Agenda and minutes

No apologies had been received.

At this point Members must declare whether they have an interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in any of the items on the agenda. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2008 were approved as a correct record.

To receive a standard report providing feedback on any issues or questions raised at previous meetings.

The Panel received the report and were provided with feedback and updates on the following issue:

·        Use of Agency Staff – Sickness Rates in Comparison to Other Authorities

Members were invited to comment on the report and the following issue was raised:

·        Members questioned whether the figures for sickness could be broken down further into staff groupings i.e. administrative workers and outside workers. Members requested a further report at the next meeting and asked if a trade union representative could also attend to give their views.

ACTION AGREED:

The Panel noted the report.

To consider and comment on the Executive’s proposals for the budget 2009/10.

The Panel received a report which outlined the proposed budget for 2009/10 and Medium Term Financial Strategy to 2011/12 on which Scrutiny and Scrutiny Panels had been invited to make comment.  The purpose of the report was to review aspects of proposals relevant to the functions and remit of the Panel, with any observations highlighted to be included in a report back to Cabinet.

The main areas of focus for the Panel were:

·        The executive summary which outlined the issues facing the council and proposed actions;

·        Details of those projects forming phase 3 of the business transformation programme;

·        The capacity bids which had been submitted for the following three years, including those which related to the impacts of the credit crunch and actions taken to mitigate these, as well as the costs of financing the proposed capital programme.

Members were invited to consider and comment on the report and the following issues were raised:

·        Members queried the substantial increase in room hire rates at the museum. Members were advised that unfortunately this query was not in the remit of the Panel, and as there was no representative from leisure present at the meeting, it would not be appropriate to answer the query at that time.

·        Concern was expressed with regards to the substantial increases in charges against inflation, and would this not lead to a large influx of queries from members of the public. Members were assured that these increases had been agreed by officer delegation and had not been challenged. Also, where there was no need for a concession, rates should be charged accordingly. Members were reminded that the overall costs the council had to bear were over and above the rate of inflation. It was agreed that with regards to the previous query on the increase in rates at the museum, members would be provided with details of the proposed increases in monetary value for room hire at the museum and also the charges for paranormal events.

·        Members sought clarification on the cost/value of a 1% increase/decrease in council tax. Members were advised that as set out in the budget papers, a 1% increase/decrease would equate to £54,000. This figure had been approved at the Cabinet meeting held in December 2008.

ACTION AGREED:

The Panel noted and commented on the draft budget 2009/10 and medium term financial plan to 2011/12.

To consider the Professional Services Partnership and what it means for Peterborough.

The Panel received a report which had been requested at a previous meeting of the Business Efficiency Scrutiny Panel to clarify the purpose, scope and benefits of the partnership.

The purpose of the Professional Services Partnership (PSP) was to provide through a single service agreement, the bulk of the business transformation, infrastructure development, capability enhancement and performance management activities procured by the council from third parties.

The PSP would focus on those opportunities where business and performance improvement were to be realised through an investment in the Council’s asset base and core capabilities. There was an expectancy that a significant and growing proportion of the PSP’s work was to be linked to the deployment of efficiencies and the utilisation of prudent financial arrangements, achieving investment in more efficient and productive assets, workplaces, ICT infrastructure and systems, collaborations that exploited synergies or scale economies and business systems and processes. Equally, the PSP was not intended to be deployed only on an internal improvement agenda, it was intended to utilise the partnership to enhance and accelerate improvements in customer services and on the growth agenda.

The activities of the PSP were highlighted to the Panel and included:

·        Project and programme management of transformation and other improvement activities, which utilised the council’s programme and project management disciplines and systems;

·        The provision of senior management in interim positions which directed transformation and other improvement activities;

·        Management consultancy services across the range of transformation and other improvement activities;

·        Procurement of third party services which were not undertaken directly by the PSP;

·        Supply chain optimisation and management of the supplier base working on transformation and other improvement activities.

Members were invited to consider and comment on the report and the following issues were raised:

·        Members sought clarification on the term “single services agreement”. Members were informed that the term meant “a contract”.

·        Members requested further explanation into the activities of the PSP. Members were informed that for example there were many adhoc contracts throughout the Council which could in time lead to problems within the business transformation programme, and introduce risks. The new activities would allow for more structure, with individual work being signed off by Officers and then by Directors and Heads of Service, therefore introducing a double approval process for projects happening within the contract, which would be a benefit to the Council.

·        A query was raised regarding the meaning of “efficiency”. Members were informed that contracts would initially have no assumed value, therefore a nil contract. Required resources would then be indentified and a business case put forward for sign off.

·        Members questioned who the appointed PSP partners, Amtec Consulting Group, were. Members were informed that Amtec was an extremely well known consulting house with a very good reputation.

            ACTION AGREED:

The Panel noted and commented on the report.

To receive a presentation on the procurement project.

The Panel received a report which outlined the progress of the Procurement Project as a key part of the Business Transformation Programme.

The key issues of the procurement project were based on the following considerations and principles:

·        Good procurement which meant getting value for money. Therefore, buying a product that was fit for purpose, taking into account the whole-life cost;

·        A good procurement process would be delivered efficiently, to limit the time and expense for the parties involved;

·        Successful procurement was good for the public, good for the taxpayer, and good for businesses that supplied the Council.

·        Procurement design principles, including:

o       Savings focused;

o       Accurate specifications;

o       Maximising the use of corporate contracts;

o       Demand management, driving purchasing through corporate contracts and reducing overall category spend;

o       Proactive not reactive procurement;

o       Building in compliance and monitoring processes;

o       Output focussed, which gave suppliers, who knew more about their businesses than potential buyers, more scope to provide innovative solutions rather than deciding what the precise solution should have been at the onset;

o       Minimising the cost of the tender process;

o       Consideration to the benefit of shared services;

o       Making a positive environmental contribution;

o       Adhering to contract regulations and financial rules;

o       Collaborative procurement.

The key issues within the project were highlighted to the Panel, including:

·        Making a positive environmental contribution

·        Collaborative procurement

·        Programme processes

·        Categories in the current demand management programme, including:

o       Room hire and catering

o       Training and conferences

o       Temporary agency staff

o       Travel and accommodation

o       Translation and interpretation

o       Legal services

o       Furniture

·           Demand management savings

·           Supplier relationship management

The Panel was further informed of categories in the current demand management programme, and in particular, the areas relating to temporary agency staff, translation and interpretation and furniture.

The Panel was advised that under the heading “temporary agency staff”, the wording should have read “spend from September onwards” and not “reductions in spend from September onwards”.

Members were asked to consider and comment on the report and the following issues were raised:

·        Members sought clarification on whether the figures stated in the report under temporary agency staff, were relevant to the individual months. Members were advised that the costs stated were relevant to each month stated.

·        Members questioned why the monthly temporary agency staff cost for the month of November was considerably lower than the cost for either September or October. Members were informed that the figures stated for September and October, both included Consultant costs. Whereas the figure for November only included temporary and agency staff. If consultancy costs had been added to November, the overall spend would have been over £400,000. Members were further informed that December’s figures, which were not listed in the report, were sitting in the region of £350,000, this therefore indicated a downward trend.

·        Members further questioned the reasoning behind removing the consultancy costs from the November figures. Members were advised that this had been done in order to show a comparison.

·        Members requested that any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a standard report on the Executive Decisions which have been made since the last meeting.

The Panel considered the following Executive Decisions made since the last meeting:

·        The green backyard update;

·        Corn Exchange, Peterborough;

·        Schools broadband contract;

·        Preventative and family support services contracts;

·        Streets, Squares and Spaces Strategy, phase one, Cathedral Square works;

·        Extension of Heltwate School to provide four additional classrooms and associated facilities;

·        Phase two secondary school review (south of the City) project – proposed Bushfield Academy;

·        Sale of land and building known as 12 Dogsthorpe Road, Peterborough;

·        Schedule of rates for capital civil engineering works 2008/10;

·        Riverside community sports pavilion.

Members were invited to consider and comment on the report and the following issues were raised:

·           Members sought clarity on the purpose of the green backyard project. Members were informed that the project proposed the use of allotment land to educate children and adults on how to grow their own vegetables.

·           Members requested further information regarding the reasons behind the proposed extension to Heltwate School, was the extension for a particular year group of children. Members were advised that further information would be provided regarding the extension to the school.

ACTION AGREED:

The Panel considered the Executive Decisions which had been made since the last meeting.

To consider the latest version of the Forward Plan.

The latest version of the Forward Plan was presented to the Panel for consideration.

A request was made for further information on three items included in the Forward Plan, including:

·        Vendor neutral solution for provision of agency staff;

·        Nene Bridge refurbishment;

·        Midland highway alliance – Junction 8 signalisation project.

The Panel was advised that further information would be provided on all three items, including the extent of refurbishments due to take place on the Nene Bridge and also further details regarding the location of junction 8.

ACTION AGREED:

The Panel noted the latest version of the Forward Plan – January to April 2009.

To review the agenda plan for 2008-09.

The Panel received the latest version of the Agenda Plan for consideration.

There were no requests from the Panel for further information on any items.   

ACTION AGREED:

The Panel noted the latest version of the Agenda Plan 2008-09.

Thursday 12 February 2009 at 7pm.

Thursday 12 February 2009.