Agenda item

Report from the Assistant Chief Executive.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:-

1.    Receive the annual report, noting the social value commitments along with outcomes delivered. 

2.    Approve the use of the new national TOMs (Themes, Outcomes, Measures) as detailed in Appendix 2.

3.    Approve that the key priorities for 2025 include: 

a.    Continuing the work on employee ownership. 

b.    Delivering the partnership social value action plan with Social Value Portal, working towards the delivery of increased social value commitments across Rotherham’s anchor network. 

c.     Delivering further support to local businesses through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund social value project.

d.    Upskilling Council staff through training initiatives and one-to-one support. 

At the Chair’s invitation the Leader, Councillor Read introduced the report and highlighted the following aspects:

·       The Council adopted its social value policy in 2019.

·       The policy aimed to use the procurement process to incentivise certain behaviours from suppliers.

·       The Key Objectives were around:

o   Encouraging suppliers to employ more local people.

o   Promoting the payment of the real living wage.

o   Increasing the proportion of Council spend within the local economy.

• The Council worked with the Social Value Portal, a national organisation that provided a set of measures to quantify social value activities.
• The annual report provided an update on the social value activities and commitments made by suppliers.
• Over the course of the last year there was an increase of about £5 million in social value commitments.
• An additional £4 million worth of social value was delivered.

·       For example, when entering a contract, a supplier might commit to employing 10 people in Rotherham, which was then tracked and reported as delivered social value.

·       In terms of local spend, the Council had spent an additional £28 million in the local economy over the past year, bringing the total to £105 million.

• The proportion of local spend as a percentage of total spend had decreased slightly by 4% but remained broadly in line with previous years.
• Two significant revenue contracts were signed before the social value policy was implemented, these were the Housing Repairs and Maintenance contracts. Efforts were being made to align their activities with the policy.

·       One of those contracts had spent £3.1 million in social value over the past year, which would increase the overall social value by 25%.

·       The Social Value Portal had rationalized its measures, adjusting how some measures worked.

·       The Council had taken the opportunity to refine its measures to better align with its priorities, reducing the number of measures to around 20-21.

·       Two members of staff in the procurement team now worked directly on social value activities.

·       The Council had contracted with Go For Growth to help local companies understand and benefit from public sector procurement. This was funded through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF).

·       The Council continued to work with partners such as the police, hospital, health partners, and the Chamber of Commerce to align procurement activities and maximize local benefits.

·       A new role of an Employee Ownership Officer had been recruited to promote employee ownership models and support businesses considering this option. The officer was in the early stages of their role, with more detailed updates expected in the next annual report.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised earlier.

Councillor Keenan welcomed the continuation of the real living wage and asked if the council had extended this standard to all its in-scope contracts? The Leader confirmed it was in progress, with a period required for contracts to roll around. The Head of Policy, Performance and Intelligence added that the renewal time for the accreditation was towards the end of August, early September, and they could share that information.

Councillor Allen found the report incredibly positive and asked if there were any areas where the council could have done better? The Leader acknowledged the positive impact but noted the devil was in the detail, particularly in ensuring suppliers delivered on their social value commitments. He emphasised the need for improvements in contract management and training for staff.

Councillor Allen asked about partner involvement in selecting the TOMS (Themes, Outcomes, and Measures) for social value? The Leader explained the original TOMS were chosen before partnership work began. There was engagement with partners, who prioritised environmental measures more than the council did. The Assistant Chief Executive noted the Council had been focused on the Council having an impact in the local economy, so about having more jobs, more apprenticeships and higher levels of skills for residents. The Chamber of Commerce had indicated that Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME’s) wanted to focus their social value actions around providing decarbonisation and mentoring support.

Councillor Blackham questioned the role and impact of the Employee Ownership Hub Manager, expressing concern about the boundaries of the post. The Leader explained the role of the Hub Manager was offering specialist advice and support for different models of business ownership, emphasising the importance of keeping money and ownership within the local economy. This role fitted alongside the existing business advice and support offered by the Council.

Councillor Monk sought assurance that the council was not moving away from focusing on the supply chain, particularly regarding the real living wage and inclusive hiring. The Leader gave assurance that the focus remained on those areas, with improvements expected in the way real living wage measures were framed.

Councillor Yasseen supported the aspirations of the social value policy but emphasised the need for detailed data on the impact, particularly in terms of geography and protected groups, suggesting an independent analysis of the program. The Leader agreed to share existing data and give consideration to an independent analysis. Noting that some aspects of data would be more difficult to track than others. The Social Value Policy had provided measurable impact and benefits for Rotherham. The Head of Policy, Performance and Intelligence and the Service Manager, Procurement added details on connecting contractors with beneficiaries and the importance of partnership work. The Assistant Chief Executive noted the important thing about the partnership piece of work had been in recognising that collectively there was £535 million worth of expenditure across partners that should be maximised and exploited to the fullest benefit of local residents. Some partners were concerned what their role would be if not spending lots of money, but the conduit role that connected the Council with other procurers of goods and services to SMEs or to voluntary sector organisations who could either be a part of the supply chain or recipients of the social value commitment, such as mentoring was just as important and valuable.

Councillor A Carter raised concerns about the overall cost of the social value policy and asked if there were any invest to save aspects that benefited the council and taxpayers. The Leader acknowledged the difficulty in tracking direct correlations but emphasised the measurable impacts and the importance of incentivising positive business behaviours.

Councillor Brent asked for clarification on the term "apprenticeship weeks" and the number of completed apprenticeships. The Leader explained that “apprenticeship weeks” referred to the number of weeks someone had been on an apprenticeship, and the figures represented the aggregate data rather than completed apprenticeships.

Councillor Tinsley inquired about efforts to increase business within Rotherham, such as offering council business rate discounts for paying the real living wage. The Leader noted that while they engage with businesses through the Chamber of Commerce, there is no separate campaign for business rate discounts.

Councillor Blackham asked if the requirements on contractors and suppliers had led to increased costs and how the council would handle this. The Leader

and the Service Manager, Procurement, explained that while there may be some cost increases, they were not solely due to social value measures. The economic benefit to society was considered, and many activities were already happening.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1.    Receive the annual report, noting the social value commitments along with outcomes delivered. 

2.    Approve the use of the new national TOMs (Themes, Outcomes, Measures) as detailed in Appendix 2.

3.    Approve that the key priorities for 2025 include: 

a.    Continuing the work on employee ownership. 

b.    Delivering the partnership social value action plan with Social Value Portal, working towards the delivery of increased social value commitments across Rotherham’s anchor network. 

c.     Delivering further support to local businesses through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund social value project.

d.    Upskilling Council staff through training initiatives and one-to-one support. 

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

·       OSMB would be provided with a list of all contracts that fall within the eligibility criteria for the Real Living Wage accreditation.