Meeting documents

Apologies were received from Steven Lambert.  Avril Davies substituted for Steven Lambert.

To disclose any Personal or Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 June 2014.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 June 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

Public Questions is an opportunity for people who live, work or study in the county to put a question to a Scrutiny Committee about any issue that has an impact on their local community or the county as a whole.

Members of public, who have given prior notice, will be invited to put their question in person.

The Cabinet Member and responsible officers will then be invited to respond. 

Further information and details on how to register can be found through the following link:-

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/about-your-council/scrutiny/get-involved/

There were no public questions.

For the Chairman of the Committee to provide an update to the Committee on recent scrutiny related activity.

The Chairman reported that the Budget Scrutiny Committee had recently been Highly Commended by the Centre of Public Scrutiny.  A Member congratulated the Committee for being awarded Joint second place in the Scrutineers’ Choice by those attending the Centre for Public Scrutiny Conference.

The Chairman introduced the report on s106 Developer Contributions and he reported that the first paper summarised the work already undertaken and the second proposed that some of the work continues.  The Vice Chairman explained the importance of member involvement on s106 agreements and he added that it was important to bring democracy into this process.  The Chairman agreed that this was a valid point. 

A Member added that in her opinion schools should be involved in at a very early stage in s106 agreements because they were often the last to hear about developments and the impact that this would have on their admission arrangements.  She reported that had written to the Council on the Aylesbury Land Use Fund ALUTS and that no response had been received on how the money had been spent and how much had been received.  This was noted. 

A Member welcomed the succinct report and he concurred with the two proposals.  Another Member agreed with the report and he considered that it was timely to have a joint investigation.  He considered that the report should be formalised on a quarterly basis.  It was also suggested that more engagement with Parish Councils takes place.

The Committee agreed to option 2 that the topic is worthy of further investigation and agreed that a joint short inquiry with the ETL Committee on s106 investigations continue their investigations in line with the proposed inquiry scope.

Members are asked to endorse this ETL Select Committee paper, as it relates to corporate financing.

The Chairman introduced a report on External Funding Opportunities from the Environment, transport and Localities Select Committee to endorse the recommendations.  Members were invited to comment and made the following points:

·       A question was raised regarding staff capacity and reference was made to Kent.  It was noted that when there were Regional Assemblies Kent had a large number of staff and qualified for EU grants because it had some severely deprived areas and coastal areas which also qualified for EU grants whilst in Bucks there were limited opportunities for funding from Europe.  The Member cautioned that there was not a business case to compensate for the investment that would be required to enable Bucks to qualify for EU grant funding.

·       The Vice Chairman noted that previously no funding came to Bucks and that this had been reviewed by an internal European officer.  He suggested that it was important not to miss an opportunity to receive funding from Europe.      

·       A Member reported that the Chilterns Conservation Board had been very successful in securing funding and she suggested that all funding should be in line with the Corporate Plan and that the biggest risk was the exit strategy.   

·       The recommendations were endorsed.  It was suggested that BCC should proceed with the work on all recommendations and that this should be performance based. 

The Chairman welcomed Nick Cave to the meeting who provided the following update:

The key areas of focus were the production of the Transition Plans by the Business Units which explains how they will move to the Future Shape.   Briefings had taken place with members on the Programme and Culture Change and also on ICT and Digital Strategy.  Managing Directors had been appointed except for Children’s Social Care and Environment and Communities although a decision was yet to be taken on whether to proceed with the Environment and Communities Business Unit.  Work was also taking place on applying common approaches such as SAP in order to achieve economies of scale and on Corporate Governance and the benefits tracker system in order to ensure that it was linked with planned MTP savings.

Members were invited to ask questions and the following points were made:

1.     Silver Bullet

What is the one key thing that you want the Future Shape programme to achieve, and why couldn’t this happen without the Future Shape Programme?

Nick Cave replied that one of the key things driving the programme was a more commercial style approach across the organisation with awareness of how much it costs to deliver. If BCC was more cost conscious a more commercial activity could be delivered in the public sector with a much greater focus on outcomes.   The Chairman asked for examples of this to date.  Nick Cave replied that alternative delivery vehicles include the Bucks Learning Trust had been created to provide schools an ownership and was an example of where there were commercial elements and sits within a Trust and delivers better outcomes.  

2.     Working with districts

We could achieve significant savings and improve outcomes by joining up some specific services (e.g. waste planning) with District Councils.  Are we now working with Districts to plan for this possibility and how will we ensure that these opportunities are not missed when the time is right?

Nick Cave explained that since Pathfinder the emphasis had been on sharing some services with neighbouring counties for example Gypsies and Travellers.  As part of Future Shape a Trading Standards Partnership with Surrey was being developed.  Specific project based work with the districts include the PSN contract.  A meeting took place with neighbouring upper tier authorities and BCC did some joint work on high cost people placements.    He added that to get the maximum outcomes for local people it will be necessary to look sharing services in order to try to deliver economies of scale.  A Member summarised the discussion by noting that there had been some success so far but that there was more work to do.

3.     Category reviews – avoiding duplication

With departments becoming Business Units and having more autonomy, how will one Business Unit ensure savings opportunities are made where similar activities are being commissioned by another Business Unit?

Within the model the Enterprise Function could provide services on behalf of all the Business Units and also provide an economy of scale.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Frances Mills explained that the discussion was very timely because on 31 July 2014 the first pay range uplift will be received by staff based on performance.  The project began in 2009/10 when members asked officers to look at introducing a more modern commercial focussed pay framework that would be cost neutral.  There was no pay freeze because incremental progression took place during the period. 

Following consultation with staff a new fully automated Delivering Successful Performance (DSP) was introduced in April 2011 and performance was measured against objectives.  It was agreed that the new scheme be introduced from 2013/14.   The new framework introduced retains the 12 ranges and all incremental points were removed.  Consultation took place with the unions and after a stalemate was reached on the introduction of Contribution Based Pay a decision was taken in June 2012 to make a direct offer to staff of £750 on a pro rata basis for part time staff and a 1% pay rise.  The aim was to introduce a fairer system and 90% of staff opted in to the framework.  It was noted that all new employees and anyone promoted were automatically opted in.

A Member was invited to ask a question and the following points were raised:

Achieving a higher rating in the lower pay ranges

Your report states that employees who are on lower pay ranges are less likely to achieve an exceeding or outstanding award than those staff on higher pay ranges.  How marked is this difference and do you expect the gap to narrow?  The Member also asked if an employee takes on additional work would this be considered in their DSP rating.

Frances Mills replied that there was a difference of about a third of people getting exceeding or outstanding in the higher ranges.  She explained that there were good reasons for this including higher turnover in the lower ranges and that poorer performance had being addressed earlier in the higher ranges.  She anticipated that the gap will narrow.  If someone takes on additional responsibility this will be reflected in their DSP and this will enable them to achieve either exceeding or outstanding.   

Frances Mills continued with the presentation and explained that it was very important that everyone complied with the Performance Framework if pay is going to be based on it.  At the end of the financial year 2013/14 there was 98% compliance.  The distribution of ratings against the design curve was as expected with 65% successful, 20% exceeding, 5% outstanding, 2% unsatisfactory and 8% need development.  The ratings were validated by a moderation process and Cabinet moderated the ratings for Senior Managers.  It was noted that there was a consistent cautious rating in year one. 

It was noted that there had not been any appeals against performance ratings.  A  2.5% pay uplift was agreed for the coming year.  Staff on range 5 awarded exceeding will receive a CBP of £400 whilst those with outstanding will receive £800.  Staff on range 10 awarded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Tricia Hook explained that the last report had been presented to the Committee in September 2013 and summarised the activities in Commercial Services since then including the rollout of Contract Management Application where there had been problems with the technology but was now fully live.

The segmentation of contracts applied as follows:

·       Platinum contracts were more than £1m per annum and have a very high risk for example Ringway Jacobs. 

·       Gold contracts were less than £1m per but are categorised as high risk such as social care. 

·       Silver contracts are for less than £1m but have a low risk such as short term construction projects. 

·       Bronze contracts are potentially low in value and risk.  The focus has been to put platinum contracts on the system and focussing on training the contract officers of platinum contracts. 

In response to a previous question about the security of contract management application it was noted that access was only provided to those licensed to do so.   A potential for income generation be selling the system which was bespoke has been identified and an IT partner has employed someone to explore selling the programme to other local authorities.

Activities in the last nine months included the Platinum Provider Conference in the autumn, the development of the supplier liaison group, two days of training for contract managers including risk management and business continuity.  In addition, a shorter one day course was being developed, open book accounting courses were being created, and contract managers will have the ability to run reports.  Contract management was being used to get the gold contract back and to be successful again.  The team had been nominated in the ‘Gold’ awards.  Domiciliary care contracts were very high risks. 

Savings had been exceeded.  A low key restructure had taken place to allow teams to be realigned to help with succession planning.   This included increasing the use of e-sourcing and Amey were being used for all tendering.  The use of p-cards had been increased to £1.5m and will potentially increase further.  P-cards were used where purchases can be paid for on plastic cards and enable payment quickly.  A review had taken place of business information resources which will enable more detailed access to suppliers.  During the next 6 months there will be a roll out of contract application and it will be necessary to be aware of changes.  In addition a review will be taking place of contract standing orders to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Members were invited to ask questions and the following points were raised:

Commercially-minded Council

What has happened since our last update in September 2013 to make staff more commercially minded, and how much further, in your opinion, do we still have to go to reach an appropriate level of awareness.

Tricia Hook replied that there was still quite a journey to go and that for this reason a commercial academy had been developed.  It was necessary to ensure that this reaches every employee and that consideration  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

For Members to review the Community Leader’s Fund (CLF) and make any appropriate recommendations.

Clive Parker reported that following a meeting he attended with the Chairman of the Committee and the Deputy Leader a decision was taken to review the Community Leaders Fund which had been in operation for 12 years.  The intention was that the scheme would continue on the same level of funding and that one of the criteria to consider in the future was to exclude sponsorship.  One of the other factors to consider was funding across the divisions which was currently permitted and has been refused.

A Member paid tribute to the officer for managing the fund on behalf of the Members.   Members were invited to ask questions and the following points were raised:

·       The Chairman suggested that it was important to recognise individuals as Community Champions and he asked if Members accepted what had been proposed.  He agreed that it was important to submit applications in a timely fashion.

·       A Member asked if consideration could be given to making donations over a two year period given that Members were elected for four years.

·       Clive Parker replied that the current scheme did not permit ongoing sponsorship of the same scheme and he agreed to consider the request.

·       A Member asked for clarification on the extent of flexibility with variations. Clive Parker confirmed that the same organisation could receive funds in consecutive years if it was for different purposes.

·       A Member requested guidelines on the average applications and on the summary of expected documentation in order to provide evidence for the audit trail. This was agreed.

·       Clive Parker paid tribute to Helen Bennion for managing the scheme.

To consider and agree the Finance, Performance and Resources Select Committee Work Programme 2013/14.

The Committee Work Programme was noted.

30 September 2014

30 September 2014 at 10am.