Agenda item

Purpose of the item: To receive an update from the Leader of the Council on their priorities and recent work undertaken.

Witnesses:

Steve Bax, Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader

Leigh Whitehouse, Executive Director of Resources

Steve Bax deputised for Tim Oliver, the Leader of the Council, for this item, as the Leader was not available to attend this meeting.

The aspects of the Leader’s portfolio that came under the Select Committee’s remit were equality, diversity and inclusion, and communications.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader introduced the report, mentioning the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy that had been approved by Cabinet in February 2021. A Trans at Work policy was being developed by the Human Resources (HR) team, which included processes to prevent and tackle discrimination in the workplace. As part of the development of this policy, the Council was working with Stonewall, an LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights organisation, and was hoping to become a more attractive employer to LGBT people.

2.    The Deputy Cabinet Member continued to explain that the Council was looking to improve accessibility for disabled staff and residents, including making adjustments for disabled staff and changing the Surrey County Council website to make it more accessible for people whose first language was not English.

3.    The Deputy Cabinet Member outlined the statistics for representation of groups with protected characteristics within the Council’s workforce, as follows:

a.    The proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) staff in the Council was roughly equal to the proportion of BAME people in the Surrey population as a whole (10% and 9% respectively), which was in line with the Council’s notion that the workforce should broadly be representative of the communities it represented.

b.    Despite this, less than 1% of employees in senior management roles were BAME, and, according to staff surveys, BAME staff were less likely to have a good experience working for Surrey than non-BAME staff.

c.     The proportion of women in the Council’s workforce exceeded the proportion of women in the Surrey population as a whole.

d.    A high proportion of the Council’s staff were aged 50-59. Younger employees were likely to have a better experience of working for the Council, while those over 60 were likely to have a worse experience.

4.    High levels of non-disclosure of protected characteristic information amongst the Council’s workforce affected the accuracy of data, representing a challenge for the Council, particularly with regards to data on disabilities, religion, and sexual orientation. The communications team was trying to encourage staff to declare protected characteristics, and the HR team was also exploring data around recruitment and whether the Council was attracting staff with protected characteristics.

5.    Moving onto communications, the other aspect of the Leader’s portfolio that came under the Select Committee’s remit, the Deputy Cabinet Member stated that the communications team consisted of 25 full-time posts, and the budget for the team, excluding staff salaries, was approximately £250,000.

6.    A Member highlighted the statistic that the Deputy Cabinet Member had given, that only 1% of senior management roles were occupied by BAME staff, saying that this figure stood out for being particularly low. How would the Council tackle this issue? The Deputy Cabinet Member replied that there was indeed work to be done on ensuring there was a higher proportion of BAME staff in senior management roles. It was important that the HR team looked at the recruitment process to ascertain why there were not more BAME staff in senior management roles currently.

7.    A Member asked whether there were any particular demographic groups that the Council struggled to reach or engage. The Deputy Cabinet Member responded that the Council’s experience of struggling to reach certain groups had largely come from the Covid-19 vaccine programme. Certain communities in Surrey, including Black, Afro-Caribbean and Muslim communities, were statistically more likely to show vaccine hesitancy; this was a trend reflected nationwide. Eastern European people were another community more likely to show vaccine hesitancy. To tackle vaccine hesitancy for all these groups, social media was being used in order to encourage vaccine uptake, roving vaccination vans went to particular community sites, videos were recorded by community leaders, and posters were translated into various languages and placed in community hubs.

8.    Welcoming the Council’s prioritisation to attract more LGBT staff, a Member highlighted the fact that Stonewall was an active lobbying organisation and asked what the best practice was when evaluating the suitability of partners for the Council. Was Stonewall an appropriate service provider in light of best practice? The Deputy Cabinet Member said that the Council’s membership of Stonewall was not for the purpose of lobbying; rather, membership provided the Council with tailored support and advice, and access to useful materials such as webinars. Stonewall’s support supplemented the expertise within the Council’s HR department. Ultimately, the Council would devise its own policy; Stonewall would only offer advice. The Council was balancing competing rights and priorities to ensure that the needs of one protected characteristic were not prioritised at a detriment to others.

9.    A Member enquired what key changes were expected to arise from the Trans at Work policy, and whether an impact assessment would be conducted to identify the implications of the new policy for other protected characteristic groups. She also requested that the policy be shared with the Select Committee before it was put into action. The Deputy Cabinet Member said it was currently too early in the process to know the key changes that the policy would bring about. However, the Council would take a pragmatic view to balance competing needs, and take legal advice before implementation. In line with existing protocol, an equality impact assessment would be produced. There was not yet a draft to share with the Select Committee, and the Deputy Cabinet Member stated that the Select Committee might not able to sign off the policy, as it was an operational matter for staff. The executive and the scrutiny team would work together to decide how to proceed. The Member responded that it was not a case of the Select Committee wanting to have sign-off of the policy, but rather having visibility of the policy.

10.  A Member enquired whether the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities were included within the protected characteristics groups. The Deputy Cabinet Member confirmed that these communities were included as a protected characteristic as set out by the act and in the view of Surrey County Council. The Council was keen to ensure good relationships with this community.

11.  A Member asked how the Council trained and monitored officers carrying out recruitment interviews to ensure they had EDI awareness and were adhering to best practice. Interviewers may need to make adjustments for people with disabilities, for example. The Deputy Cabinet Member responded that he would seek more information on this and provide an answer to the Select Committee after the meeting. He also emphasised that staff disclosure of protected characteristics was important to ensure that adaptations could be made where necessary.

12.  In relation to the point above, the Executive Director of Resources added that over the last 18 months, there had been widespread training for staff, including senior managers, on unconscious bias, which was important to tackle ignorance or a lack of empathy when it came to minority groups. The Council also had several staff networks (for example, a Deaf Staff Network and an LGBTQ+ Staff Network), each of which had a corporate leadership team sponsor and a Cabinet Member sponsor. These networks could help raise awareness of protected characteristics groups.

13.  A Member questioned whether the communications department’s budget was sufficient to provide a good service to residents. The Deputy Cabinet Member highlighted new forms of communication (such social media) which were significantly cheaper than older methods (such as leaflets and posters) and also had a much more effective reach that could be targeted using free analytics technology. The Member stated that some residents were digitally excluded and did not have access to social media or a mobile phone. The Deputy Cabinet Member replied that digital methods could reach the majority of people, and that there were also other methods the Council used in order to reach people who did not use digital technology.

14.  The Select Committee agreed that, since HR had been discussed numerous times during this item, it would be useful if the Director of HR attended the Select Committee in future to present an item on the HR service.

15.  A Member requested more information on the Member task group on councillor diversity, as mentioned in the report. The Deputy Cabinet Member stated that the Member Development Steering Group was due to consider the scope of the councillor diversity and inclusion review at their meeting in November 2021. Membership of the task group was not yet decided. Analysis of councillor diversity had been conducted after the May 2021 election; this analysis could be shared with the Select Committee after the meeting. Members agreed to look at potentially reviewing the topic of councillor diversity, pending discussions at the Member Development Steering Group.

16.  A Member queried how the Council’s EDI policy fed into its HR policies to ensure equality, diversity and inclusion were reflected in pay promotion and flexible working policies, for example. The Executive Director replied that the Director of HR and OD had been a member of the EDI steering group within the Council, so she was a direct link between HR and EDI policies. At the moment, the Council was also taking views on workforce strategy from a range of sources. There was a strong link between EDI and HR.

17.  A Member asked how the Council was addressing resource concerns and how it was taking this into account for the future. The Executive Director agreed to provide a response on this after the meeting.

18.  A Member expressed his satisfaction with the daily update briefings and weekly parliamentary briefings that all Surrey Members received. However, some of these briefings contained articles with a paywall (meaning access to these articles was restricted to users who had paid to subscribe to the site or media publication). What could be done to ensure no councillors were left behind, without councillors having to take out their own subscriptions? The Deputy Cabinet Member suggested that Members could buy a physical copy of the newspaper or publication in which the article in question was published; newspapers were also often available for free in local libraries. Bulk buying subscriptions for Members was not a good value use of the Council’s budget. The Member responded that this was a problem as it was important that all Members were kept up-to-date. Having a subscription for each Member was probably not necessary, but nor should Members have to buy a physical copy of the publication. The Council should look at how to keep Members up-to-date in a cost-effective way. The Deputy Cabinet Member clarified that it was not the case that some Members had access to paywall articles and others did not; if any Members had access to paywall articles, this would only be because they had personally taken out their own subscription. He agreed to follow this issue up after the meeting and see if more could be done, such as a digest or summary of articles.

19.  A Member enquired what the Council was doing to tackle digital exclusion. Some digitally excluded people were particularly vulnerable and in need of information or advice. The Deputy Cabinet Member stated that while the bulk of the Council’s communications were conducted online, some publications were still sent out in physical form. Perhaps certain communications could be sent out with the physical copies of council tax bills that all district and borough councils in Surrey (apart from Elmbridge) sent out to residents every April, in order to reach residents who did not use digital pathways. Surrey County Council was also open to suggestions from Members on how best to tackle digital inclusion. The Member asked whether the Council could target certain communities that intelligence suggested were less likely to be online. The Deputy Cabinet Member said that this was potentially possible; data from the census could also be used. However, very precise data would be required in order to effectively target digitally excluded residents without wasting resources, and it could be difficult to find data specific enough to do this.

20.  A Member suggested that the Council could use existing data on whether a resident had opted to have their council tax bill delivered digitally or in paper form in order to identify whether they were likely to be receptive to digital communications or not. Perhaps a more coordinated approach on digital exclusion was needed. It was also important to ensure that communications were available in a variety of languages to ensure that residents who had a first language other than English were not excluded.

21.  A Member stated that it could be useful for Members to be provided with a set of standard, prepared emails on common topics, such as programmes being promoted by the communications department, to ensure consistency in Members’ communications with residents. The Deputy Cabinet Member agreed that brand consistency was helpful, while also acknowledging and respecting that all 81 Members had their own individual ways of communicating. One suggestion that had been made to the communications team was to put together an A-Z directory on a range of common issues, such as potholes. This could be a useful resource for Members and would encourage consistency. There was also lots of information on the Member portal, to which all Members had access through Microsoft Teams. He suggested that Members contact officers for specific services if they were struggling to access information on any particular topic.

22.  A Member noted that the report mentioned four high-level strategic communications initiatives (these were: An Unstoppable Force, Make it Happen, One Surrey Story, and What does SCC do for you?). What were the financial costs and costs in officer time in conducting those initiatives? The Deputy Cabinet Member responded that there were no individual budgets for each scheme; rather, there was the central £250,000 budget to cover the whole of communications, once staffing costs had been taken out.

23.  A Member expressed concern that the councillors’ communications briefings tended to focus on good news and Council-controlled stories; however, it was useful for Members to see the bad news as well as the good news stories in order to be aware of these. The Local Democracy Reporter for Surrey regularly published stories that it might be useful for Members to see.

Recommendations:

The Select Committee recommends that:

1.    Cabinet is to consider how Surrey County Council engages with organisations that undertake political lobbying and/or are involved in matters that some might consider controversial;

2.    Surrey County Council should ensure that any impact on other protected characteristic groups are identified and carefully taken into consideration before finalising the Trans at Work policy;

3.    The Trans at Work policy is to be presented to the Select Committee prior to being finalised;

4.    More focus is to be given to the range of topics covered in internal communications in the daily media email update to Members. In particular, all references articles in the daily media briefing to be made accessible to all Members;

5.    A report on digital exclusion is to be provided to this Select Committee at a future meeting.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader to provide more information on how the Council trains and monitors officers carrying out recruitment interviews to ensure they have EDI awareness and adhere to best practice;

2.    Democratic Services officers to share councillor diversity analysis conducted after the May 2021 election with the Select Committee;

3.    Executive Director of Resources to provide information on how the Council is addressing resource concerns and how it is taking this into account for the future.