Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources concerning the proposed Medium Term Financial Strategy 2018/19 to 2021/22 as it related to the Corporate Resources Department. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 10”, is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed Mr. N. J. Rushton CC, Leader of the Council, and Mr J B Rhodes CC, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Lead Member for Finance and Resources, to the meeting for this item.

In introducing the report, the Director of Corporate Resources reminded members that, since 2010, the Department had achieved £19 million of savings and planned to deliver a further £5 million by 2021/22.  This reflected the departmental strategy of focussing on efficiencies rather than service cuts and delivering support services in a different way through transformation.  The Department had also developed its commercial activities and was keen to continue work in this area as it was starting to have a positive financial impact.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

(i)              Some members queried the budget for marketing and communications, which was over £1 million.  However, the Council had a duty to inform people of its activities, which it did through various channels.  It also undertook extensive consultation.  The Commission was reminded that the communications and media budget had been reduced by 70 percent when services were brought together into a single service.  The Cabinet Lead Member felt that this was a good example of spending less but providing a better service.

(ii)   The Centre of Excellence was a national service for information sharing which was currently hosted by the County Council.  It had a net nil budget implication for the County Council other than generating some rental income.  The hosting arrangement would be reviewed in the summer. 

(iii)            The revenue budget included funding for Trade Unions; this related to four posts for the whole organisation to support staff, for example with HR action plans.  It also ensured that, when the Council needed to negotiate with the Trade Unions, the processes were efficient.  It was felt that these posts provided value through helping the Council to maintain good relationships with its employees.

(iv)           The review of staff absence related to an initiative from the Employment Committee following concerns regarding high levels of sickness absence.  The Employment Committee had analysed the reasons for this and the measures put in place and had found that there was a need for first line managers to manage absence effectively.  Intensive support from HR to managers was being provided and efficiency saving had been attached to this work as an incentive.  A triage service had also been trialled but this had been found to be ineffective and was not being continued.

(v)  It was felt that the investment in commercial property assets should largely be focussed on investments in Leicestershire, to support the general prosperity of the County as well as generating income for the Council. It was confirmed that the majority of investment was in Leicestershire although this had to be balanced against security of tenant and maximising the rate of return.  The Council’s ambition in this area was modest, with an investment fund of £200 million.  The only current out of county investment was in Lichfield.  Members were also reassured to hear that the Council’s role with out of county investments would be as landlord whereas in Leicestershire it had more of a role as a developer.

(vi)           With regard to energy and water efficiencies, it was confirmed that the County Council was not encouraging opportunities for wind farms.  The principle investment in solar panels was at County Hall, although other opportunities would be considered.  The biomass boiler had been installed at County Hall because the availability of subsidies, as well as the environmental benefit, had made this an attractive choice.

(vii)          The County Council already provided traded services outside of the county, for example it provided IT support to schools in Stoke.  This was an area for further growth and development.

(viii)        The Customer Service Centre was seen as a key frontline service.  The savings proposed were a modest reduction of four out of 62 posts and some reduction in management.  Investment in improved telephony would be made at the same time.

RESOLVED:

(a)      That the report and information now provided be noted;

(b)      That the comments made be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 9 February 2017.