To update the Committee on the freedom of information report presented on 4 March 2013.

The purpose of this item was to update the Committee on the ‘Freedom of Information [FOI] and Arm’s Length Companies’ report that was received by the Committee on 4 March 2013 (minute 53 refers).  The Chairman proposed that, as no senior officer involved with this report was present, the item be deferred.  He said that Mrs. Morawiecka had consistently raised concerns about the status of arm’s length companies and invited her to identify questions and information that she considered to be outstanding.

Mrs. Morawiecka made a number of points, including:

1.       Given that the authority intended to become more of a commissioning organisation, it was considered vital that there was clarity about arm’s length companies and FOI.

2.       The Committee had not been provided with the most up-to-date information from the financial statements for the company, even though these were publicly available.  Concern was expressed that the Monitoring Officer apparently did not have access to such information, despite the nature of the questions being asked.

3.       Issues with the 4 March 2013 report had been raised at the 8 April 2013 meeting (minute 60 refers) and at the 8 June 2013 meeting (minute 5 refers), where the Monitoring Officer agreed to provide a report to a future meeting on the Council’s part in the ownership of Hereford Futures.  Mrs. Morawiecka considered that the current report was inadequate, particularly the omission of reference to the latest financial statements.

4.       The accounts for the year ended 31 March 2012 showed that the turnover for Hereford Futures was less than the grant income received from the Council.

5.       Mrs. Morawiecka said that she had a letter that indicated that Herefordshire Council had made guarantees in relation to the pension for the Chief Executive of the joint venture company.

6.       The answers to previous questions had not been made public or circulated to Councillors.

7.       There was provision for officers to be seconded to arm’s length companies and, whilst this might not be unreasonable in principle, Councillors needed to be assured that they had access to up-to-date, independent and accurate information.

8.       Guarantees were being made by Herefordshire Council that Elected Members were not aware of.  It was claimed that Hereford Futures was not a going concern almost two years’ ago but the Council had guaranteed that sufficient income would be made available to satisfy the auditors.  Mrs. Morawiecka added that this decision had been taken before any Council budget meetings.

9.       Given the financial situation, there needed to be transparency about joint venture companies.

10.     A concern was expressed that Elected Members did not have access to minutes and other information.

11.     There needed to be clarity about the liabilities for the Council in respect of private arm’s length companies and associated employees.

The Chairman thanked Mrs. Morawiecka for her comments and said that he shared concerns about the accountability of third parties and the need to safeguard public money, especially as the Council was increasingly reliant upon private companies to deliver public services.

Members made a number of points, including:

a.       The complainant’s comments should be recorded in detail, to ensure that the matters were understood and addressed.

b.       Concerns were expressed about the limited information that had been provided and the consequential impact on public perception and confidence.

c.       New models for service delivery were inevitable but Members should be able to track public money as it passed through the system.

d.       The member of the public had been raising the subject for many months and it needed to be addressed urgently and with the seriousness that it deserved.

e.       Mrs. Morawiecka was thanked for continuing to bring these matters to the attention of the Committee.

f.       Given the lack of information available about Hereford Futures, it was questioned whether all board members were valued equally.

g.       It was commented that the report referred obliquely to the issues that had been raised and, consequently, Members could not be certain that questions had been properly addressed.

Referring to paragraph 7.2 of the report, the Vice-Chairman questioned whether the complainant had received an apology for the unacceptable delay in responding.  Mrs. Morawiecka confirmed that she had received a letter from the Solicitor to the Council but she did not consider that all of the points had been addressed.  She added that an apology should be given to Elected Members as they were dependent on information from officers in order to make sound decisions and there was a reputational risk if Members were not receiving correct and up-to-date information.

The Vice-Chairman commented on the need for the Head of Governance and the Solicitor to the Council to provide a full and updated report to the Committee at the earliest opportunity.

In response to a question, the Chairman said that the Committee could invite and gather evidence from any person with their consent but, nevertheless, there was an expectation that senior officers of the Council would be present at each meeting.

Further points made by Members included:

i.        A Member in attendance considered the absence of the relevant senior officers or members of the administration to be unfortunate. 

ii.       The Chairman noted that sufficient notice was given of meetings and agenda items to enable officers to identify meetings that they should attend.

iii.      It was suggested that Cabinet Members be formally invited to attend certain meetings to give account on relevant issues.

iv.      In view of absenteeism, it was commented that Members needed to be mindful of their own commitments and forward apologies for absence where necessary.

The Chairman advised that he had sent an email to the Chief Executive about the lack of senior officer availability but he had not yet received a response.

RESOLVED:  That the item be deferred, pending the submission of a full and updated report addressing all the issues identified at the Committee.