Agenda item

Leader

He updated members on the latest position regarding Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPS). Several counties had been successful in their applications and the county was now aiming for a single county bid. He hoped that the situation would be clarified in the near future.

He welcomed colleagues from Gloucestershire First who were in attendance at the meeting and referred to the 50% cut in the budget for Gloucestershire First (GF) at county level. A merger between the Gloucestershire Development Agency (GDA) and GF at board level was being considered.

The future of Economic Development at Cheltenham Borough Council was also being reviewed and a recent meeting with representatives from Gloucester City had considered how the two councils could work collectively with the support of Gloucestershire First.

Cabinet Member Corporate Services

He reported that he had had a very positive meeting with the management group of the four councils making up the GO programme. All councils were very keen to move the project forward and drive out savings whilst maintaining their levels of service and improving resilience. This was all very encouraging. Although the business case was robust as it stood, members of the group were keen to drive out further savings earlier by moving down the shared services route more quickly. The authorities were also looking for the potential to share officer expertise by having a flexible approach to secondments and work being done on a quid pro quo basis.

On commissioning, the member working group was looking at members’ roles in the organisation going forward. He acknowledged that this was a key concern for members even though they may have voted in support of commissioning.   He stressed that going forward there would be an important role for overview and scrutiny and suggested that it may be a good time to review the scrutiny structure and consider giving task and finish groups more of a major role in carrying out scrutiny reviews.  Members also sought clarification on who they would contact if there were problems with a service. He didn’t have all the answers but this was a debate for members to have and he advised that he would be writing to all members on this issue.

He reminded members that the shared legal service between Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, Onelegal, had now been in place for one year and a joint member group was carrying out a review and they would report back their findings to this committee.

Councillor Wall expressed concerns that the district councils were driving forward the officer structures for commissioning ahead of the member roles being agreed. He considered that there was a real risk that scrutiny may be left with no power or role in the future.

In response, the Cabinet Member Corporate Services said that the member working group had been set up to address these very issues. He considered that commissioning could be a way of reinvigorating members’ involvement in the business of the council, which in some areas had diminished with the adoption of the Executive arrangements.