Agenda item

A report by the Assistant Director - Corporate

The Chairman Councillor Claire Rylott presented the report confirming she had been the Chairman of the group, and the Portfolio Holder Councillor Anne Dorrian was also in attendance to support the report.

The report would be presented to each Councils’ relevant sovereign scrutiny committee. The scrutiny work undertaken was required under the Partnership’s Memorandum of Agreement and was currently an annual commitment.  The approved business case had demonstrated a number of opportunities for the South and E Lincolnshire Council's partnership.
Before the meeting's commenced, the group had conducted a short questionnaire among all councillors and members of the corporate management team to canvas their views. Key themes identified from the questionnaire were too review the delivery of the recommendations from the 2023 partnership annual scrutiny; to consider how the partnership was responding to shared and common challenges and opportunities at a local, corporate and sub-regional level; to review the progress being made to achieve the combined financial opportunity of p to £42m identified in the partnership business case; how the partnership was securing service delivery improvements and resilience across the partnership and how the partnership was creating additional capacity and increased resilience to do more for the communities.

The group had met five times, interviewed 11 witnesses, including leaders, senior staff and staff forum members, using questions based mainly on the key lines of inquiry. Nine recommendations were agreed
e discussed the key themes that came from the survey, along with key issues including ICT recruitment and retention, the group had realised nine recommendations.

1. Ensure service reviews are completed as per the agreed Alignment and Delivery Plan to ensure correct capacity and increase savings.

2.    To ensure the Partnership Risk Register is reviewed and updated regularly by SLT so existing and emerging risks continue to be monitored and can be managed/mitigated effectively.

3.    Through the Alignment and Delivery Plan planning process, ensure forward planning for upcoming known and potential changes.

4.    Review the MOA for the Partnership to ensure it remains relevant and builds in flexibility to allow the Partnership to develop (for example to improve the way the annual partnership scrutiny works).

5.    Ensure Officers and Members are kept informed on key issues, for example Devolution and LGR.

6.    Use the ‘weight’ of the S&ELCP to help lobby on common issues that affect the sub-region, for example the work of the SIG with regard to internal drainage boards.

7.    The S151 officer should actively consider how projects coming forward contribute to the savings required in the MTFS for each sovereign council in order to deliver financial resilience.

8.    As part of the work being done on aligning constitutions, streamline the partnership scrutiny process to make it more effective.

9.    Monitor staff turnover (including reasons for leaving) via the Workforce Development Board, review trends in recruitment to ensure we are not out of kilter with national trends and work to remedy any negative findings.

The Chairman advised that she felt that recommendation 4 needed to be reviewed urgently to enable more flexibility of membership of the group, and also that members who offered their services had the time and if necessary, suitable I.T equipment to attend all meetings of the group and not be subject to work restrictions. 

Observations from the staff view in the working environment across the three councils had noted a vast difference in Boston’s Municipal Building, being to a far lower standard compared to the sites at the other two authorities, due largely to the age of the building.  Recruitment and retention were also discussed at great length and the group highlighted that it needed to be monitored but was not always easy when staff refused to say why they were leaving.  The group was further concerned at the continuing loss of experienced senior staff to other authorities and hoped questions were being asked as that issue had also been highlighted in the Peer Review carried out in May 2024.
The Portfolio Holder advised that in response the comments relating to staff turnover, she did not share the views and felt it to be a good thing seeing members of staff moving onto bigger and better things and gaining promotions, which happened on the majority of Councils nowadays. Furthermore, they noted that conditions at Boston were not as poor as elsewhere especially nowadays with hybrid working enabling staff to work from home.  Referencing the comments in respect of commitment and capacity and taking on workloads in addition to those members already had, the Portfolio Holder recognised what had been said but commented that all members at one time or another had been unable to attend evidence giving sessions and meetings, due to personal commitments.  The Portfolio Holder concluded by thanking the group for the work undertaken. 

Committee deliberation followed which included:

Referencing the preparedness for the Mayoral Combined Authority, a   member questioned what the Leaders had identified as the main areas of challenge.  The Portfolio Holder advised that they thought one of the biggest points on contention was that of having no voice and that there were only four seats for the seven districts meaning that at any one time, there would by three districts with no representation whatsoever.   Having no vote was one of the biggest challenges and the Government White Paper due to be published shortly could look at local government reorganisation which may mean the loss of local district councils. Should that occur then it would take any representation away from local people.

A member further stated they felt that should the council have no voice or vote, then at least by being in the partnership it would have a collective chance of being heard and it also gave the council greater lobbying power than it would have as an independent council.
The Portfolio Holder responded by disagreeing with the members comments and stated that they felt having a vote was very important.  It enabled members to actually vote for their residents.  Lobbying went on extensively, but the council had no power or authority at Parliament, nor would it have any in the Mayoral Combined Authority.

RECOMMENDED:

That the committee recommend that Cabinet consider the recommendations of the group.