Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Jaime Ingham Clark and Ian Seaton.

There were no declarations.

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2013.

RESOLVED: That the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 30 January 2013 be agreed as an accurate record.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Town Clerk setting out actions outstanding from previous meetings.

Improved Co-ordination Progress Update

The Town Clerk drew Members attention to a note drafted by the Remembrancer concerning an improved diary system to avoid clashes and enable Member preference to be taken into account by Mansion House in the issue of their invitations.

The Chairman added that as the Remembrancer was unable to attend the meeting that day and the issues would be discussed at the next meeting of the Sub-Committee in July.

Peer review of financial and business support services

In response to a Member’s query, the Chamberlain reported that issues identified by the peer review could be itemised, to show which had been completed, and which had been incorporated into the 2013 Business Plan. 

The Deputy Chairman requested that, where possible, a target date for completion of the outstanding actions could be included in future versions of the report.

RESOLVED – That item 1.2 ‘Peer review of financial and business support services’ be removed from the outstanding actions list.

Joint report of the Deputy Town Clerk and the Chamberlain.

The Sub-Committee received a joint report of the Deputy Town Clerk and the Chamberlain updating Members on the activities of the Transformation and Efficiency Boards.

The Chairman highlighted that the two Boards had been set up at the height of the City Corporation’s drive to cut its budget. He added that with further cuts on the horizon he felt there was still a need to keep both Boards in operation.

Discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of the approach currently taken by the Sub-Committee to review transformation and efficiency across the organisation with some Members feeling that the approach required a re-examination.

In response, the Chamberlain undertook to bring proposals back to the Sub-Committee.

In response to the Chairman’s question regarding the disconnect between the year end of the PP2P contact and the City’s financial year, the Chamberlain undertook to look at aligning them at an appropriate point in the future.

In respect of the Performance Dashboard, Members requested that future reports include comparisons with previous quarters.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Chamberlain.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Chamberlain detailing a review of Third Party Payments.

The Chamberlain highlighted that further work was required on the remaining £5.5m of payments and a report would be brought back to the Sub-Committee at its September meeting.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Chamberlain.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Chamberlain outlining the latest position on triggers and inviting Members to identify any areas where they feel specific work should be undertaken.

The Chamberlain confirmed that there were currently no items of great concern and that the effect of government welfare reform initiatives on the City Corporation was relatively low.

The Chamberlain further advised that a short survey of the Finance Sub-Committee regarding the PP2P project would take place as part of a mid-term review. He added that preliminary work on this had already begun and that a report would be submitted to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee in July.

In response to a Members request to see the questions of the survey prior to its general release, the Chamberlain reported that the questionnaire would go through a challenge process and he would be happy to receive Member input.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services regarding the transfer of public health functions from primary care trusts to local authorities, effective from 1 April 2013.

The Sub-Committee heard from a representative of London Borough (LB) Hackney outlining his experience so far in managing the transfer of responsibility for health services. He advised the Board that LB Hackney’s aims were very much to limit any disruption to user services and that having achieved this, going forward the organisation would, like many other local authorities, want to consolidate the number of health contracts it was managing. 

He advised that in the absence of any formal documentation relating to staff and GP contracts being received from the Department of Health, the borough had no option but to issue new contracts.

In response to a Members question, the representative advised that there were currently no targets for the reduction in the number of contracts at this stage and that this would require considered evaluation.

In response to the Chairman’s question, the representative advised that it had been extremely useful working with officers in the Community and Children’s Services Department at the City Corporation and that through their working partnership, the City and LB Hackney were delivering a strong offer to the community.

In response to a question regarding user perception, the Director of Community and Children’s Services advised that an understanding of this would be gained in time.

RECEIVED.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Deputy Town Clerk seeking approval to review the staff suggestion scheme so that it better supports the generation of ideas from the front line about how to improve and develop City Corporation services.

RESOLVED: That: -

i)              a small project group be set up to review the current staff suggestion scheme;

ii)             the group be tasked with bringing forward recommendations for a revised staff suggestion scheme (which could be renamed) that positively encourages ideas and proposal for change to make the City Corporation’s services more effective or efficient;

iii)            the group be tasked to design a process which is simple to access and which had some form of peer review system; and

iv)           the group be also tasked with proposing a reward strategy for successfully implementing suggestions or ideas.

There were no questions.

There were no urgent items.