Agenda item

Reports by the Leader of the Council. 

The Leader of the Council introduced the Star Chamber reports which had been circulated with regard to Phases II and III of the process.  It was reported that the Star Chamber was going through each Cabinet Member’s portfolio and looking at the services for which they were responsible in order to seek savings of 2.5% or any other non-cashable efficiencies.  It was noted that a financial savings target of approximately £1.5m over a two years period had been set in the Medium Term Financial Strategy to keep annual Council Tax increases below 5%.  These targets were in line with the Gershon efficiency targets that had been set for the Council by Government.   

The Leader of the Council further reported that Star Chamber Phase III was still in its early stages but steady progress was being made.  However, even at this stage, it was becoming clear that the most difficult task would be identifying sufficient savings in the second year of the MTFS rather than next year, in 2006/07.  Star Chamber was however, not complacent in its approach to pursuing savings for 2006/07 as these would contribute positively to the two year position overall.  The Leader of the Council was keen to emphasise that each Cabinet member, including himself, and existing service delivery methods, were being robustly challenged during this process.

Questions were asked as to whether any savings had been identified and it was reported that a number of areas had been identified which could contribute savings or efficiencies and that in some cases, further work was required.  The key areas considered so far were set out in the appendices of the report.  Once the process was completed, it would allow the Cabinet to prepare their budget and policy framework proposals which would be presented to Council in February.

Concern was expressed with regard to the timescale for considering if open access software could generate savings and efficiencies, and in particular, the delay in providing budgetary information with regard to what was currently being spent on non-open software.  The Corporate Director (Central Services) informed the panel that following consideration of the matter at this Panel, the matter had been referred to the E Government Cabinet Liaison Group.  The Group had requested officers to prepare a report on the current position but acknowledged that this piece of work was not in the Information Service Business Plan.  However, officers were due to report back to the Group in December on this matter with a view to scoping a project on Open Source Software that could be fully resourced in 2006/07.  It was reported that the E Government Group was fully aware that other Councils and public organisations had made savings in this area but until the facts were available it was impossible to anticipate what, if any, savings could be generated.  It was acknowledged that any migration away from existing systems and applications was not a short term issue and one that could impact on every aspect of how the Council delivered its services to the public.  Councillor Whitelegg requested that it be formally noted that he was not happy at the slow progress being made on this subject and requested that any progress report should as a minimum, include details of how much Lancaster City Council spent on non-open access software in the last twelve month period.  Members were further advised that the report presented to the E Government Group would be available to members of this Panel.

Moving on, the meeting heard how much of the Star Chamber process was about reviewing existing spending patterns and methods of providing services.  Star Chamber was however, not the only mechanism that was working towards identifying improvements in value for money and the delivery of cost effective services.  The Corporate Director (Central Services) outlined a range of initiatives that were contributing to this process and advised that he was in the process of preparing a Value for Money/Efficiency Strategy that pulled all these together into one framework document.  The Corporate Director offered to report back to the Panel once this strategy had been prepared.

Finally, in answer to a specific question regarding the idea of Councils selling derelict land for a nominal fee of £1, the Leader of the Council confirmed that he was aware of a proposal to transfer assets to community organisations for less than capital value if Councils felt it was appropriate but they were under no obligation to do so.

Resolved:

That the Leader of the Council be thanked for his attendance at the meeting and that the report be noted.