To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors BA Baker, PGH Cutter, JF Johnson and A Warmington.

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

Councillor CA Gandy substituted for Councillor BA Baker, Councillor EPJ Harvey for Councillor A Warmington and Councillor PG Newman for Councillor JF Johnson.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

None.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2017.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2017 be approved as a correct record.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

Details of the scheme and related guidance are available here:

 https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/info/200148/your_council/61/get_involved

Please submit questions to councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk

The deadline for the receipt of questions is Wenesday  6 December 2017 at 5.00 pm.

Accepted questions will be published as a supplement prior to the meeting.

None.

To receive any written questions from members of the council.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00 pm on Wednesday 6 December 2017.

Accepted questions will be published as a supplement prior to the meeting.

Please submit questions to councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk

None.

To seek the views of the general scrutiny committee on the budget proposals for 2018-19 and updated medium term financial strategy (MTFS).

The Committee’s views were invited on the budget proposals for 2018-19 and the updated medium term financial strategy.

Members of the Adults and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee and the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee had been invited to attend the meeting.  The procedure for the meeting provided for each directorate budget to be considered in turn before the General Scrutiny Committee formulated its recommendations.

The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) gave a presentation, a copy of which had been published with the agenda papers.

Adults and Wellbeing Budget

The Director for Adults and Wellbeing (DAW) commented that the budget was heavily dependent on income from people receiving services and grants.  In common with other authorities the service faced pressure from increasing costs, including an increase in the minimum wage, and demographic changes as a result of increasing numbers of people with a learning disability of working age and older people.  A range of savings had been identified but these were challenging.

The following principal points were made on the adults and wellbeing directorate budget:

Councillor J Stone as Vice-Chairman of the Adults Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee supported the comments made by the Director noting the pressures faced and the measures being put in place to address them.

Comments had also been submitted in advance by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Adults and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.  Councillor Bowen read these to the meeting.  In summary the principal points were:

·        Confirmation was sought that the rapidly growing no of the very elderly (over 85s) been factored in to any proposals?

The DAW commented that account was taken of this point.  However, there was not a simple correlation between age and care need.

·        It was asked whether account had been taken of the rise in the number of people with learning disabilities and the additional numbers that might be expected to be generated through population growth given the proposed increase in housing in the county.

The DAW commented that the directorate was mindful of this point.  The increasing number of people with a learning disability living longer into older age had a very significant impact on the budget with the net spend now equating to the net spend on older people.  Account would be taken in the updated housing needs forecast, which was due to be complete in the new year. 

·        Public Health and other sources were seeking to encourage people to take better care of themselves and allow them to remain within their communities.  The Public Health budget should therefore be protected.  However, this was a long term project and account had to be taken of the fact that many residents aged 85+ had complex and multiple long term health needs which may require social care support.

The DAW commented that the public health budget was currently ring-fenced. The aim was to ensure that funding was spent in areas where it would have the greatest impact on public health. This was not necessarily on what would traditionally be considered “public health” issues.

·        Account  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To review the proposed capital programme including proposed investment additions for 2018/19 onwards and determine whether to make any recommendations to inform and support the cabinet in developing its recommendations to Council.

The Committee was invited to consider the proposed capital programme including proposed investment additions for 2018/19 onwards and determine whether to make any recommendations to inform and support cabinet in making its recommendations to council.

The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) invited questions.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        A member commented that £7m had already been spent on the Southern Link Road some 20% of the estimated cost.  Assurance was sought that the project was deliverable within budget.

The DECC commented that the budget represented the best estimate but this could not be confirmed until the market was tested and contracts were let  he considered that the appropriate budget had been set to take the project forward.

·        It appeared that there was considerable carry forward of proposals.  It was questioned what the implications of this for delivery of the economic strategy.

The DECC considered that progress was being made on key projects and the timetable for delivery was not having a negative impact on the ecconomy.

·        It was proposed that resources should be found to invest in the model farm development at Hildersley, Ross-on-Wye, a vital infrastructure project.

·        In response to questions the CFO commented that he could provide information on the scoring system used for capital projects and, with reference to paragraph 16 of the report, how various funding sources had been applied to projects.  In terms of borrowing there had been a very slight rise in the cost.  This was being monitored but it was not expected that the rate would rise significantly.

·        The DECC provided further clarification of the capitalisation of funding for the Hereford bypass and how this became a saving on the revenue budget as a result.

·        The stated position had been that the western relief road would be funded by developer contributions but none of these had so far been received.  It was asked what the implications of this were.

The DECC commented that to date contributions had been received from Highways England and Midlands Connect although the majority of funding had been provided by the council.  It had not been envisaged that the project would be fully funded by developer contributions.  It had been expected Central Government grant would support the majority of the funding and the council would need to make some local contribution.  A number of bidding opportunities for government funding were expected over the next 12 months and S106 agreements would be negotiated as the major housing developments for Hereford came forward.

RESOLVED:  That it be recommended that the council makes funding available to enable the model farm development at Hildersley, Ross-on-Wye to proceed.

To review proposals that the council act as the accountable body for the new Hereford University, NMiTE (new model in technology & engineering), during its establishment phase.

The Committee was asked to review proposals that the council act as the accountable body for the new Hereford University NMiTE (new model in technology & engineering), during its establishment phase.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from NMiTE:  Professor Janusz Kozinski, President and Chief Executive Officer; David Sheppard, Interim Chief Operating Officer; NMiTE, David Nolan, Interim Finance Director, NMiTE; and Jon Gorringe, Finance Advisor to NMiTE, ex Director of Finance, Edinburgh University.

The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) gave a presentation as appended to these minutes.  This replaced that published at appendix 3 to the report.  Mr Sheppard outlined the Department for Education funding assurance programme setting out the basis on which grant payments would be paid, the timing of payments, the internal processes in place to ensure that the business plan was delivered, the control structures and the audit framework.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        However beneficial the proposed University might be, the proposal that the council act as accountable body posed a potential financial and reputational risk to the Council.  Accordingly, it was suggested that if the council agreed to act as the accountable body the council itself should establish its own robust and appropriate governance framework to supervise the discharge of this role.  The Council might decide that it wished to carry out this role itself or delegate that responsibility to a committee or sub-committee.  If Council did decide to delegate that responsibility it was requested that in making such a delegation there was clarity as to the role of the body to whom responsibility had been delegated.  This should include, for example, what reports it would be expected to receive, and the level of input that could be expected from the council’s external auditors, so that appropriate resources could be allocated to enable the delegated role to be discharged.  It was noted that the cost of this monitoring work would be chargeable to NMiTE. 

·        During the points on behalf of NMiTE it was noted that they wish to avoid duplication and cost.  NMiTE has established its own audit framework upon which the council could draw.  However, members considered it essential that the council had its own independent assurance framework process in place.

·        The cabinet member – finance, housing and corporate services suggested the closest parallel would perhaps be the role delegated to the Audit and Governance Committee in relation to review and monitoring of the waste contract.

·        It was confirmed that accountable body status only applied to the grant funding stream.  Private funding that NMiTE had to secure, and obtaining this was one of the milestones, would be managed directly by NMiTE.

·        The Chief Finance Officer commented that if milestones were not being met discussions would be held with NMiTE in the first instance and if matters could not be resolved a report would have to be made to the Department for Education (DfE) for advice on the next steps.  He also commented that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

To review the committee’s work programme.

The Committee was invited to review its work programme.

It was observed that attention needed to be given to the scheduling of work in relation to gathering evidence from Parish Councils in relation to Balfour Beatty Living Places, the proposed spotlight review on public realm improvements needed to accommodate students at the new university and clarification as to the timing of a further report on the Edgar Street Stadium, Hereford.

RESOLVED: That the draft work programme be noted.

The next scheduled meeting is 10:00 AM on Monday 29 January 2018.

Monday 29 January 2018 at 10.15 am.