Agenda item

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director, Accountancy, Mr Maddock introduced the report on the Quarter 2 progress of the Corporate Plan Key Action Plan 2016/17. This was a key strategic planning document, setting out its priorities over the five year period from 2015/16 to 2019/20. These corporate aims were supported by Key Objectives, which provided a clear statement of the Council’s overall intentions for these five years.

The meeting noted that under Aim (i), (2) progress preparations for delivering savings – should be for 2017/18 and not as indicated for 2016/17.

There were 49 actions in total for which progress updates for Q2 were as follows:

·         29 (59%) of these actions have been ‘Achieved’ or were ‘On Target’

·         14 (29%) of these actions were ‘Under Control’

·         2  (4%) were ‘Behind Schedule’

·         4  (8%) were ‘Pending’

13 actions fell within the areas of responsibility of the Resources Select Committee. At the end of Q2:

·         8  (62%) of these actions had been ‘Achieved’ or were ‘On-Target’

·         4  (31%) of these actions were ‘Under Control’

·         1  (8%) of these actions were ‘Pending’

·         0   (0%) of these actions were ‘Behind Schedule’

The Committee reviewed the Quarter 2 progress against the Key Action Plan for 2016/17 that fell within their area of responsibility.

Councillor Roberts said as a general observation that there was not enough information given under the progress heading for any action going wrong in time for any action to be taken to remedy the situation. Councillor Kane noted that there had been some discussions on revised target dates, but he was unsure how to completely rectify this problem. Mr Maddock said that he would raise it as a concern.

Councillor Sartin asked about Aim (i)(c), (10) ‘evaluate possibility of shared service as part of Debt working Party’ – as it was past the target date, should it not be classed as red and not orange. She then noted that as it was for the end of quarter 2 (end of September). Mr Maddock said that there should be a revised target date for this and another meeting on this subject was coming up soon to discuss this.

Councillor Kane added that there needed to be some explanations for the “Under Control” items to show a way forward, with some extra explanation. Mr Maddock said that he would take these comments back.

Councillor Kane asked for more details on Aim (ii) (1) ‘Continue with the Council’s apprenticeship scheme for the district’s young people, providing sustainable employment opportunities’. Ms Magginis, Assistant Director Human Resources, replied that the graduate programme was run by the Local Government Association. The Council partook in this scheme every other year. They had interviewed 4 candidates this year and would like to appoint 2 of them, but it turned out that they would like to work for the larger authorities and on the bigger schemes. Our selling point was that they would be working with senior managers and the Management Board. They would have a senior sponsor to see them through their time here. It did not happen for us this year.

As for apprentices, we need to have a certain percentage of apprentices on our payroll to contribute to an apprentice levy to the government to pay for the whole scheme.  Councillor Patel asked if we would get funds if we did not meet the target. Ms Maginnis replied that they had not been told directly, but the Government would take the money we spent on the levy if it was not used.

Councillor H Whitbread asked how wide was the graduate scheme and how far did the Council trawl for new graduates? She was told that at present the Apprentice Corporate Scheme was for school leavers 16 to 18 year olds. The higher level apprentices tend to be more expensive for us and we were looking at this at present. Councillor Whitbread asked if we could work jointly with the County Council or Harlow Council and spread the costs. Ms Maginnis noted that we had a high rate of drop outs because of travel difficulties. It may be different for our higher apprentices as they were older and may have their own transport.

Councillor Jennings noted that he was a member of the LGA who had a meeting recently to discuss this. Local government was not that appealing at present, the Civil service was more attractive and the LGA were looking to address this for the future.

Councillor Sartin asked if it was possible to have a short article on apprentices and graduates to go into the Members Bulletin. Councillor Kane agreed that this was a good idea and then asked if as ward Councillors they could do something to help. He was told that officers regularly attend Epping Forest College Career Festival where our apprentices lead on this and talk to the students and roll out the publicity for this scheme.

Councillor Patel asked if we have asked the current graduate intake to complete a questionnaire  to find out what they wanted and what they liked about us. Ms Maginnis replied that Mr Nicholas was our one and only graduate so far as we had not recruited anyone this year. He has given us some feedback on his time here and was very positive about our programme.

Councillor Kane added that we needed a clear idea of what we could do to attract  graduates and apprentices here.

Councillor Jennings asked what they did when they had finished their time here. Ms Maginnis said that we liked to keep them here and continue working with us under our “grow your own” scheme after they finished their formal time here.  They were valuable assets.  

RESOLVED:

That the Committee reviewed and identified any actions arising from the Quarter two progress of the Corporate Plan Key Action Plan for 2016/17 that fell within its area of responsibility.