Agenda item

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Reform & Governance

The Cabinet is developing its medium term strategy, which frames the choices the Council will make about its budget both next year and in future years.  This strategy focuses on five key themes, and specific proposals have been set out for changes in 2019/20.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to discuss the proposals appended to this report.

Officer contact: Holly Rae, 0161 474 3014, holly.rae@stockport.gov.uk

A joint report of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Reform & Governance was submitted (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the Cabinet’s proposals that formed its response to the Medium Term Financial Plan.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Clarification was sought on whether further detail would be provided on the proposals that had elements that were outstanding. In response it was stated that there was high degree of confidence in providing robust information to the next scrutiny committee.

·         Concern was expressed that the feasibility study on the property proposals would not be finalised until after the budget had been set and so councillors would be approving a budget without knowing if the proposals were feasible. In response it was stated that this would not be the case.

·         Clarification was sought on why it was proposed to increase weekend burial costs by 100% if this was likely to lead to a decrease of £10k in income. In response it was stated that the increase would bring Stockport in line with other local authorities. One of the underlying principals underpinning the charges proposals was to drive behaviour change and these changes were likely to increase income elsewhere. Many of these changes were interconnected and would be monitored after implementation.

·         Clarification was sought on the projected cost of Digital by Design as it currently stated ‘TBC’. In response it was stated that given the scope of the project the possible savings could be significant and variable, therefore it was difficult to quantify. It was suggested that an explanation in the report narrative would have been helpful.

·         It was suggested that reducing the work to TLC on greenspace and street care would be unpopular with the public given their expectations of the use of their Council Tax. Given the increased income from sources such as the airport dividend, would the Cabinet reconsider this proposal? In response it was stated that the proposals had not yet been finalised and would not be done until the New Year. It was also stated that due to the pressures on the Council no part of its operations nor those of its associated bodies were immune from this wider pressure. It was acknowledged that the relationship with TLC added a complication, but that it was right to keep all spend under review.

·         It was queried whether all contractors were required to pay the National Living Wage as this currently set TLC at a disadvantage as it would increase its costs and so make it less competitive. In response it was stated that TLC had been established as a Teckal company that provided some benefits during procurement, but the Council remained under a duty to ensure value for money when contracting services. It was acknowledged that TLC paid its staff differently and this made them a special company and the social value this provided was considered as part of procurement processes. As part of the consideration of value for money the Council would also considered whether a prospective contractor paid the National Living Wage. It was suggested that the Council should make clearer to contractors its expectation that they paid National Living Wage

·         Concern was expressed that the Equality Impact Assessment had identified women and disabled residents as being significantly effected by proposals for the Stockport Local Assistance Scheme (SLAS). In response it was stated that the Cabinet would take this analysis into account when making a decision. It was also clarified that the strategic commissioning proposals were seeking to other means to provide this service rather than remove the support for residents.

·         Further comment was sought on the reasons there had been a reduction in the number of successful applications through the SLAS. In response it was stated that the scheme had been refined over time and some elements of support were approved by Foodbanks and other organisations.

·         Concerns were expressed about the increases in animal license charges and the impact on smaller businesses, suggesting that this should be charged on a pro-rata basis. In response it was stated the proposals were designed to ensure the Council was not subsidising the cost of services for businesses and would reflect the actual costs to the Council of delivering those services. There were a number of examples where the Council was charging significantly lower rates for services compared to other local authorities.

·         Concern was expressed that the desktop review of Adult Social Care management had not been done earlier. In response it was stated that a number of changes had now taken place that made this review opportune now.

·         Was the Council being aggressive enough with proposals on generating income from events and Council assets? In response it was acknowledged that the Council could generate more income from its assets but that this needed to be balanced against the need for wider, often informal community need. Improvements had already been made and further changes would subject to further engagement.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.