Agenda item

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 be balanced against the wider community and corporate uses of the building that may generate no or nominal income. While opportunities for expanding the offer were always being explored the structural and heritage limitations of the building were an important consideration in those decisions.

·         Concerns were expressed that a number of recent pilots undertaken by Council relating to Inclusive growth and neighbourhood inclusion had taken place in Labour controlled wards. Carination was sought on the criteria used to decide the allocation of the pilots and assurances sought that non-Labour wards would be consider for future work. In response it was stated that the reasons for selecting the Heatons and Brinnington areas for pilots was largely due to the particular circumstances - in the case of the Heatons this was because there was a GP practice operating in this area who wish to participate in a Stockport Together related scheme, and Brinnington was chosen because of demographic factors. Assurance was given from the Cabinet Member that decisions on future pilots, as had been the case with these examples, would be taken on the basis of evidence, and that this precluded no ward at this stage. It was also commented that as A result of these pilots placed-based working would feature prominently in the next round of budget proposals.

RESOLVED - That the report be noted.