To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Simeon Cole and Ross Cook (Corporate Director Economy and Environment).

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the Scrutiny Management Board.

There had been no named substitutes.

To receive declarations of interests from members of the Scrutiny Management Board in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2024.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2024 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairperson.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

No questions had been received from members of the public.

To receive any written questions from councillors.

No questions had been received from councillors.

For the Scrutiny Management Board to receive a report on the delivery and management of Herefordshire Council’s capital projects.

The Service Director Economy and Growth introduced and gave an overview of the report.

The Chair invited comments and discussion from the committee in relation to the report and advised that questions be kept to one of four areas:

o   Governance and prioritisation

o   Resourcing

o   Efficiency and effectiveness

o   Impact and social value

The key points of the discussion are detailed below:

Governance and prioritisation

1. The committee enquired as to who would be responsible for the project management and centre of excellence function within the council, and which individual would be responsible for standards and ensuring that project managers and client project managers had the right training, skills and expertise to deliver the projects.

o   The Head of the Chief Executive’s Office explained that they carried out this function within the Project Management Office and that below this was a matrix management framework, which ensured standardisation and consistency was in place and correct for: training, skills and expertise. Within the framework it was vital that staff worked with the senior responsible officer (SRO) and directors to deliver projects.

2. The committee enquired about if and how the budget was split when project managers were allocated to directorates through the matrix management framework. It was asked if there was an exchange of income between the Project Management Office and the directorates to establish some type of accountability route by which the flow of money could be seen.

o   The Head of the Chief Executive’s Office explained that every capital project had a budget that was set through the governance process and was included in the business case setting, this accounted for technical resources need for project delivery and was set through the governance structures

o   The Service Director Economy and Growth pointed out that whenever a member made a decision to agree the spend on a capital project, this would include a line for how much of the spend would be used against the Project Management Office (PMO) resource. Each member of the PMO would fill in a time sheet that would state where their time went against each of the projects that they were working on so that there was a clear flow through of information available.

3. The committee asked who would be accountable for the project in the event that there was a problem with the delivery of it.

o   The Head of the Chief Executive’s Office explained that projects were continuously reviewed and the amount of money required was part of the review process. Costs involved in projects would change in relation to the expertise and skills required along the way and were not static.

4. The committee enquired whether the Project Management Office reported into the executive delivery board. It was also asked who was on the board and what function did the board serve.

o   The Head of the Chief Executive’s Office explained that the Executive Delivery Board had closed and the growth, infrastructure and commissioning boards within the Economy and Environment directorate now escalated directly into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

To provide the Scrutiny Management Board with an update on the latest position on the devolution options being considered by Government.

To highlight Herefordshire Council’s response to the expression of interest regarding the devolution options being considered by Government.

The Chief Executive Officer Herefordshire Council introduced the report and explained that it set out what was currently known about devolution and that an update on the devolution process was anticipated in the government’s October 2024 budget statement.

The key points were:

o   All local authorities that didn’t have a devolution deal in place had been written to by the Deputy Prime Minister during July 2024 inviting them to work in partnership with the government to agree some form of devolution deal.

o   Herefordshire authority had submitted an expression of interest on 30 September 2024, stating its preference towards the single-county and non-mayoral approaches.

o   Herefordshire authority had explained it would be happy to explore what it might mean to work with its neighbours, subject to a new framework being put in place and a white paper on devolution being circulated.

o   The expression of interest had made clear that any further progress around a devolution deal for Herefordshire Council would be subject to the necessary discussions and approval at Cabinet and Full Council as part of the democratic process.

o   Further detail on devolution including was anticipated in the 30 October 2024 budget statement from the government, with a white paper expected by mid/later November 2024.

o   All-member briefings on the subject would continue and that it might be possible to form some kind cross-party task group approach to devolution, which would draw on the best resources across the council to obtain the best outcome for Herefordshire.

The debate was opened up to the committee, the principal points of the discussion included:

1. The committee was given clarification that there was an existing framework for devolution that had been put in place by the previous government, but that the authority was waiting for the new framework from the current Labour government.

2. The committee requested a reminder of what devolution would look like.

o   The Chief Executive Officer Herefordshire Council explained that devolution involved a single or group of councils reaching a devolution agreement with government, this gave the authorities involved greater powers and funding around: transport, adult education, skills and work to drive the local economy.

o   It was explained that devolution allowed two or more local authorities to come together and collaborate across the councils. The councils continued to exist as individual identities, but would take together key strategic decisions around areas such as adult education, transport, housing and investment in the economy,

o   Devolution was not focused on councils coming together and merging, but rather them coming together to work on key strategic issues that affected them in the sub region.

3. The committee raised concerns about whether devolution would have an adverse impact on and be incompatible with the objectives of the Marches Forward Partnership.

o   The Chief Executive Officer Herefordshire Council stated that discussions around the Marches Forward Partnership had taken place with a senior civil servant. It had been explained that the Marches Partnership wouldn’t fit well with the devolution framework because of the English-Welsh nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

To consider the work programme of the Scrutiny Management Board for the municipal year 2024/25.

The Chairperson advised committee members to ignore the provisional committee meeting scheduled for 12 November 2024.

The Chairperson advised that the scheduled committee meeting of 24 January 2025 had been cancelled.

A committee member stressed that it was important that the work programme was treated as a living document and that its content should always be relevant and current.

The Chairperson explained that plans to form a working group to look at the Delivery Plan had been pushed back to synchronise with the executive’s timescales for the plan. Discussion around the working group would take place in a future meeting.

Resolved:

That the work programme, as amended and subject to periodical reviews, be agreed as the basis of the primary focus for the committee for the remainder of the municipal year 2024/25.

Tuesday 19 November 2024, 2pm

Tuesday 19 November 2024, 2pm