Agenda item

(1)       The Committee were given the opportunity to read the following papers which were circulated at the meeting, the report to the Chief Officers Group on 2 December 2009, numbers of visitors to SHQ receptions and the recommendations from the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee on 9 December 2009. 

(2)       The Chairman explained that this item had been referred to this Committee from the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee on 9 December 2010 via the Scrutiny Board spokesmen. 

(3)       Mr Gough introduced a report which set out the rationale behind the programme for closing receptions in KCC office buildings beginning with headquarters (excluding Sessions House), which had been agreed by the Chief Officer Group.   This issue came within officer delegated responsibilities.  He stated that this matter needed to be taken in context and was about doing things in a different way to meet the financial pressures on the authority.

(4)       Mrs Dean, as Chairman of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, explained that Cabinet Scrutiny Committee had considered this matter at the request of the staff involved.  As a delegated officer decision it would not have gone to Members but in consultation with the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee Vice-Chairmen, it was unanimously decided that the Committee would consider this matter. She emphasised that Cabinet Scrutiny had only considered Strategic headquarters and had not considered any of the other buildings that were referred to in the report to this Committee.  She accepted that the situation in other buildings may be totally different to that at headquarters.  Mrs Dean referred to the number of visitors to headquarters and questioned whether Sessions House reception staff would be able to deal with this increase along with their other tasks.  She stated that she had requested an analysis of why people visited the receptions at headquarters and had not received this.  She made it clear that no one was suggesting that the public should not be directed to the Gateway and acknowledged that the majority of the public that visited Sessions House were going to the Crown Restaurant.  Cabinet Scrutiny Committee wanted to be assured that there had been sufficient information available to inform this decision, which was why the Committee had asked to see the relevant documents. Without having this information available Cabinet Scrutiny Committee did not know whether the savings outlined would be offset by the additional cost to directorates in staff time for collecting visitors etc.    She mentioned that UNISON had received a letter on 8 December 2009 stating that this proposal would go ahead.   At Cabinet Scrutiny Committee Members had emphasised the importance of people visiting headquarters being welcomed in an appropriate manner. 

(5)       Mr Gough expressed surprised at what appeared to be a staff issue being considered at Cabinet Scrutiny Committee as there were specific procedures to be used for these matters.     He explained that at the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee it was not possible to answer all Members questions as key officers were not available.   He confirmed that when the matter had been considered at Cabinet Scrutiny Committee the process had been stopped to enable the matter to be discussed by this Committee.

(6)       Mrs Oliver assured the Committee that a lot of detailed discussions had taken place with facilities and directorates.  The Chief Officers Group had been supportive of the proposal.  The paper circulated to this Committee gave details of how this would work, it would be a customer friendly service and she suggested that all reception staff should receive the same training as Gateway staff.  

(7)       The Leader clarified that the comments that he had made at the Cabinet meeting related to the importance of the recommendations from Cabinet Scrutiny Committee receiving a full response from the Cabinet Members.  

(8)       Mr Bullock shared the experience of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council who, as part of their transformation agenda, had closed their four reception areas and referred visitors to the Gateway.  However, it was still possible for the public to meet with officers.  The saving identified by the closure of reception areas at headquarters of £60k savings were important.

(9)       Mr Brazier raised concerns about potential security issues arising from the changes.  Mrs Oliver explained that if a pass was issued under the new system it could be time limited, and restricted to initial entry to a building and not all areas, she believed that this would not lessen the existing security arrangements currently in place, although acknowledged that no system could be completely secure

(10)     The importance of insuring that Members were provided with papers, on request, that informed decisions was emphasised. 

(11)     Mr Scholes, as a Member of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee clarified that, he was not against the strategic aim to save £60,000 but as the key officer was not able to attend the meeting for this item the detailed questions that Members had were not answered and this had been his concern.  This meeting and the information provided had rectified that situation. 

(12)     It was suggested that that the changes should be reviewed after a reasonable period.

(13)     Mr King reminded Members, in light of the financial situation facing local government, of the importance of challenging perceptions and looking at different ways to provide services. 

(14)     RESOLVED that the report, the programme phasing and the comments made by Members be noted.