Introduction by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed the members of the committee.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

This item is for Councillors only, to declare any interests in items on the agenda.  Newly appointed co-opted members have an opportunity to declare their interests later on the agenda.  It is necessary for Councillors to declare any interests at this point, to enable the committee to confirm the appointment of co-opted members.

From the next meeting, declarations for all members will be made under a single agenda item.

No declarations were received.

To consider and approve the minutes of the Co-ordination, Finance and Performance Commission meeting held on 19 July 2010– attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 19 July 2010 were approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them.

This report asks the Committee to confirm the appointment of the selected non-voting co-optees named there in, for a period no longer than four years.

Report of the head of Democratic Services (attached).

Simon Blackburn, Barrie Hatch and Alision McDade were accepted as Non-Voting Co-optees and welcomed to join the committee.

In accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

This item has been included on the agenda, to give newly appointed co-opted members an opportunity to declare interests in any items on the agenda.

From the next meeting, declarations for all members will be made under a single agenda item.

Alision McDade declared a personal and prejudicial interest on item 8 on the agenda: Budget Review by virtue of her husband being an employee of Richmond Council who’s job would be directly effected by the budget savings. She undertook to leave the room for the duration of this item.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Porter. Councillor Evans attended as his substitute.

To highlight areas of the Council’s performance from the Quarter One Corporate Performance Report (April – June, 2010) which the Committee may wish to investigate further.

The Chairman welcomed Mandy Skinner, Assistant Director of Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy, to the meeting. Mandy Skinner introduced the item.

Councillor Miller suggested that the current 12 strategic programmes identified by the Performance Report should be taken as a substantative item at a future meeting.

Councillor Gibbons asked for a definition of delayed transfer of care, referred to on page 11 of the agenda. The Assistant Director explained that there was a very specific definition which arose from previous reports. She agreed to find out and inform him of it after the meeting.

Councillor Churchill asked why there was a disparity between Richmond and other boroughs rates of adults with learning disabilities in settled accommodation. The Assistant Director explained that this indicator was not a priority at the time the report was produced.

Councillor Williams asked why the days off/ sickness indicator wasn’t included in the report. He said it had improved in the last 4-5 years after previously being an area of concern. The Assistant Director said the issue hadn’t been given a red indicator because only areas of performance that were not expected to meet targets were included in the report. She agreed to provide Councillors Williams and Miller with the figures.

RESOLVED

That the Q1 Performance Report be noted.

This report contains the results of the Base Budget Review exercise undertaken by Leading Members and officers over the last 3 months in response to reducing public funding and the Council’s aim of minimising Council Tax.

Finance and Corporate Services

Councillor Miller questioned the fairness of some of the suggestions in paragraph 4.13 (the Budget Reviews impact on tax payers, Council services and employees) and asked what questions further consultation would ask. Councillor Samuel explained that he intended to add these points to the report but it was produced within a limited timescale. A more thorough review would follow soon. He said that the planned reductions in government grants were 12%. The professional advice he received said the Council needed to cut 25% of its budget to raise £35m. He was still waiting for further news from central government but there was still a possibility that the cuts could be greater.

The Director of Finance and Corporate Services explained that the report was based around government cuts. However, even without considering the government grant cuts the Council still needed to save up to £35m over 4 years.

Councillor Samuel agreed but explained that specific detailed parts of the report would go to the relevant committees.

Councillor O’Malley asked if it was the policy of central government to keep council tax at 0% increase. Mark Maidment said the Council needed to keep council tax at 2.5%, or less, in order to receive a central government subsidy. There was a support allowance available for local Councils but no more would be known about this until 20 October.

Councillor Evans asked where the Budget Review proposals came from as the Zero Based Budget Review (ZBB) was not complete yet. The Director explained that the Council was not carrying out true a ZBB review, hence the name Budget Review. The Council had used Price Waterhouse Cooper’s (PWC) review to set its targets. The Council had known the cuts were coming and had prioritised areas where they could safely make cuts.

Councillor Gibbons asked which areas’ budgets had been reviewed so far. The Director stated that most areas included in the report had been adapted from PWC recommendations. There would be a second phase of the Budget Report that would come to committee in due course. Councillor Gibbons asked if the methods for implementing the financial change were ready. The Director said most of the areas had a proposal behind them, but they might be subject to change as some were still being negotiated.

Barrie Hatch asked if all the efficiency work would be placed into one programme by November. The Director said that it was likely. Challenge Consulting had been producing a list of targets for the Council under the headings: “definite”, “speculative” and “ideas”.

Councillor Knight asked for details of the consultation on the budget review held earlier this year. The Director said that at this stage, some departments had only received information on proposals and others had had full consultation. He explained that the results would be made available to members. The results from the consultation with the social care departments would be available tomorrow. He agreed to send members a link to the social care results. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To enable the Committee to comment on the process of engagement so far and to make any proposals for efficiency savings in order to inform the consultation on the grants review.

Richard Eason, representing the Voluntary Sector Strategic Partnership (VSSP), made representations at the meeting, which are summarised below:

·         Members should have received a letter fromDavid Sidonio, Chief Executive of Richmond Council’s Voluntary Services,explaining the VSSP’s concerns regarding the grants review.

·         The grant review was inappropriate, a waste of resources, and untimely.

·         The VSSP provided a cost effective service and it had already reduced expenditure while maintaining service level standards.

·         He expected an increased demand for services in light of the Grants Review.

·         The VSSP were moving to a commission based programme next year and cuts would impact upon services and resources.

Councillor Fleming said the Council was being open with the Voluntary Sector during the review. The Council planned to make the changes before November so voluntary organisations were able to take any changes into account when setting their budgets next year.

The Primary Care Trust would have a chance to comment when a report was prepared.

Councillor Fleming said the impact assessment would be published by 11 October and she would be making a decision by 10 December.

Councillor Williams asked if a grants panel would be set up. Councillor Fleming said it was unlikely. She explained there would be no reduction in grants this year. The review was about more than cuts, and some voluntary groups would benefit from the review.

Councillor Knight asked if there would be a rise in commissioning to the voluntary sector.  Councillor Fleming said it was a possibility. Councillor Knight highlighted the Council’s corporate priorities list which included “caring for the most vulnerable in the community”, and asked how this would be applied to voluntary services. Councillor Fleming explained that a sub-criterion would be applied in this instance.

Councillor Knight asked for a clear definition of vulnerable people be established for the purpose of the report. The Assistant Director said that the Council had a statutory definition that they worked from and they would attempt to apply this as a phase guideline.

Councillor Williams said he was disappointed that grants established with the previous administration were being undone; they were expected to last for three years. He felt that more clarity was needed from the report. Councillor Miller said he was meeting The Director of Finance and Corporate Services to address the issues raised at the meeting.

RESOLVED

·         The committee noted the grant review criteria and process for the review.

To provide the Committee with an update on the progress of this significant new evidence base and to seek their input into the next steps.

Phillip Wealthy, Head of Policy and Design, was present and provided a brief introduction to this item. This was the first local economic assessment and had widely looked at the economy of the borough and all areas that infringe upon it.  He asked that the committee consider the priorities and assess whether they were the right ones.

Councillor O’Malley raised the issue of economic activity in the borough. He asked if the public sector had been involved in the formation of the report. The Head of Policy and Design explained that part of the exercise was a business survey and he hoped the public sector would be well represented. The Council had been engaging with businesses, especially through the Chamber of Commerce.

Councillor Knight said that the statistics were too generalised (eg: average earnings for Richmond residents - £780 per week).

Councillor Gibbons said that transport links within the borough were underplayed in the report. The Head of Policy and Design explained this was probably because it was only a summary of the report.

Councillor Evans questioned the need for the Economic Assessment. He asked if the Council would need to carry it out again. The Head of Policy and Design said they could monitor the data regularly without another full assessment. He hoped that the plan would result in clear actions to put in a future community plan.

Councillor Montague thought that information provided on averages only gave a flavour of the borough. He said there were clear disparities between people living in the borough. He asked for more information in order to make a recommendation.

Mr Hatch asked if this meeting would provide the only opportunity for the committee to comment. The Head of Policy and Design said he would circulate a draft report so members could add their comments. He suggested that they could do a workshop for members or, alternatively, the Local Economic Assessment could return to the committee.

Councillor Miller said the assessment needed to be more relevant to members. He agreed to feed this back to the Council’s Economic Development Manager.

Councillor Knight said the assessment would provide residents of the borough with a incentive to improve the borough. Tourism could be improved to encourage visitors to eat and stay in the borough after visiting attractions.

Councillor Montague acknowledged the work that went into the report. He said it was a good start, and obviously not the final product. He hoped that the committee could help take the LEA forward.

RESOLVED that

·         The report be noted

·         The comments made by the committee be taken into account by officers in taking the Local Economic Assessment forward.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the remainder of the municipal year 2010/11.

Councillor Miller reminded members that he had asked for suggestions at the last meeting.

Councillor Elliott said the Council should continue to explore sharing services with other boroughs.

Councillor Harrison said the Council should look for more revenue streams. He suggested the following:

·         Improving and expanding internet services,

·         Outsourcing arboricultural services,

·          Expanding the Council’s Contact Centre to cover more services and possibly to other councils.

Councillor Miller suggested they form a task group to investigate new joint services and ways to generate revenue.

RESOLVED

·         That a task group be formed for the purpose of investigating new joint services and ways to generate revenue.

Councillors Salvoni, Harrison, Elliott and Miller and Co-opted member Alison McDade be appointed to the task group.