Agenda item

Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services & Performance Management, Mr K Harlock, Commercial Services Director and Mr T Molloy, Programme Manager, Office Transformation and Mr R Palmer, Senior Personnel Officer will attend the meeting between 10.30am and 11.00am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management, Mr Kevin Harlock, Commercial Services Director, Mr Tom Molloy, Programme Manager, Office Transformation, Mr Robert Palmer, Senior Personnel Officer were present for this item.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management explained that the proposals did not affect the reception at Sessions House, the figures on the number of visitors to KCC receptions showed that the majority were visitors to Sessions House reception.  In the current financial climate the Council needed to change how business was undertaken, there would be more focus on electronic methods and the need for reception facilities had to be reviewed.   The Cabinet Member confirmed that 6 employees were affected by the proposal, which equated to 4.8 full time equivalent members of staff.  The proposals were to reduce this to 2 full time equivalent members of staff and officers would ensure that where possible staff affected would be redeployed elsewhere. 

In response to a question from the Chairman as to why the Chief Executive was not present to answer for a Chief Officer group decision, Mr Harlock explained that Commercial Services managed the reception facilities. 

Mr Manning, one of the Joint Vice Chairmen of the Committee, stated that it was essential that the Council gave the right impression, the visitors needed to be dealt with efficiently, Members asked for confirmation of how the proposals would work in practice.  Mr Gough explained that the overwhelming bulk of visitors were to Sessions House reception, there were very few visitors to Cantium House reception and the bulk of visitors to Invicta House were KCC staff.  It was the intention that members of the public would be met by the staff they were visiting. 

The Chairman asked whether figures were available for the numbers of members of the public who visited the Maidstone Gateway?

In response to a concern from Members about the fire evacuation procedure Mr Harlock explained that reception staff were responsible for overseeing the safe evacuation of public and staff from the reception areas, there would be no change to the fire alarm procedures and fire wardens and management would continue to ensure a quick evacuation in the instance of a fire alarm. 

Mr Christie stated that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee were representing the public and the image of the Council, he had concerns that costs which would be saved by reducing the receptionist staff would be borne by other members of staff collecting their visitors.  Mr Harlock explained that in time the functions and duties of the reception staff would change, for example tenders were now being received electronically.  Other Members raised concerns that additional burdens would be placed on secretarial staff who would have to continually meet visitors to each Council building. 

In response to a question Mr Harlock explained that the proposal relied on the communication of officers, who would be responsible for ensuring a smooth arrival of visitors, touch screens were currently not part of the proposals and there was currently a consultation period during which officers would welcome any suggestions for consideration.

In response to a question from Mr King the witnesses confirmed that visitors would still be able to sign in, further consideration would be given to allocating swipe cards to visitors.  Infrequent visitors would be asked to report to Sessions and would be collected, or they would be met by a member of staff from Invicta reception area.

In response to a question from the Chairman about whether a Health and Safety Risk assessment was carried out before the Chief Officer Group took the decision, Mr Harlock confirmed that a risk assessment and equality impact assessment had been undertaken now.  It was not clear whether this informed the Chief Officer Group in their decision. 

Members were concerned that they did not have enough information to feel satisfied that the alternatives being suggested were of the level that was expected of the County Council.  Mr Harlock explained that during the consultation period with staff detailed processes and procedures would be produced and made widely available to staff.

The Chairman asked which Committee the processes and procedures information would be considered at, Mr Gough assured Members that in principle he had no problem with the issues being considered by a Council Committee, the Corporate POSC being perhaps the most appropriate to reassure Members with the detail. 

The Chairman raised concerns about the hidden costs of the proposals, further detail was necessary in the report to the Council Committee.  Mr Lees asked for evidence of the number of visitors who were reporting to the Gateways.  Mr Gough stated that there was a need to separate the visitors into KCC staff and external visitors, Gateways were only part of the debate and some of the issues already raised by Members might already exist, such as visitors moving around the Council buildings. 

The Chairman asked whether a Business Case was put to the Chief Officer Group before they made their decision, Mr Harlock confirmed that a Business Case did exist and Mr Gough stated that it would be made available to Members of the Committee. 

Mr Gough explained that the intention was not to drive visitors from Invicta House to the Gateway, but that there were trends that made this a sensible proposal.  Regarding the holding area for visitors, the Atrium at Invicta could be used as a holding area for visitors if there was insufficient capacity at Sessions House. 

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Scrutiny:

1. Thank Mr Gough, Mr Harlock, Mr Molloy and Mr Palmer for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions

2. Regret that Members had not been involved in a decision which was of importance to them in their role as employer and to their constituents.

3. Ask that a copy of the Business Case for the proposal to close the reception facilities, which Mr Harlock confirmed was considered by the Chief Officer Group, be circulated to all Members of the Committee

4. Express concern regarding the logistics of the proposed arrangements in terms of the efficient flow of visitors between KCC buildings and the level of face-to-face service that Members believe is appropriate for KCC offices

5. Express concern that the proposals overall lacked reality and apparent evidence; and that the relatively small savings that could be realised would be outweighed by additional costs being incurred elsewhere

6. Ask that the issue be considered by the Scrutiny Board, possibly through the Corporate POSC, before a final decision is made.

7. The Scrutiny Board, and/or Corporate POSC be provided with the following information: Number of people using the Maidstone Gateway; the appropriateness of using a holding area in Sessions House for visitors waiting to access other buildings; full details of all Risk and Health and Safety assessments, particularly with regard to fire evacuation, unauthorised access to swiped areas of the buildings etc.