Agenda item

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports (PPRRs) for the Resources, Commissioning & Governance and Citizen Focus & Engagement Portfolios are presented for consideration by the Committee. These provide a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programmes and other key projects in the first half of the year, with a particular focus on the second quarter (July to September). These include forecast performance and financial data (where this is available) for the Portfolios, along with an update on the portfolio savings programmes.

These reports are based on the 2019/20 Portfolio Performance and Resource Agreements (PPRAs), which were considered by the Committee on 9 July and approved by Cabinet on 23 July 2019.

The reports are presented in the new streamlined format, which focuses on highlights and exceptions, reducing duplication through more cross-referencing and use of hyperlinks to other documents. Performance measures have been comprehensively reviewed for 2019/20 and latest data on all portfolio performance measures is included in the Appendices with performance and contextual narrative included by exception in the reports.

Alongside development of these reports, work is continuing to develop web-based Portfolio dashboards with user testing, making performance data more accessible.

Scrutiny Committee is asked to:

·         consider the Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports;  

·         review the progress against delivering key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2019/20;

·         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, 0161 474 3274, peter.owston@stockport.gov.uk / Alan Lawson, 0161 474 5397, alan.lawson@stockport.gov.uk / Stephen Pate, 0161 218 1086,

stephen.pate@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Borough Treasurer submitted the Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports (PPRRs) for the Resources, Commissioning & Governance and Citizen Focus & Engagement Portfolios (copies of which had been circulated) providing a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programmes and other key projects in the first half of the year, with a particular focus on the second quarter (July to September). The reports also included forecast performance and financial data (where this was available) for the Portfolios, along with an update on the portfolio savings programmes.

The Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance (Councillor Tom McGee) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:

·         There was discussion about the use of the RAG ratings, and concerns expressed that performance was often below target but rated as green. Explanations were provided in relation to some indicators, particularly where there were seasonal variations in demand on services that might impact performance in a given quarter, but councillors nevertheless expressed concern about the consistency of the use of RAG ratings.

·         Clarification was sought on whether the completed CBT1 return had had an impact on the Council Tax base. In response it was confirmed that there had been growth in the Tax Base, and that this had been assumed within the MTFP Summer Review and forecasting.

·         Confirmation was sought on whether there had been a payment on to the Manchester Airport Group as part of the Council’s investment in the multi-storey car park, and whether legal issues resolved had been resolved. In response it was confirmed that there remained outstanding issues being pursued on behalf of the Greater Manchester Council investments by Manchester City Council City Solicitor but it was expected that a payment would be made by the end of the financial year.

·         It was commented that capturing learning from suggestions or challenging situations before they became complaints would be useful.

·         There was a discussion about the Cabinet proposing changes to museums that would reduce access, such as closing on bank holidays, despite there being a 25% increase in visitors, rather than capitalising on rising numbers through improving on these attractions. There was agreement on the need to update the visitor and cultural offer and that it was available at times of high demand. The Cabinet Member stressed that the aim of the proposal was not to limit or reduce access where there was demand to do so. Councillors stressed the need to ensure that public access to these facilities, such as Chadkirk Chapel, was not lost.

·         Further detail was sought on the number of Open+ library visits by the 2200 registered users. In response it was stated that use of the facility varied by location, but that there had been an increase in usage across those libraries where Open+ had been deployed.

·         It was queried, given the inherent unpredictability of property sales, how robust the Council’s budgeting was and could be. In response, the Cabinet Member emphasised that the management of the Council’s estate and assets was subject to a number of careful considerations, and gave assurance that the assumptions made were always prudent and so could be taken to be robust.

·         Confirmation was sought on whether the new telephony system for Information, Advice and Guidance was now operational. In response it was stated that the system had gone live earlier in the day and had worked well, including the roll-out of a new ‘queue buster’ facility.

Reference was made to the potential negative impact on turnout of proposals to require identification when voting at a polling station, and the Chair reiterated the view previously expressed by the Scrutiny Committee that in so far as it was possible, the Council should not participate in any such scheme.

RESOLVED – (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That the Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance and Deputy Chief Executive be recommended to give further consideration to the methodology for the RAG ratings given to performance and ensure it is applied consistently.

(3) That the Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance and Deputy Chief Executive be requested to provide updates to members of the Committee on the following issues:-

·         Cost pressures in the Single Property Budget

·         Details of possible slippage with achieving savings with the Modernising Citizen Journeys proposals.

·         Further detail on the number and distribution of library visits by registered Open+ users.

·         Further details on the Contract Management system procurement specification.

·         Clarification on the reasons for rating CFE1.5 performance as green when performance was over target for the quarter.

(2) That the Deputy Chief Executive be requested to make arrangements for the inclusion on future agendas of items relating to

·         Shared Services

·         new Facilities & Asset Management contract