To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor GR Swinford.

To receive details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

No substitutes were present.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members.

8.       Fire and Rescue Service Consultation Response

Councillor Brig P Jones CBE, Non-Pecuniary, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority Member.

9.       School Examination Performance

Councillor ACR Chappell, Non-Pecuniary, Governor of The Hereford Academy.

Councillor BA Durkin, Non-Pecuniary, Governor of King's Caple Primary School.

Councillor EPJ Harvey, Non-Pecuniary, Governor of Ledbury Primary School.

Councillor JW Hope MBE, Non-Pecuniary, Governor of Eardisley Primary School.

Councillor R Preece, Non-Pecuniary, Governor of St. Martin's Primary School, Hereford.

Councillor A Seldon, Non-Pecuniary, Governor of St. Peter's Primary School, Bromyard

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 11 November 2013 and 10 December 2013.

The minutes of the meetings held on 11 November 2013 and 10 December 2013 were received.

The following amendments were proposed:

11 November 2013     Minute 35, replace reference to the ‘Income and Charging Task and Finish Group’ with ‘Scrutiny Review of On-Street Parking’.

10 December 2013     Minute 44, third paragraph before resolution, voting numbers to be inserted.

RESOLVED:  That, subject to the above amendments, the minutes of the meetings held on 11 November 2013 and 10 December 2013 approved as correct records and be signed by the Chairman.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

(There will be no discussion of the issue at the time when the matter is raised. Consideration will be given to whether it should form part of the Committee’s work programme when compared with other competing priorities.)

Attention was drawn to Supplement 2 to the agenda which contained a request from Dr. RB Williams, on behalf of CPRE Herefordshire, for the Committee to explore further the Council’s position relating to the 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS).  The supplement also included a comment from the Council’s Team Leader Strategic Planning.

The Chairman noted that the matter had been discussed at the 11 November 2013 meeting of the Committee (minute 33 refers) and invited Dr. Williams to outline his concerns.  Dr. Williams commented that: without an identified 5YHLS, the presumption in favour of development, contained in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, could leave greenfield sites vulnerable; there was concern about the Council’s strategy, especially as no figures had been published about the calculations used by the authority; and there was a need for transparency about how the 5YHLS would be progressed.

The Chairman noted the importance of this issue within the planning system and considered that further clarification was needed about the definition of the 5YHLS and the methodologies applied.  The Chairman questioned whether a Task and Finish Group should review the issues.  A Committee Member noted that an Inspector’s decision was awaited on a recent planning inquiry and suggested that any further work be held in abeyance pending the findings and associated outcomes.

The Director for Economy, Communities and Corporate explained the relevance of the planning inquiry to inform the position on the 5YHLS in Herefordshire and said that a further written response would be given to Dr. Williams, along with the calculations used; it would also be established whether the calculations had been published to the Council’s website.

The Chairman invited a member of the public to comment.  Mrs. Morawiecka noted that, at the 11 November 2013 meeting, the Chairman had requested that the calculations be circulated to the Committee and to town and parish councils by the end of November 2013.  The Chairman requested that an information report be prepared for a future meeting.

The Chairman invited further suggestions from the members of the public present.  Mrs. Morawiecka said that, at the 11 November 2013 meeting, she had requested that an indication be provided of when a new Local Transport Plan would be available but a response had not been received.  The Director said that he would speak to the Assistant Director Economy, Environment and Commercial in order to obtain an up-to-date position.

To note questions received from the public and the items to which they relate.

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a Scrutiny Committee meeting so long as the question is directly related to an item listed on the agenda below.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than two working days before the meeting to the officer named on the cover of this agenda).

The Chairman reported that Mrs. Morawiecka had submitted some questions immediately before the start of the meeting on the item on ‘Freedom of Information and Arm’s Length Companies - An Update’.  As these questions had not been received within the required timeframe (no later than two working days before the meeting), responses could not be provided at the meeting and they had been passed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Mrs. Morawiecka asked when the related questions she had asked at the 11 November 2013 meeting would be answered.  The Solicitor to the Council commented that the report, deferred in November 2013 and resubmitted to this meeting, primarily addressed how the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied to arm’s length companies, such as Hereford Futures Ltd.  However, it was now clear that a broader report was needed to address the outstanding points.  Therefore, a further report would be prepared for the 10 March 2014 meeting of the Committee.

Mrs. Morawiecka commented that her concerns were not just about value for money but were also related to: the definition of arm’s length companies; the guarantees made by the Council to Hereford Futures Ltd and ongoing liabilities; and the operation and governance of such companies.

The Chairman noted that many people had concerns, both locally and nationally, about how public money was being accounted for.

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

The Chairman suggested the commissioning of an additional Task and Finish Group to consider the hand-over of public realm services from Amey to Balfour Beatty.

It was noted that there was a Committee scheduled for Monday 12 May 2014; it was incorrectly listed as 2 May 2014 on the Work Programme.

The Vice-Chairman noted that a key decision was to be considered by the Cabinet Member Infrastructure on or after 17 January 2014 in respect of the Hoople Contract.  In view of this, it was suggested that a briefing note be circulated to Members, to inform when a report on Hoople would be presented to the Committee.

In response to a question from a co-opted member, it was reported that the Council’s approach to consultation processes remained an area of interest for both scrutiny committees and there was an intention to convene a joint Task and Finish Group on this issue in due course.

A Notice of Motion at Council on 18 October 2013 requested the Committee to consider the impacts of Fire and Rescue Service proposals, a Task and Finish Group was convened to prepare a consultation response and this will be circulated for consideration by the Committee.

Further to a Notice of Motion at Council on 18 October 2013 which requested the Committee to consider the impacts of the Fire and Rescue Service proposals, the Chairman presented the report of the Task and Finish Group that had been convened to prepare a consultation response; the report was circulated in Supplement 2 to the agenda.  He added that the proposals were not ideal but recognised that the service faced significant financial pressures.

The Committee considered the report, the principal points included:

a.       Members were reminded that the Fire and Rescue Authority was an  autonomous body.

b.       A Committee Member suggested a further recommendation about the need for good collaboration not only between fire and rescue authorities but also with the other emergency services; in particular, to explore the potential for further savings through the co-location of fire and police stations.  Another Committee Member commented that discussions with other authorities and bodies were taking place.  The Chairman acknowledged the point but considered this to be outside the scope of this particular consultation.

c.       A Member in attendance expressed concern that reductions in the numbers of both wholetime and retained fire fighters would have a detrimental impact, especially the consequential loss of skills and experience.  The Chairman advised that the Task and Finish Group had explored related issues with the Chief Fire Officer and noted that resources were frequently transferred between Herefordshire and Worcestershire. 

d.       A Member in attendance said that a number of firefighters had commented on the need for management savings rather than reducing frontline provision.

e.       A Committee Member questioned whether one of the recommendations could be amended to reflect the need to maintain appropriate levels of training for retained firefighters.  Another Committee Member did not feel this necessary given the statutory training requirements that the service had to adhere to.

f.       Referring to the ‘To Whom Did We Speak?’ section in the report, a Committee Member questioned why other interested parties had not been consulted, such as the Fire Brigades Union.  The Chairman acknowledged that a broader range of views might have been obtained but emphasised the time pressure to provide a consultation response and noted that other bodies would submit their own responses to the consultation.

g.       Referring to paragraph 5.2 of the report (the position regarding Ledbury), the Vice-Chairman commented that she did not welcome the proposals from a county perspective, as the reduction in the number of fire engines would have an impact on the service’s ability to respond to fire, rescue and road traffic collision incidents throughout Herefordshire, particularly when crews were deployed to support incidents outside the county.  The Vice-Chairman said that assurance should be obtained about the balance of resources in Herefordshire when compared with Worcestershire.  She expressed further concerns about response times in the county, especially given current problems with flooding, and the level of cover that would remain if the proposals were implemented.

h.       The Chairman advised that the Task and Finish Group had made strong representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider school performance for summer 2013 and the school improvement partnership strategy and framework approved by the Cabinet Member for Young People and Children’s Wellbeing to improve performance for Herefordshire’s children and young people.

The Chairman commented that, despite recent legislative changes regarding free schools and academies, local authorities were still expected to monitor school performance and drew attention to the report ‘Back to school: Ways for scrutiny to influence local education and support school leaders to improve results’ published by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and the Local Government Association.

The Assistant Director Education and Commissioning, Children’s Wellbeing introduced the report, the key points included:

i.        The role of the local authority had changed but the Council still had an overall responsibility around education, including the quality and sufficiency of education and as an advocate for children and young people.  The role of, and demands on, school governors had also changed.

ii.       It was noted that the ‘Back to school report’ suggested topics for scrutiny of performance and it was commented that school performance could form part of the annual work programme of the Committee.

iii.      A number of headline figures were good, with some outstanding performance by individual schools and by individual pupils.  However, other figures were not where the authority or schools would wish them to be, particularly in relation to overall attainment at different key stages which were at or below national averages, and the progress of vulnerable groups compared to their peers where Herefordshire was in the bottom quartile in the country.

iv.      Attention was drawn to Appendix 1 to the report, ‘Herefordshire School Improvement Partnership Strategy and Framework to Improve Outcomes for Learners in Herefordshire 2013/14’.  It was reported that the Herefordshire School Improvement Partnership (HSIP) had been established in autumn 2013 and included representatives from Herefordshire Council, the Diocese of Hereford, the Archdiocese of Cardiff, and school leaders, governors and staff.  The strategy and framework set out a risk based approach, with schools assessed on a number of factors.  This facilitated dialogue with and between schools about actions to improve pupil performance.

v.       Attention was also drawn to the ‘Closing the Gap’ project which was an initiative to address the significant variations between groups of pupils, including pupils eligible for free school meals and pupils with English as an additional language.

vi.      It was reported that the resources available for school improvement had reduced over a number of years, with the service cut by 60%, partly due to the overall budget position but also because of the changing role of the local authority.  The HSIP provided an opportunity to generate a mutual approach to school improvement.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Assistant Director advised that there were national descriptors of vulnerable groups, enabling comparisons to be made.  The authority had broadened the scope locally to look at any pupil that was at risk of not making the level of progress expected.

The Interim Head of Service gave the presentation ‘Summary Education Performance Herefordshire’ (as provided in Supplement 1 to the agenda) which provided an overview of performance against key measures.  The principal points of the presentation included:

Key Stage (KS) 5 (18  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To update the Committee on the freedom of information report presented on 4 March 2013; this item was deferred at the 11 November 2013 meeting.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that this item had been carried forward from the last meeting (minute 36 refers).  He commented that, although specifically about advice previously given to the Committee about Hereford Futures Ltd, the associated issues were relevant to other arm’s length companies set up by councils. 

The Solicitor to the Council commented on the following:

a)      The matter went back to at least March 2013, when the Committee received a report entitled ‘Freedom of Information and Arm’s Length Companies’ (minute 53 of 2012/13 refers);

b)      The current report provided an opinion on the narrow technical question as to whether the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applied to Hereford Futures Ltd and, for the reasons set out in the report, it was concluded that it did not.

c)      It was noted that, from the questions received and comments made, there were still issues about governance and accountability.

d)      It was proposed that a further report be presented to the 10 March 2014 meeting, primarily focussing on Hereford Futures Ltd but also picking up matters of general applicability to other companies.  Issues would include: Council money invested in Hereford Futures Ltd; the support provided in terms of officer time, as far as it was quantifiable; Council liabilities going forward; and what had been achieved through mechanism of Hereford Futures Ltd.

The Vice-Chairman expressed concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the ownership and accountability of Hereford Futures Ltd.  In response to questions, the Solicitor to the Council explained that:

i)        the Chief Executive of Hereford Futures Ltd had indicated that the current members were directors of the company (further research would be undertaken to inform the next report);

ii)       companies limited by guarantee did not have shares and were owned by the members;

iii)      he did not have access to the company’s own records to enable a definitive answer to be given about ownership but it seemed that, where a council did not have a majority of directors on a company limited by guarantee, FOIA did not apply;

iv)      it was appropriate for councillors to seek assurance that public money had been properly accounted for; and

v)      the benefits of Hereford Futures Ltd would be explored in the next report.  It was noted that companies limited by guarantee in other areas had been successful in securing external funding that might not otherwise have been available to councils or council controlled companies.

The Vice-Chairman said that the latest registered accounts for Hereford Futures Ltd suggested that, for the last two years, the company had been almost entirely, if not entirely, funded by money from Herefordshire Council.  She requested that the next report consider the proportion of the funding received by the company from Herefordshire Council and from outside bodies.  The Solicitor to the Council said that details of Council funding could be provided and he would endeavour to obtain information from the company about other sources of funding.

The Committee discussed the report and related issues, the principal points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

There will be special meetings of the Scrutiny Committees on Monday 13 January 2014, to consider the budget proposals.

The Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee will convene at 10.00am to discuss the health and social care elements of the budget.  The presentation on the budget shall be given for all Scrutiny Members in this session.  General Overview and Scrutiny Committee will then convene at 11.30am, or upon the rising of the Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to discuss all other elements of the budget.

Please note, all Scrutiny Members should attend both sessions, i.e. from 10.00am.

It was noted that there would be special meetings of the scrutiny committees on Monday 13 January 2014 to consider the budget proposals.