Meeting documents

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Wharton.

Councillor Mrs B Nathan declared a prejudicial interest in Item 6 (Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? mid-year 2015/16 (April 2015 ? September 2016) (min. no.28 refers) due to her close relationship to Councillor Bennett and in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Elected Members she left the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Councillor M Tomlinson declared a personal interest in Item 6 (Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? mid-year 2015/16 (April 2015 ? September 2016) (min. no.28 refers) as a member of Lancashire County Council during the discussion on the Waste Cost Sharing Agreement and in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Elected Members he remained present but took no part in the discussion thereon.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
That the minutes of the meetings held on 22 September 2015 and 20 October 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.
?

The committee considered the list of matters arising from the last and earlier meetings. It was agreed to remove all the matters from the list, with the exception of the following:

23/06/15 ? Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? year end 2014/15 (April 2014 ? March 2015) ? min. no.5 (3, 6, 7, & 9)

22/09/15 - Cabinet Member Update ? Housing & Healthy Communities ? min. no.13 (3)
?

The chairman welcomed the Cabinet member for Corporate Support (Councillor Mrs Moon) and the Director of Corporate Governance & Business Transformation (Monitoring Officer))(Ian Parker) to the meeting. The Cabinet member was congratulated on her recent appointment and complimented on the presented report on her portfolio which covered a wide and varied area.

This included this council?s involvement in the Shared Services Agreement with Chorley BC which had now operated for a number of years based around financial management. The committee was interested to know the Cabinet member?s thoughts/views on the potential to increase the services areas covered and/or partners. Councillor Mrs Moon indicated that she felt everything was on the table. However, she was open minded and any expansion might not be to the same model. To date the partnership had worked well, improving services and also delivering efficiency savings to both councils. The main driving force had been difficult financial environment but the council was not just looking at shared services, there were other opportunities of different working such as the possible Combined Authority which it would explore. She referred to last week?s meeting of the Cabinet which had considered and approved a report regarding council?s printing and postage, which was an opportunity to provide a good service and also provide efficiencies.

The Cabinet member confirmed that the paper Digital by Default was part of the council?s Business Transformation Programme. It was the council?s digital vision in the direction she would like to see its services go. Firstly, there needed to be the right enablers/blocks in place when transferring a service and technology was a huge driver to improve the service and provide efficiencies. When the foundations were in it would be tested. The council was not taking a piecemeal but strategic approach and enforcement was currently being looked at.

The Director added that in respect of enforcement, the project needed to be delivered by the end of March 2016. Rather than simply provide additional resources there would be considered change. In respect of dog fouling, the council provided three elements (education, deterrence and enforcement). The council needed raw data such as how many dogs were there in the borough, level of dog ownership (South Ribble (25%) compared to London (5%)). In this borough regarding education and compliance, the vast majority of dog owners were responsible, measured against the number of dogs and the dog fouling reports. However, increased education would not bring change. The council was looking at something relatively unique in that residents would be invited to report dog fouling online. If known they could include details of those responsible, if not, then simply when/where (hotspots). A similar principle to crime stoppers where the public report offences. The council only had a few enforcement officer and the majority of offences were outside core hours. A lot of residents were as offended by this as the committee and the council intended also to use data driven technology to address it. The Cabinet member added that resources had to be put in the right place, commenting that education would be maintained whilst acknowledging around 99% of owners were compliant. This was a technology driven solution.

In respect of going digital (paperless), the Cabinet member confirmed that the biggest challenge was people?s mind set, not where equipment was capable/suitable for the purpose. The council?s call centre (Gateway) was set up for going digital and dealing with online services. People were used to doing things a certain way and there needed to be support/guidance to ensure they were not frightened of it. There was education and support, she added that if members had problems they could contact the ICT Helpdesk or her. Technology was fast moving and councillors? new smartphones needed to and would be able to access Councillor Connect. The council was looking at wifi in the Civic Centre and the possibility of general public access (albeit with cost implications).

The Cabinet member indicated that in respect of paperless she did not feel this would be completely achievable. However, in respect of such things as paperless agendas/meetings and the use of tablets etc, this was a future conversation. Technology could always provide things bigger and better but at a cost. In respect of the equipment proved to members, Councillor Mrs Moon added that some had approached her with specific needs and support for tablets was being explored. She was happy to have a conversation with anyone genuinely struggling and work towards a solution.

In respect of members reluctant to admit their difficulty with technology, the Cabinet member commented she would like to look at the Member Learning Hour sessions on a 1 to 1 support basis. In respect of councillors? new smartphones, these should be allocated on a 1 to 1 basis. The council did not want to leave any members behind and addressing this was work in progress. Similarly those members of public that might not be confident to use online services, she commented that residents contacting Gateway would not be abandoned at a computer, but would be supported. Councillor Mrs Moon added that councillors needed to know where to direct residents to as more council services went online.

The Cabinet member confirmed that the council was very serious about system security and was accredited each year by the Cabinet Office/GCHQ as part of the Public Service Network (PSN). This was a reason why the council insisted on multi character passwords. The Cabinet had last week approached additional online service modules which would be rigorously tested (including by white hackers) before being implemented. The Director commented that all equipment was multi operational and PSN tested before acquired.

In respect of an enquiry from a member in the audience regarding the potential loss of a smartphone, the Director stated that these should be password protected and its loss reported. The council would then render the phone unusable.

In relation to homelessness, the council currently had no one in bed and breakfast accommodation. Although 15 nights had been used since April 2015 (but no families). There had been 24 individuals in non-shared temporary accommodation (house/flat). Councillor Mrs Moon added that addressing homelessness was very complex and not just simply providing someone with a house. There was overlap with the council?s benefit and housing services areas and it was proposed to bring them together to provide a holistic approach.

In response to an enquiry regarding rough sleepers, the Cabinet member indicated that members needed to be careful about the reporting and definition of rough sleepers. As the current rough sleeper in the borough chose to do so. In that they had tenancy accommodation.

Councillor Mrs Moon commented that the council had been mindful of (not concerned about) the impact of welfare reform. In respect of the Council Tax Support Scheme (CTSS), this council had adopted a flat rate scheme whilst some other councils had implemented a more complex sliding scale scheme. As a result this council had not experienced the same problems. There were other welfare reform changes the council needed to be mindful of as indicated on page 4 of the next item on the agenda. Whilst not under the council?s control such changes had been implemented before and done well.

The member of the public applauded the council on its use of technology which had the potential for massive savings. However, he felt that there was too much emphasis on the public not being/capable of accessing online services. The public was used to more facilities being available online and using them, such as online banking and shopping. The Cabinet member referred back to an earlier comment on a report to last week?s Cabinet proposing to make aspect of council tax being online. The Director added that there were now over 60 self-service council services on the council?s website.

The Cabinet member confirmed to the member of the public that the council was working on the public?s ability to such devices as tablets in the Civic Centre, but at this stage it was unrealistic to put a timescale on it.

The chairman commented that the committee was signed up to the council going digital, there was no other option and that more of the council?s services would be online, which in turn would lead to increased demands on such service areas like Gateway.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Cabinet member for Corporate Support and the Director of Corporate Governance & Business Transformation (Monitoring Officer)) for their attendance and answering the committee?s questions;
2. in respect of Gateway the committee
a) requests councillors be provided with further information and support to enable them to encourage residents to use the council?s electronic online services such as E-Citizen;
b) supports its endeavours encouraging and providing support to residents to access and use the council?s electronic online services such as E-Citizen; and
c) requests that as more council services transfer to Gateway, the council is mindful of its capacity; and
3. the committee welcomes current work to help tackle homelessness and looks forward to receiving the outcome of this work in the new year.
?

The Director of Corporate Governance & Business Transformation (Monitoring Officer))(Ian Parker) remained present, and the chairman welcomed to the meeting the Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs M Smith) and the Cabinet member for Finance & Resources (Councillor Bennett). Whilst mostly self-explanatory the Leader drew the committee?s attention to the council?s recent appointment of 10 new apprentices that exceeded the target of 4. The apprentices would move around the council?s service areas over the next two years. The chairman commend the council on this scheme.

In response to an enquiry about the NW Automotive Alliance, the committee was informed that this was a group formed after Leyland DAF to ensure that such engineering skills were fully represented.

In respect of reference to support for Lostock Hall market, the Leader also confirmed that the council was working hard Longton market equally successful.

The Leader confirmed that the papers had been published for members to consider next week the proposal for a Lancashire Combined Authority. There was no significant change to the information from the earlier Member Learning Hour. If anyone had thoughts they needed to be made next week. This council was the first in Lancashire to consider the proposal, if there were subsequently a lot of amendments by the councils, this would need to be re-considered by the councils before going to consultation. A meeting of councils? leaders in January would assess the position. It was inevitable that there would be some changes. Transport was currently vested with the county council and the two unitary authorities, something the district councils were not happy about. This would migrate over time. Work was underway on the ?ask? to central government, devolved government/benefit to the whole area, such as the promotion of a Ribble Bridge (benefits to both South Ribble/Preston and North Lancashire).

The Cabinet member for Finance & Resources added that the district leaders had been working on ensuring this went in the right direction and what the ask was. Lancashire had to convince the government of the benefits or would be rejected. This council had done what it could towards this.

The Leader commented that the district leader meetings had been cross party. Whilst a united Lancashire was what all wanted and was the best way to show government, there was scope for an authority (council) not to be in that grouping.

In respect of the Enterprise Zone, the Leader confirmed that about 9 months ago there had been criticism because not enough progress was being made. This now appeared to have changed and infrastructure was now in place and construction of the new centre had started. She thought it had been slow to get going but was now making progress and picking up momentum with phase one for completion at the end of next year.

The committee then referred to the red risk associated with the Waste Cost Sharing Agreement with the county council with a potential loss of ?1M. The Leader commented that the county council had made it clear that this agreement would end in 2018 and this council had been served with notice to that effect. All the district councils in Lancashire were affected but due to this council?s high rate of recycling, it was scheduled to lose more, approximately ?1M. The county council had not engaged on a way forward. This council would need to include this in its budget process. Councillor Bennett confirmed that at present this would be a significant issue 2018+. He was confident this council would produce balanced budgets for 2016 and 2017 but after was a different matter. This council was virtually a victim of its own success, it wold pro-actively work so public don?t see a change. There was only so far business transformation could deliver, after there would be a need for fundamental change. The council would not cut its way out the problem but also look at income generation. There would be some difficult decisions over the next few years. He felt that the county council could have handled this matter better.
Councillor Bennett also commented that the council could not rely on the using its reserves to overcome this level of shortfall. The council was currently looking at the benefit of the reserves to do things differently. There was currently a review of the council?s assets.

In addition to the cost sharing agreement, the committee also noted that the City Deal had been marked as a red risk. The Leader replied that whilst she commended the county council for the works done associated with City Deal, other activities were not progressing so well. This included regeneration work which was a cause for concern with potential for things not to go forward as planned. She was to have a meeting with the Chairman of City Deal, at which would air and discuss her concerns with him. There was a need for very open dialogue. She was also very concerned at the lack of meetings of the City Deal Executive. The last had been cancelled and there had only been two meetings since December 2014 which was not felt to be enough when there were huge multi-million pound projects. The next meeting was scheduled for January 2016. Councillor Mrs M Smith had expressed her extreme displeasure and was happy to update the committee the next time she was before it.

The Leader responding to an enquiry about crime figures and reduced police resources, commented that the figures (not the council?s but supplied to it) showed the level of crime was down and felt that the police were doing very well with reduced resources and re-organised themselves. The current commander of Southern Division had implemented that re-organisation. The police were confident the policing level was enough to keep residents safe. One approach adopted by the police was upstreaming, and the dealing with issues before they got to the police. She also expressed her gratitude for the support from Police and Community Support Officers (PCSOs). In response to an enquiry about us of additional funds for policing if crime figures increased, Councillor Mrs M Smith commented that this was not pertinent at present. The report before the committee looked back and not at possible future budget implications. The Cabinet member for Finance & Resources added that at present he would not support a proposal for additional funding for policing. Whilst things might be done differently, it would be very difficult to fund another authority?s service.

Councillor Bennett commented that in respect of performance monitoring the Corporate Plan contained a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) including SMART targets that were monitored. He felt the council performed well. The council was also monitored by External Audit which also regarded the council well run and performing. Targets would continue to be monitored.

In respect of the strategic review of assets, Councillor Bennett indicated that the Civic Centre was one of the stages in the process, along with other key facilities such as Leisure Centres, Moss Side and Worden Park. He hoped to be in a position in the new year to discuss further. He thought that this type of review of assets had not been done before, looking at whether to keep, lose or invest. Consultants were to analyse the council?s market and report on its current portfolio, whether too much or too little. He would soon meet the consultants and hoped to be feedback to the committee in the new year.

The Cabinet member for Finance & Resources did not see the current ?380,000 underspend on the 2015/16 budget as negative but as an absolute positive. In response to the committee there were not many vacant posts and when there were, if remaining staff undertook those duties they were remunerated. It was felt that the council would never have all the staff posts filled all the time.

Councillor Bennett indicated that the reduction in planning application income was a snapshot at midyear. He knew there was a large application due to be submitted in December. This was a matter of timing and was not unduly concerned.

In response to an enquiry about monitoring the budget, the Cabinet member for Finance & Resources indicated that he looked at the bottom line. During the year, there were scheduled reports at 6, 9 and 12 months. In addition to receiving those, individual portfolio holders (Cabinet members) spoke/met very regularly with their senior officers and service area issues would be flagged up (good/bad news). Cabinet members and senior officers were always conscious of where there might be potential efficiencies through business transformation etc.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet member for Finance & Resources and the Director of Corporate Governance & Business Transformation for their attendance and answering the committee?s questions;
2. the committee welcomes the appointment of 10 new apprentices;
3. the committee notes with concern the external factors making both the Waste Cost Sharing Agreement and the City Deal a red risk and, looks forward to an update when the Leader next meets the committee;
4. the committee requests future reports include more measureable outcomes and performance measures; and
5. the committee looks forward to being involved with the outcome of the first phase of the strategic asset and property review in the new year.
?

a) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ? the chairman reported he had attend on 13 October 2015. He would circulate the minutes of that meeting to the committee.
b) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? the chairman reported his attendance at the NW Strategic Scrutiny Network and his election as its chairman, the county council?s Public Health Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (with Councillor Wharton), the Centre for Public Scrutiny session on developing a new approach to scrutiny (The Game Change). Also on behalf of Councillor Mrs B Nathan, that she had attended the Older People?s Network and spoke on the committee?s Review of Loneliness and Social Isolation and its Health Steering Group.
c) Scrutiny Work Programme
- the chairman reported that the Health Steering Group would meet on Friday 13 November 2015
- the committee agreed to create a Highways Task Group with a membership of Councillors Mrs Ball, Mrs Blow, K Jones, Martin, Watkinson and Mrs K Walton
d) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans ? the committee noted the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee Forward Plans.
?