Venue: County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Mrs J Twomey (Tel: 0116 305 2583) Email: joanne.twomey@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Webcast. A webcast of the meeting can be viewed via the County Council’s website. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 4th September 2024 were taken as read, confirmed and signed. |
|
Question Time. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 34. |
|
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). |
|
Urgent Items. Minutes: There were no urgent items for consideration. |
|
Declarations of interest. Minutes: The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting. No declarations were made. |
|
Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. Minutes: There were no declarations of the party whip. |
|
Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 35. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 35. |
|
Leicestershire County Council Community Safety Annual Update. The Lead Member for Children and Family Services, Mrs D. Taylor CC, has been invited to attend for this item. Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Director of
Children and Family Services, the purpose of which was to set out the work
being undertaken by the Council’s Community Safety Team to deliver the
Council’s Community Safety Strategy 2022 – 2026, and in undertaking the duties
placed on the Authority in relation to crime and disorder in partnership with
other statutory responsible agencies. The report was presented to the
Commission it is capacity as the County Council’s designated crime and disorder
committee. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with
these minutes. In response to questions raised it was noted that domestic
abuse services for men and women were separated due to their differing needs
and the specific support required. Support provided to men and women from
the LGBTQ+, Gypsy/Traveller, and Black, Asian and Multi Ethnic backgrounds was
also separated to meet individuals needs. A Member commented that good relations between the County
Council, the City Council and district community safety partnerships involving
the police and other partners had helped to ensure good community cohesion
across Leicester and Leicestershire. It was suggested that this was one
of the reasons Leicester and Leicestershire had not seen any rioting like that
seen elsewhere in July and August of this year. It was noted that the
County Council worked closely with the police and its counter terrorism unit and
that there was good communication with community leaders and communities in
general which meant they felt supported when incidents occurred. RESOLVED: That the update on work being carried out by the Council’s
Community Safety Team to deliver the Council’s Community Safety Strategy
2022-2026 and in undertaking the duties placed on the Authority in relation to
crime and disorder, be noted. |
|
Leicestershire County Council's Customer Experience Strategy Consultation. The Lead Member for Resources, Mr L. Breckon CC, has been invited to attend for this item. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Commission
considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources the purpose which
was to seek its views on the draft Customer Experience Strategy, together with
plans for consultation and timelines. A
copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes. Arising from
discussion, the following points were made: i.
The
Customer Service Centre (CSC) operated a sophisticated management tool which
allowed it to collect data on all call response times and assess across each
week how call volumes fluctuated. The
Service could then adapt staffing to accommodate this as far as possible. A Member commented that residents sometimes
suggested it was more difficult to get through to the CSC on Mondays and
Fridays and the Director confirmed that these were the two busiest days when
most calls were received which did affect response times. Call numbers were also affected by other
issues such as seasonality. ii.
There
were several email streams into the CSC and the aim was to respond to these
within three to five working days. The
Service also dealt with social media enquiries for which similar response times
applied. iii.
A
Member commented that whilst call response times had been included within the
report, email response times had not. It
was suggested that including such information might be helpful given that some
calls might be received to follow up on emails not responded to within these
timescales. The Director undertook to
provide more information on email response times to members after the meeting. iv.
It
was noted that the Council had multiple access points across each service area
and that different service areas operated different customer service systems,
not all of which included an email option.
For example, residents mostly contacted Adult Social Care via telephone
or through the use of online forms. This
and the current systems limited capability to track across the different
contact channels limited the Services ability to monitor multiple contacts
received from individual customers. It
was noted that the new Strategy aimed to introduce greater consistency across
the different customer service systems which members welcomed. v.
Members
raised concerns that residents often commented that the Council’s website was
confusing and difficult to navigate and suggested that this might hinder
delivery of the Strategy. The Commission
agreed that if residents could not make good use of the website, they would be
more likely to telephone the CSC which would be counterproductive to delivery
of the Strategy. Members were reassured
that work was taking place with the Communications team to improve the website
and that this formed form part of the Council’s overall plan to improve the
customer experience. vi.
A
member questioned whether the County Council had undertaken research into the
potential benefits of a joint web presence involving other partner
organisations. It was acknowledged that
many residents did not appreciate the distinction, for example, between the
County and district councils, or the NHS and Adult Social Care services. The Director advised that there had been
discussions with NHS partners but that its processes and data systems were
incredibly complex which made a joint approach difficult. Joint working with district councils faced
similar issues and would also be challenging given the varied political
landscape. vii. A Member challenged why the Council had not pursued the use of mobile applications in the same way as some other authorities, particularly for mattes such as reporting potholes that required fixing. It was noted that the Council had looked at the use of ‘Apps’ but that the benefits had not been shown to warrant the high level of cost involved in ... view the full minutes text for item 38. |
|
Investing in Leicestershire Programme Annual Performance Update. The Lead Member for Resources, Mr L. Breckon CC, has been invited for this item. Additional documents: Minutes: The Commission considered a report of the Director of
Corporate Resources the purpose of which was to set out the performance for the
Investing in Leicestershire Programme in 2023/24. A copy of the report marked agenda item 10 is
filed with these minutes.
|
|
Medium Term Financial Strategy Monitoring. The Lead Member for Resources, Mr L. Breckon CC, has been invited to attend for this item. Additional documents:
Minutes: Arising from
discussion, the following points were made: i.
Whilst in year pressures had been managed well,
there was still uncertainty around how the long-term gap, approaching £100m by
2027/28in the current MTFS would be addressed. The Capital Programme had been
revised in June 2024 and current projections suggested this was still on
track. However, an emerging risk of a
possible overspend of £3m on highways maintenance was a concern. ii.
The delivery of savings and demand management in
Adult Social Care was welcomed. These
had helped the Council’s current overall budget position. iii.
The biggest risk facing the Council continued to
be the growing deficit on the High Needs Block element of the Dedicated Schools
Grant (DSG). Whilst there had been a
commitment made by the new Government to look at this further, no detail and no
timelines had been confirmed. iv.
Though not yet confirmed, it was expected that
the statutory override that allowed local authorities to carry a deficit on its
DSG grant budget without requiring a Section 114 notice would be extended. A Member questioned what would happen if this
was not so extended. The Director
advised that many authorities would be forced to declare themselves
bankrupt. The County Council, whilst in
a better position than many other authorities, would need to allocate a large
proportion of its reserves which were set aside to cover various items, to
offset the HNB deficit This would then impact on future financial resilience. v.
The new Government had announced as part of its
budget an extra £1billion in high needs funding to help address SEND deficits
across all local authorities. This
formed part of the overall £2.3 billion planned increase in school funding for
2025-26. It was not yet clear how this
funding would be allocated and whether this would be targeted towards those
authorities with the greatest deficit.
It was not therefore known how this might benefit Leicestershire. vi.
Children’s social care residential provision was
an area of increasing concern given the high costs involved for a relatively
small number of children. A member
commented that the market was clearly failing in this area with companies
profiting from local authorities. It was
noted that the Social Care Investment Partnership (SCIP) transformation
programme aimed to deliver a number of children’s residential care homes which
the County Council would operate. Two
such units were now operational and several more should be operational over the
coming year. The Director emphasised
that there would always be a need for a mixed approach given the complexity and
varying needs of some children that required specialised support. vii.
It was noted factors outside the Council’s
control hindered delivery of the SCIP programme. The Director explained that planning
permission first needed to be obtained in respect of an identified property,
the home then completed ready for occupation and a manager recruited before the
this could be inspected and certified for use by Ofsted. Only once this process had been completed
could the Council begin to hire the staff needed to operate the home. viii. The Chair of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee provided assurance that this Committee received regular updates on transformation work taking place within the Department to address both SEND pressures and regarding ... view the full minutes text for item 40. |
|
Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium 2024. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Chief Executive the purpose of which was to present the draft Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium for 2024 and which set out the Council’s progress and performance over the past year. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes. Arising from discussion, the following points were made: i.
Members welcomed the report and commented that
this provided a useful overview of the Council’s performance providing a wide
range of statistical data that would be helpful when considering scrutiny
topics for the future. ii.
Members noted the progress being made in
delivering the Council’s Strategic Outcomes Framework and service improvements
during the year, such as the excellent Ofsted rating for Children’s Social Care.
iii.
Leicestershire was still toward the very bottom
of the core spending power per head league table, despite considerable efforts
to achieve fairer funding over recent years. Members supported the need to
continue to make the Council’s case to the new Government, as a new Council
funding approach would likely be considered for future years. It would be
important for local cost of living pressures, the costs of service delivery in
rural areas, local pockets of deprivation and low levels of core funding power,
as well as considerable service demands, to be recognised in any new
settlement. iv.
Low funding and generally strong outcome
performance meant the Council was ranked as being cost effective, but it was
suggested that this made further savings harder to achieve. The Committee recognised there were a range
of areas under service delivery pressure and that its low
level funding meant it faced an accelerated level of risk in trying to
address these. v. The Committee noted the financial, demand and service pressures related to children’s social care and SEND and the work underway to seek to mitigate those pressures. It also noted that adult social care performed well in relation to a range of operational metrics but less well on some survey-based satisfaction ratings. The Committee commented that this was linked to the Council’s low level of funding which restricted its ability to provide the same level of service as those provided by other, better funded authorities. This was still, however, an area the Department would focus on. It was highlighted that the Council was also due a CQC Inspection in the coming months and that this would highlight any further areas for improvement, as well as areas of good practice. RESOLVED: That the Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium for 2024 be noted and welcomed. |
|
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on 27 January 2025 at 10.00 am. Minutes: RESOLVED: It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on 27th January 2025 at 10.00am. |