Agenda item

To consider performance against the Council Plan 2015-20 for the period 1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016.

Mrs Ruth Henshaw, Corporate Development Officer presented the performance against the Council Plan 2015/2020 for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and highlighted the key exceptions.

Members raised a number of questions relating to the indicator ‘Average number of days lost to sickness absence’. It was noted that the main reasons for absence were stress, depression and anxiety, closely followed by musculo-skeletal problems. Members queried the mechanisms in place for helping staff deal with stress and whether work place assessments were undertaken. In response, the Committee was advised that there was a lot of support available to staff, which included a mandatory ipool module for staff on the set up of their workstation and a training course on ‘Coping with Pressure and Increasing Resilience’. The Committee noted that the role of being an elected Member was also stressful and recommended that the support for officers for dealing with stress also be provided for Members.

Members questioned whether data was available on sickness absence for over the past five years to demonstrate whether there had been any impact on the indicator as a result of budget cuts. Mrs Henshaw reported that she would investigate the availability of the data and circulate the information to Committee Members outside of the meeting.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the low completion rates of Individual Performance Appraisals in certain departments, with specific reference being made to the completion rate in Children’s Services. Councillor Campbell advised that part of the reason for the low completion rate of Individual Performance Appraisals was due to a significant number of managers being too busy dealing with individual caseloads. She explained that work had been undertaken to address workloads and that it was hoped that an improvement would soon be demonstrated. Mr Cavill also advised that that the performance being presented evidenced the number of Individual Performance Appraisals that had been measured on the system. However, he explained there had been some issues with managers recording IPAs onto the relatively new system to the extent that the number of IPAs completed would actually be slightly higher than what had been recorded.

Members noted the indicators relating to ‘Visitor numbers’ and ‘Visitor satisfaction’ and challenged the apparent contradiction with evidence of tourism performance that had been provided at the previous meeting of the Committee. Mr Cavill explained that a review of all indicators was due to take place to ensure that what was being measured was appropriate to achieving the plans for tourism. He considered that an indicator for the level of spend in the visitor economy would be more appropriate than the absolute number of visitors. With regards to visitor satisfaction, Mr Cavill advised that there was information collected at individual attractions and events that demonstrated a high level of satisfaction. However, the particular performance indicator data being presented was based on the omnibus survey that was conducted three times a year and that surveyed approximately 5,000 people. It was noted that over 50 per cent of visitors surveyed were from outside of the North West.

The Committee also queried the plans to increase the number of people registered on the electoral roll. Mrs Henshaw advised that the information would be sought and circulated to Members outside of the meeting.

The Committee agreed:

1) To recommend that the support for officers for dealing with stress also be provided for Members.

2) To request that data on sickness absence over the past five years be circulated to Members outside of the meeting.

3) To request that information on the plans to increase the number of people registered on the electoral roll be circulated to Members outside of the meeting.

Background papers: None.