for the current financial year and that discussions were taking place to identify what work would be deferred in order to close the gap.  The Cabinet Member also explained that Surrey MPs were aware of the seriousness of the problem ahead of the Autumn Statement, particularly the pressures faced by Adult Social Care, and that a lack of concessions from government would leave Surrey in a very difficult financial situation. 

 

 

Supporting documents: