Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2018.

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 27 February 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the inclusion of Councillor Iain Roberts in the attendance.

Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they have in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

Councillors and officers were invited to declare any interests they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

The following interest was declared:-

To consider whether it is in the public interest to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the following items for the reason proposed:

RESOLVED – That in order to prevent the disclosure of information that was ‘not for publication’, the disclosure of which would not be in the public interest and may be in breach of data protection principles, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item:-

To consider call-in items (if any)

There were no call-ins to consider.

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The Annual Portfolio Performance and Resource Report (PPRR) for the Reform and Governance Portfolio is presented for consideration by the Committee. This provides a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programme and other key projects since the final update report, with a focus on the fourth quarter of the year (January to March). It includes out-turn performance and financial data (where this is available) for the Portfolio, along with updates on the portfolio savings programme.

Scrutiny Committee is asked to:

·         Consider the Annual Portfolio Performance and Resource Report;  

·         Review the progress against delivering key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2017/18;

·         Highlight key areas of and responsibility for taking forward corrective action to address any performance or resource issues;

·         Highlight any significant issues or changes to be fed back to the Cabinet alongside the Corporate Performance and Resource Report;

·         Identify how areas of strong performance and good practice can be shared in other services.

Officer contact: Peter Owston, Susan Wood, 0161 474 3274/ 218 1032, peter.owston@stockport.gov.uk / susan.wood@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Deputy Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) summarising progress in delivering priorities, reform programme and other key projects and outturn positions for the Reform & Governance portfolio during 2017/18, and in particular during the 4th quarter.

The Cabinet Member for Reform & Governance (Councillor Elise Wilson) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following issues were raised:- 

·         Clarification was sought on the savings to have been made from the Digital by Design investment. In response it was stated that the programme had at least resulted in the projected £1m savings.

·         Why was there such a high turnover of staff in the Revenue and Benefits service? in response it was stated that the Council had been a 'victim of its own success' in training staff who were then able to use those skills to gain better paid employment.

·         Comment was sought on the Council performance in relation to Council Tax collection, specifically the stagnation in improvement in collection rates. in response it was stated that Stockport was the 2nd most successful authority in Greater Manchester but a balance need to be struck between expending resources to collect small amounts of outstanding debts and the value of those debts to ensure that the Council was making efficient use of its resources 

·         Clarification was sought on the total number of calls that went unanswered by the Contact Centre, rather than the 18% quoted in the report. In response it was stated that the number was approximately 10,000 per annum but a detailed breakdown could be provided. It was commented that this was an unacceptable level.

·         The improvement in FOI performance was welcomed.

·         Further information was sought on the rationale of the 50% sharing with Greater Manchester of local Business Rates growth. In response it was stated that this approach had always been part of the arrangements for the GM Pool from its pilot stage as a means to incentivise participation. The actual decision on sharing in any given year was taken by Greater Manchester Local Authority Treasurers.

·         In relation to the upscaling of the Poverty insight investigation clarification was sought on the justification for this decision and the outcomes of the findings of that work. In response it was stated that the Council had a statutory duty to address child poverty and this project had developed from the work of the corporate financial inclusion working group. This specific project had involved a number of interviewers working with members of the community. It was not a quantative study, but aimed to provide an anecdotal and 'real life' picture of how poverty impacts on residents in our communities, rather than just dry statistical information. This insight wold help shape future service delivery.

·         Clarification was sought on whether the impression given by the report that the Traded Services work was not making progress nor generating income was correct. In response it was stated that the data in the report lagged behind the work taking place, as significant preparation was needed in advance of services being offered to ensure the service was robust. It was suggested that the projected savings/ income for 2017/ 18 had been made and achieved which amounted to approximately £100,000 and was included in the outturn position. Specifically in relation to work with Stockport Foundation Trust it was stated that both parties were working through   the detail of this project but that understandably this work was in part contingent on the progress of Stockport Together, and the priority of both organisations was to develop and rollout the new models of care. 

·         In relation to Town Hall income, the value of this facility to the wider town centre offer was emphasised, particularly as a venue for music events. In response it was stated that there was a target for income to be generated from the Town Hall but that this needed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider a report of the Greater Manchester Mayor.

This report has been included on the agenda at the request of Committee Members.

The report sets out the findings of a review of GMCA governance and proposed changes in light of that review. The report was considered by the GMCA on 27 April 2018.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to note the report.

Officer contact: Jonathan Vali, 0161 474 3201, jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk

The Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Policy & Devolution submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider proposals from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority on possible changes to its governance arrangements, particularly in light of changes to the powers and duties of the GMCA and the Mayor around Fire and Waste functions and the disestablishment of joint authorities in Greater Manchester. The GMCA had already considered some elements of the report but further discussion would take place at the June meeting and the Scrutiny Committee was invited to comment before further decisions were taken.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         Significant improvements could be made to GMCA Governance by improving the information and accuracy of their Forward Plan. This was reflective of a wider cultural shift needed in the organisation.

·         There remained issues with gender and political balance at the highest level of the GMCA, which was all Labour and male. Nevertheless there had been some welcome progress with these issues on the scrutiny committees. In response, the Leader stated that he expected the Mayor to introduce measures for deputy portfolio holders at the GMCA that would provide gender balance.

·         Specifically in relation to TfGM, a number of councillors expressed concerns about the current arrangements and its effectiveness and responsiveness, particularly in light of current problems on the railways. Concerns were also expressed that it was too Manchester City centric and members exercised too little control over its activities. Comment was also made that there were a number of different elements to transport policy and it was not clear how this all came together. Such as bus deregulation (Mayoral function) and a possible Strategic Transport Board. The more direct involvement of local authority cabinet members with transport responsibilities was supported.

·         There were general comments about the potential democratic deficit of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and the Mayor, as unlike the Greater London arrangements there was no accountability of the Mayor to any other elected members, as there was with the London Assembly. The role of councillors from constituent councils was also minimal, and particular reference was made to independent councillors who had no formal mechanisms for involvement with Greater Manchester structures.

·         The disestablishment of joint authorities and their replacement with advisory bodies was unlike to generate as much enthusiasm from local authority members. There had been difficulties in ensuring sufficient member turnout to make meetings quorate.

·         Many of the GM bodies that involved back bench members from local authorities were often insufficiently focussed on the strategic issues of Greater Manchester and too often meetings focussed on parochial issues.

·         There was support for webcasting more, if not all, GM meetings to improve transparency and openness.

·         Concerns were expressed about suggestion of additional allowances for GM committee membership.

RESOLVED - That the report be noted.

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.               

The report sets out planned agenda items for future meetings of the Committee and Forward Plan items that fall within its remit.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to consider the information in the report and put forward any agenda items for future meetings.

Officer contact: Jonathan Vali, 0161 474 3201, jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out planned agenda items for the Scrutiny Committee’s next meeting and any Forward Plan items that feel within its remit.

The Chair invited Scrutiny Committee members to give consideration to possible topics for a scrutiny review in advance of formal consideration at the next meeting. She made a suggestion of Stockport Together governance as a possible topic.

RESOLVED - That the report be noted and the Democratic Services Manager be requested to make arrangements for a report to be submitted to a future meeting on traded services and income generation.

To consider a report of the Director of Procurement, STAR

The report sets out proposals in relation to the STAR procurement arrangements.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to comment on the report.

Officer contact: Lorraine Cox, STAR Director of Procurement, 07817 882169, lorraine.cox@star-procurement.gov.uk

A representative of the Director of Procurement, STAR procurement, submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider a proposal for the growth of the STAR Procurement partnership arrangement.

(Note: the report contained information 'not for publication' that was circulated to Committee members only).

The Chair, while accepting the need to exempt this from publication, nevertheless suggested that future reports should include, in so far as possible, a public element.

RESOLVED - That the report be noted.

The Deputy Chief Executive to report at the meeting.

Officer contact: Charlotte Cordingley, 0161-474-4240, charlotte.cordingley@stockport.gov.uk

The Deputy Chief Executive provided a verbal update to the Scrutiny Committee in relation to ongoing contingency planning by the Council following the beginning of liquidation proceedings against Carillion Plc which was part of the Stockport Property Alliance and with whom the Council had a number of contracts for property related services.

The Chair and members paid tribute to officers for their hard work in responding to the challenges the liquidation of Carillon presented to the Council.

RESOLVED – (1) That the update be noted.

(2) That, in event of it being needed, the Democratic Services Manager be requested to make arrangements for a further briefing for members of the Scrutiny Committee on developments with Carillion to take place in advance of the next Committee meeting.

(3) That the Deputy Chief Executive be requested to provide an update to the next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on further developments.

To consider a joint report of the Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director Place Management & Regeneration

The report seeks authority to market for potential future sale the former Ritz Cinema site between Piccadilly and Fletcher Street for residential development in line with the Council’s Town Centre Living and Brownfield First priorities.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to comment on the report and recommendations.

Officer contact: Paul Richards, 0161-474-2940, paul.richards@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Deputy Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider a proposal for the Council to dispose of the former Ritz Cinema site for residential redevelopment.

The Cabinet Member for Reform & Governance attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee. 

Councillors welcomed the proposal to bring forward this site for development, and in particular the proposed approach that would allow the Council greater control over its use than simple disposal. 

Concerns were expressed that given there were a number of residential developments proposed or in development in this part of the Town Centre that there may be insufficient parking capacity, particularly as the nearest available provision was not particularly convenient, In response it was commented that this was largely a planning consideration but that the Council had agreed a Town Centre car parking strategy to address some of these concerns.

RESOLVED - That the report be noted.