Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and temporary appointments.

Apologies were received from the following:

-        Cllr Mallon (Cllr Ash substituting)

-        Cllr Johnston

-        Cllr Fawcett

-        Cllr Middleton

None

Members of the public who wish to speak at this meeting can attend the meeting in person or ‘virtually’ through an online connection. 

To facilitate ‘hybrid’ meetings we are asking that requests to speak or present a petition are submitted by no later than 9am four working days before the meeting i.e., 9am on 25 September 2023.  Requests to speak should be sent to Tom Hudson, at scrutiny@oxfordshire.gov.uk

If you are speaking ‘virtually’, you may submit a written statement of your presentation to ensure that your views are taken into account. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9am 2 working days before the meeting. Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

None

The Committee is recommended to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2023 and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2023 were AGREED as an accurate record.

The Committee is recommended to AGREE its work programme for forthcoming meetings, having heard any changes from previous iterations, and taking into consideration the Council’s Forward Plan and any issues arising.

The Committee considered its scheduled Work Plan and members were advised to make the following amendments to it:

1)    To consider the BMMR item scheduled for the current meeting at a to-be-scheduled meeting around November

2)    To request an introduction to the Budget context at that November meeting

Subject to these amendments, the proposed work programme was AGREED.

An update was requested regarding the Democratic Processes Working Group. It was explained that the current uncertainty over executive members was holding it up, but that it would then be in a position to resume.  

Councillor Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, Lorna Baxter, Director of Finance, Louise Tustian, Head of Insight and Corporate Programmes, Kathy Wilcox, Head of Financial Strategy have been invited to present a report detailing the Business Management and Monitoring Reports submitted to Cabinet in July and September 2023 respectively. Other Cabinet members and senior officers have been invited to respond to questions.

The Committee is recommended, having considered the report and responses to questions, to AGREE any recommendations arising therefrom.

It was AGREED to defer consideration of this item to the to-be-organised meeting of the Committee in November.

Glynis Phillips, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Lorna Baxter, Director of Finance, and Cherie Cuthbertson, Director of Workforce and Organisational Development have been invited to make a presentation regarding the results and actions arising from the recent Employee Engagement Questionnaire.

The Committee is recommended, having considered the report and responses to questions, to AGREE any recommendations arising therefrom.

Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, Lorna Baxter, Director of Finance, Cherie Cuthbertson, Director of Workforce and Organisational Development, and Karen Hopwood, Head of Organisational Development were invited to make a presentation to the Committee on the recent Employee Engagement Survey.

Cllr Miller introduced the survey, which had been undertaken in February 2023 and promoted to all staff members. The survey met with a response rate of 55%, which was believed to be the highest in the organisation’s history. Its purpose was to develop a baseline of data on workforce attitudes to enable the tracking of future change, and to understand current issues, particularly in light of the Council’s development of the Delivering the Future Together programme.  The results highlighted areas of strong performance and areas for development. In response to the results, a corporate action plan was being developed, but data and feedback was also being looked at from a directorate level to determine whether specific interventions and actions needed to be implemented within parts of the Council.

Karen Hopwood, Head of Organisational Development, was introduced as the officer with greatest familiarity with the data and invited to present the key findings. At 55%, the response rate was over double internal staff surveys, which typically met with responses of 20-25%. This increase was achieved through significant promotion and communication, including writing to staff individually, but also through the employment of competition within directorates. Following questioning, it was confirmed that the Council had not tracked responses based on whether they were made by a full-time or part-time staff member but it was confirmed that the intention was to do so in future surveys. In light of the fact that comparator questions from the previous employee engagement survey had shown an increase in negative responses, a challenge was put as to whether the level of dissatisfaction was a driver in the high rate of responses. In reply, it was explained that the previous survey had been undertaken in the very specific circumstances of Covid, and that it was a significant task to unpick how staff needs were being better met within the lockdown environment than in a more business as usual setting, but one which was being looked at. 

Having used an external provider to deliver the survey and analyse the results provided the Council the ability to benchmark itself against other employers. The Council scored within the ‘good’ category overall, but there were areas on which it could improve. All questions asked could be traced to 8 overriding areas, such as ‘my team’ or ‘leadership’. The Council scored net-positively in all areas.

Respondees were also given the opportunity to provide free-text responses to a number of questions, with over 1000 comments registered. Some of the key findings from these were that staff felt very supported by their managers, and that there was a lot of opportunity for development within the Council overall, albeit that they did not always see those opportunities personally. One particular barrier to development was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/23

Cllr Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, Lorna Baxter, Director of Finance, and Melissa Sage, Head of Procurement and Contract Management have been invited to present a report on Social Value and the Council’s Social Value Annual Report 2022/23.

The Committee is recommended, having considered the report and responses to questions, to AGREE any recommendations arising therefrom.

Cllr Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, Lorna Baxter, Director of Finance, and Melissa Sage, Head of Procurement and Contract Management were invited to present a report on Social Value and the Council’s Social Value Annual Report 2022/23.

Cllr Miller began the presentation noting that whilst the results showed successes though its social value policy, the first year of reported results meant that the Council was still leaning towards its pilot stages and refinements would be welcomed. Weightings for social value considerations within tenders were a balance between social value and commercial value, but the Council’s weightings had been deemed by The Social Value Portal as sitting in the sweetspot where social value was maximised without increasing prices.

Given the ongoing reporting, Melissa Sage was able to provide an updated figure on the value of social value delivered - £900,745. This was an increase from the reported £534k. Seeing promised value begin to be delivered at scale was very welcome. Notwithstanding this, members queried that this figure represented approximately a quarter of the promised delivery and sought assurances that the promised delivery would be fully realised. In response, it was explained that social value only began to be recorded once a contract reached a £100k spend-threshold, meaning that there was a built-in delay between promises and delivery whilst that threshold was reached. Responsibility for tracking the delivery of promised social value was the responsibility of the Council’s partner, the Social Value Portal. Commitments made were a contractual obligation, and failure to deliver the promised value would leave the Council with the standard remedies for breaches of contract.

The evidence base behind the idea that a higher rate of weighting for social value would increase costs or put off suppliers was challenged. In reply, it was explained that the Council had followed the advice and experience of the Social Value Portal, a leading organisation nationally on this topic. There was not always a clear correlation between higher social value weightings and more delivery of social value; doing so could favour bigger, national companies versus local SMEs. No case studies had been undertaken by the Social Value Portal, but their advice was based on their assessment of what they had seen put forward at tender stage, evaluation and delivery.

Barring certain exceptions, such as using a framework which does not include social value, contracts above £100k were now subject to a social value weighting. Additional support was provided pre-tender to SMEs, as well as a separate, simpler sub-£100k tendering process. The Council did, however, have to remain within the law, including those with prohibited breaking up contracts to favour SMEs. It was possible to include social value weightings in lower-value contracts, but it would not necessarily be wise as the cost of monitoring could become significant relative to the value of the contract itself and it would require an expansion of engagement by many non-procurement officers with the Social Value Portal. Members reiterated their wish to see the Council doing all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40/23

Councillor Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, Lorna Baxter, Director of Finance, and Michael Smedley, Head of Assets, Estates and Investment have been invited to make a presentation explaining the capital asset disposal process.

The Committee is recommended, having considered the report and responses to questions, to AGREE any recommendations arising therefrom.

Councillor Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, Lorna Baxter, Director of Finance, and Michael Smedley, Head of Assets, Estates and Investment made a presentation explaining the Council’s capital asset disposal process.

Cllr Miller introduced the topic by explaining that the mere existence of the Council’s capital asset disposal process marked significant progress; two years previously the Council’s asset register had been out of date, having fallen into disrepair following the integration of Carillion staff into the Council. It was noted that there had been much discussion about the role of members in decisions around disposals of property, particularly given public interest in some sites, and the aim of the process was to provide clarity over how such disposals would be undertaken, keeping in mind its legal obligations around best value. Whilst ‘disposal’ was the term used to describe the process of determining capital assets to be surplus to Council requirements, engaging with local communities to determine demand for the asset, and going out to market if none arose, did not mean there was either a fire-sale, or that market sales were the only avenue considered. Furthermore, such disposals formed part of a wider strategy in relation to the Council’s assets, where decisions on both sales and purchases were made with the Council’s long-term financial stability in mind, as well as current and future service requirements. Disagreement was raised by the Committee as to whether the asset register had been in disrepair; were it to have been so there would have been picked up in the Council’s audit.

In response to the presentation and report, the Committee raised a number of points including:

-        The reason for there being no policy outlining the Council’s priorities when making disposals, including who, how the Council would consult, for what purpose assets would be preferred to be disposed of and how different strategic priorities would be weighted.. In response, it was put forward that the best way to get most out of sites, each with their unique characteristics, was to remain completely flexible rather than be fettered by a policy which may not completely align with or appreciate the specific characteristics of the site, nor would it be equipped to include the impact on the Council of outcomes of other disposals on a particular decision. Challenge from the Committee was put forward on the basis that the Council should have some view of the place it wishes to develop and objectives it wishes to achieve through its asset disposals, a high-level perspective sitting above individual assets. It would be valuable for the Council’s place-making ambitions to be brought into line with other local strategies, such as the City Council’s City Centre Strategy and Oxford West End development. Clearer definition of the Council’s priorities would leave officers less exposed when making judgements on the best course of action. One suggestion put forward as a mitigation to this was ensuring full discussion with local members at an early stage to allow opportunities and community wishes to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41/23

The Committee is recommended to NOTE the progress of previous recommendations and actions arising from previous meetings, having raised any questions on the contents.

The Committee NOTED the action and recommendation tracker.

Attached is the formal response to Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee from Cabinet regarding Cost of Living, which was fed back verbally at the last meeting.

There have been no further responses to recommendations.

The Committee is asked to NOTE the response.

The Committee NOTED the response to Committee’s Cost of Living recommendation.