Agenda item

Purpose of the item: To enable the Resources and Performance Select Committee to monitor the Council’s performance through a variety of indicators.

Witnesses:

Sarah Bogunovic, Head of Customer Strategy and Futures

Anna D’Alessandro, Director of Corporate Finance

Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Resources

Jacqueline Foglietta, Director of Human Resources and Organisation Development

Susan Grizzelle, Head of Customer Services

Nicola O’Connor, Strategic Finance Business Partner (Resources and Transformation, Partnerships and Prosperity)

Marie Snelling, Executive Director of Communities and Transformation

Adrian Stockbridge, Head of Portfolios

Gary Strudwick, Head of Business Intelligence

Leigh Whitehouse, Executive Director of Resources

Rachel Wigley, Director of Financial Insight

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Head of Business Intelligence mentioned that some changes had been made to the report formatting based on recommendations made at the previous meeting of the Select Committee, in October 2020.

2.    A Member asked why the Council was so far off-target on Land and Property capital receipts (the end of year target was £20.5m, and the latest result was only £2.5m). The Cabinet Member for Resources explained that the Council expected to receive a significant part of this target figure when the Kingston County Hall was sold.

3.    A Member asked what the forecast value of unpaid rent and service charges was for the Council’s properties. The Cabinet Member for Resources stated that on average in 2020/21, the Council had been receiving a gross percentage of approximately 80% of rental income budgeted for. The Executive Director of Resources explained that this was what had been collected to date, not what was collectible – it was expected that the further 20% would be collected. In real terms, the figure stood at about £1.5m uncollected funds for properties held directly by Surrey County Council and just in excess of £1.5m for properties held by the Halsey Garton Investment subsidiary.

4.    A Member noted that the Council was a long way off its target for spending the apprenticeship levy (the target was 100%; the latest result was 76.56%) and wondered whether that target was actually feasible. The Director of HR&OD explained that the Council was required by law to spend a certain amount on apprenticeships, and therefore it could not reduce the target spend. Moreover, it was likely that the number of apprentices employed by the Council would soon increase due to additional government funding, the Kickstart programme, which committed the Council to taking on 30 young people on placement programmes, offering a pathway into apprenticeships, and a new strategy to increase employment more broadly across Surrey.

5.    A Member asked whether there was a measure of the number of vacant positions in the Council. The Director of HR&OD replied that at present, overall vacancies amounted to 1,715 posts, which equated to 19% of the workforce. However, it was important to note that this figure included bank workers and the Council did not plan to convert bank workers’ contracts into permanent or fixed-term contracts.

6.    Commending the performance of the Council’s transformation programme, a Member requested that the Select Committee be provided with a written response on how the results recorded under the transformation indicators section (TRN 01 and TRN 02) matched up with the transformation programme updates section of the annex.

7.    A Member enquired how many apprentices employed by the Council finished their apprenticeship and how many stayed on as employees post-apprenticeships; it would be useful to see these figures going back a couple of years. The Director of HR&OD agreed to provide this information after the meeting, and emphasised the Council’s desire to keep apprentices on after their apprenticeships had ended.

8.    The Executive Director of Resources explained to the Select Committee that there had been some challenges in Land and Property over the last few year, but the Corporate Landlord model had helped the Council to pull together its estate and there had been progress on remedial works, meaning the remedial programme was now on target for the year ahead.

9.    A Member noted that there was a £10m overspend on the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture directorate. He asked what the reason for this was, whether there was an action plan to address this, and whether the overspend had been taken into account for setting a realistic budget for 2021/22. The Cabinet Member for Resources responded that the overspend was caused by issues in spending on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). There was a task force looking at this and a new lead for Children’s services had recently started her post. The overspend on SEND had accrued over a number of years and, unfortunately, it showed no sign of decreasing and there were still issues forecast for 2021/22. However, the task force had a number of plans to bring the overspend under control. The overspend was driven in part by the cost of out of county specialist placements for children with SEND, which the Council was looking to address by constructing more places for children with SEND at school sites within county. The SEND overspend was a significant risk and continued to be watched carefully. It was anticipated, however, that there would be some improvements over the course of 2021/22. The Director of Financial Insight added that, to tackle the overspend, the Council was lobbying the government for increased funding, looking at reducing costs and also at contributing funds to the reserve, in order to ensure funding was sufficient in SEND going forward. A Member highlighted that constructing more sites in order to bring children in-county would take time, and surmised that the overspend might actually increase in 2021/22 and drift into 2022/23. The Director of Financial Insight replied that the Council was not only looking at the sufficiency of new places, as this would indeed take time, but also other initiatives within the system such as including children with SEND in mainstream schools and early intervention initiatives, working with schools. Furthermore, the Council was lobbying for increased funding within the high needs block.

10.  A Member observed that as at month 6 of 2020/21, the amount of red RAG (red, amber, green) rated efficiencies (red indicating a high risk of not being achieved) stood at £5m, having decreased by only £3.5m since the original budget plan. Was it realistic to expect that the £5m red rated efficiencies were at all achievable? The Strategic Finance Business Partner stated that the RAG ratings of efficiencies were reviewed monthly as part of the budget monitoring process and the finance team worked closely with budget holders to determine whether red ratings were still appropriate for these efficiencies, or whether they should be changed to black (unachievable) efficiencies. The majority of the red rated savings related to SEND.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    The Head of Portfolios to provide to the Select Committee a written response linking the transformation indicators TRN 01 and TRN 02 and the information presented in the annex to the report;

2.    The Director of HR&OD to provide figures going back a couple of years on how many apprentices finished their apprenticeships and how many stayed on as employees post-apprenticeship.