To receive apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 15th September, 2006.

RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15th September, 2006 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

There were no suggestions from members of the Public.

To consider the Cabinet decision to enter into a co-operation agreement with Advantage West Midlands in order to progress the Rotherwas Futures Project.

The Committee considered Cabinet’s decision to enter into a co-operation agreement with Advantage West Midlands in order to progress the Rotherwas Futures Project, which had been called in by three Members of the Committee: Councillors W.L.S Bowen, A.C.R. Chappell, and Mrs M.D. LLoyd-Hayes.

The stated reasons for the call in were: lack of information on the funding shortfall and how this would be met; lack of detail of what Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Rotherwas Scheme involved; and lack of information on what precautions had been taken in respect of inflation.

The report to Cabinet on 28th September, 2006 together with the decision notice was appended to the report.

The Chairman opened the discussion by emphasising that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the principle of the Rotherwas Access Road which had been determined by Council, or the allocation of housing which was being considered under the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) process.  The intention was to focus on the financial aspects of the project.

He reported that a number of questions had been received from members of the public and a response would be given to these as part of the Executive’s response.  He then invited the Leader of the Council to comment on behalf of the Executive.

The Leader said that the Rotherwas Futures project was a key priority for the Council and its Capital Programme.  He emphasised the importance of the Rotherwas Industrial Estate to the Council’s economy.  He noted that whilst many of the businesses had decided to maintain their investment in the estate despite the infrastructure constraints it had to be recognised that others had felt that they had to move their investment elsewhere.

The Rotherwas Access Road was the first and vital component of the development and had been requested by the businesses at Rotherwas.

The funding of the £17.5 million project was a key issue.  He welcomed the tremendous support from Advantage West Midlands (AWM) with whom, through hard work over successive administrations, the Council had built up a good relationship. 

Herefordshire had the lowest wages, the poorest infrastructure and the weakest economy in the Region.  It had to be recognised, however, that in setting priorities for the Region, as it was currently doing,  the Government would be likely to steer resources to Birmingham and the metropolitan authorities.  The proposed redevelopment of New Street Station, Birmingham, for example, would represent a huge drain on resources.

Funding from AWM was essential if the Rotherwas Futures Project were to proceed.  This meant that the current opportunity to secure funding from AWM had to be seized. 

Whilst there was huge potential to increase the number of jobs at Rotherwas it was also essential to preserve the existing jobs.  All could be put at risk if the Rotherwas Futures project did not proceed.  It also had to be recognised that the Council received revenue income of over £1 million from the Rotherwas Industrial Estate.  This would be difficult to sustain without investment in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To invite the Committee to comment on the Medium-Term Financial Management Strategy (MTFMS) prior to consideration by Cabinet.

The Committee was invited to comment further on the Medium Term Financial Management Strategy (MTFSM) prior to its consideration by Cabinet.

The report noted that the proposed final version of the Strategy had not changed significantly from the document considered by the Committee at its previous meeting in September.

The Director of Resources updated paragraph 15 of the report, which set out the prognosis for the four year period covered by the MTFMS, to confirm that, rather than the figures given in the report, the capacity for cumulative spending in 2007/08 would be £3.6 million, in 2008/09 £3.9 million, in 2009/10  £4.6 million and 2010-11 £3.8 million.

She then presented the report.  She informed the Committee that key assumptions had been made regarding the profiling of the savings to be achieved through the Herefordshire Connects programme and in relation to the accommodation programme.  In addition Directors were being required to meet costs including inflation within existing budgets except for allowances for pay increases of 2% per annum and increased pension costs.

She also drew particular attention to the intention to set aside some of the additional spare capacity in 2007/08 to ease the pressure identified in 2008/09 and provide a reserve in the event of slippage compared to the outline, approved financial appraisal for the Herefordshire Connects Programme.  She noted also the robust approach to be adopted towards Invest to Save proposals and Invest to Mitigate growth proposals.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·          The Director confirmed that the additional £451,000 included in the Medium Term Financial Resource Model for the Whitecross PFI Scheme was a one off sum to meet the project’s initial costs.

·          Questioned about the assumptions regarding the Herefordshire Connects Programme, the Director replied that the forecast was that savings of £11.75 million would be achieved over the four year life of the MTFMS.  It was expected, following benchmarking with other authorities that this level of savings would be achievable.  However, it was not possible to be certain about the profiling of these savings, hence the intention to set aside some of the additional spare capacity in 2007/08 to provide a reserve in the event of slippage.

·          A question was asked about the potential impact of inflation noting the requirement that Directors meet costs including inflation within existing budgets except for allowances for pay increases of 2% per annum and increased pension costs.  In reply the Director of Resources stated that in the last financial year there had been an underspend of some £4 million and £6 million in the year before that and it should therefore be possible to find ways of managing inflationary pressures.

·          In relation to managing VAT expenditure the Director of Resources confirmed that the Council was managing activity to allow it to reclaim VAT on exempt business activities whilst being mindful that this must not exceed 5% of the total VAT liability, in which case the Council would stand to lose the entire sum it had sought to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To seek the Committee’s views on three year strategic budgets and associated service outputs and outcomes, which will form the basis of the Corporate Plan 2007-10 so that they can be taken into account by Cabinet in its recommendations to Council.

The Committee’s views were sought on three year service proposals and associated service outputs and outcomes which would form the basis of the Council’s Corporate Plan 2007-10, so that these could be taken into account by Cabinet in its recommendations to Council.

The Head of Policy and Performance presented the report.  He updated paragraph 4 of the report to indicate that, rather than the figures given in the report, the capacity for cumulative increased spending in 2007-08 would be £3.6 million, and in 2008-09 £3.9 million.

He then drew attention to paragraph 9 of the report.  This noted that within the baselines set out in the Financial Resource Model, Directors and the Head of Human Resources had developed core proposals for the next three years with a view to securing specified star ratings as used in the Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment, as set out in the report, which, taken together would give the Council an overall 3* rating.  Highlights of the core proposals were set out in paragraph 10 of the report, indicating what was considered deliverable within the financial constraints.

He also referred to appendix 1 to the report which set out spend to save proposals over the three year period, appendix 2 which set out spend to mitigate proposals, appendix 3 to the report which summarised proposals not regarded by senior managers as deliverable within the baseline provision in the Financial Resource Model, and appendix 4 which summarised proposals where the financial implications and affordability within the Financial Resource Model baselines were still under consideration.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made:

·          A question was asked about the allocation of capital receipts generated by the sale of properties, 50% of which had to date been returned to the Directorate that had released the asset.  This was in the context of proposals to reduce the overspend on learning disabilities in the adult social care budget by disposing of some assets but then reinvesting the receipts into other areas to improve and modernise services and generate efficiencies.  The Director of Resources replied that assets were now to be treated as a corporate resource.  Any receipts would be held centrally and allocated in line with corporate priorities.  Corporate working would help to ensure that the Council’s asset base was appropriate across all service areas

·          It was noted that the core proposal for adult and community services referred to achieving “some increase in the numbers of vulnerable people helped to live at home”.  In reply it was noted that a report was in preparation on future needs and services for older people and adults with learning disabilities which would contain detail on the increase envisaged.  It was also noted that in part there was an issue over how to report the proposal, recognising that there was a need to work closely with service users and carers in discussing possible changes to service delivery.

The Committee had no further observations to make at this stage and noted the report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To provide the Strategic Monitoring Committee with an update on the actions taken in response to their review of the Strategic Service Delivery Partnership between Herefordshire Jarvis Services, Owen Williams and Herefordshire Council.

(The Committee resolved to exclude the public and press during consideration of part of the discussion of this item on the grounds that there would be disclosure of information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).  The following is a complete record of the proceedings.)

The Committee considered an update on the actions taken in response to their review of the Strategic Service Delivery Partnership between Herefordshire Jarvis Services (HJS), Owen Williams and the Council.

The Environment Support Manager presented the report, which set out developments since the matter had been reported to the Committee in June.  Mr S Gyford, General Manager of HJS was also present to answer questions.

The Environment Support Manager drew particular attention to action taken to improve working practices, adherence to the business planning process, improved working relationships and a possible name change for HJS.  He added that action was considered completed in relation to recommendations on the business planning process, compliance with the shareholders agreement, the understanding of to what HJS’s 8% recharge to the Council related, the development of a robust contingency plan and putting arrangements in place to monitor the fee levels of Owen Williams.  Progress against each of the recommendations made by the Committee was summarised in the appended action plan.

The report also described progress in response to Cabinet’s recommendation that, “consideration should be given to engaging an external consultant to undertake a brief piece of work to verify a number of aspects of the services supplied by the Partnership.”

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made:

·          In relation to school catering Mr Gyford advised that there was no realistic prospect of HJS seeking to return to that sector.

·          In response to a question the Environment Support Manager commented further on the improvements in working practices and in particular to the joint working between HJS and the Council.

·          A question was asked about the reference in paragraph 10 of the report to HJS updating its business planning at quarterly intervals and whether HJS had a clear picture of its actual trading position.   In reply Mr Gyford provided details on the trading position advising that HJS was on target to achieve the profit target it had set for the year.  The level of profit was a significant improvement on the previous year.

·          One of the Review’s recommendations had advocated challenging the payment charged to the Council by HJS for Management Services to ensure that it represented value for money.  The report noted that this was a contractual issue and changes could only be made through negotiation.  This was similarly the case with the cumulative liability in respect of the management fee.  The report stated that at this point in the negotiations both partners had identified issues which they considered should form part of an overall realignment of the service delivery agreement.

Asked to expand on the possible realignment the Environment Support Manager said that three years into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To note the findings of the Employee Opinion Survey 2006.

The Committee considered the findings of the Employee Opinion Survey 2006.

The report set out areas where employees were more positive than in either of the last two years, the main areas where levels of disagreement amongst employees had risen, areas where the Council compared well against the average for local government and areas where the Council did not compare so well.

The Head of Human Resources said that at 48% the response rate to the survey was the highest it had been and was in line with the local government average.  There were a larger number of responses stating that they firmly agreed or disagreed with propositions in the survey rather than stating that no view could be formed.  There had been an increase in firm positive responses and a decrease in negative responses.  He commented on each section of the report adding that the findings would be fed into the service and corporate planning process.  More detailed analysis of responses within their areas would be provided to Heads of Service to assist them with their planning.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·          The Head of Human Resources confirmed that the 48% response rate to the survey was considered by statisticians to be sufficient to allow a meaningful analysis of trends.  He added that the survey was only one of several mechanisms used to ascertain staff views.

·          It was suggested that it might be helpful if reports showed the numbers of staff being referred to in the report as well as percentages.

·          A Member questioned the finding that morale had improved significantly, from 41% up to 55% agreeing that morale was good in their work area.  The Head of Human Resources reiterated that the survey was one indicator.  The Chief Executive commented that the survey was useful in indicating trends and noted that it did represent views across a range of staff, including groups with whom Members might not necessarily come into contact.

·          It was asked whether there was a discrepancy between the finding that the number of staff indicating that they intended to be working for the Council in 12 months time was lower than the local government average, although turnover was significantly below the local government average.  The Head of Human Resources replied that the level of staff turnover did vary between areas.

·          The increase in dissatisfaction with the working environment from 30% to 35% was questioned.  It was suggested in reply that it was possible that as some staff were seen to move to better accommodation others might become more dissatisfied.

·          It was questioned why the percentage stating opportunities for flexible working had increased yet so had the percentage of those disagreeing that they had opportunities for flexible working.  The Head of Human Resources replied that this was a reflection of the pattern that a larger number of responses had been received stating that they firmly agreed or disagreed with propositions in the survey rather than stating that no view could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To advise the Committee on the Council’s commitment and progress in delivering the Council’s statutory obligations on the Equality agenda.

The Committee considered an update on progress in delivering the Council’s statutory obligations on the equality agenda.

The Director of Corporate and Customer Services reported that the Council was on track to meet the criteria needed to reach level 2 of the Equality Standard by March, 2007.  In 2007/08 it was intended to achieve levels 3&4 of the Standard, bringing the Council in line with other authorities.

RESOLVED:   that progress in implementing the Comprehensive Equality Policy and on the development of the Disability Equality Scheme and the Race Equality Scheme be noted.

To note the Ombudsman Annual Letter 2005/06 and the figures for complaints and compliments recorded including complaints determined by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Complaints Panel for the year ended 31st March, 2006.

The Committee considered the Ombudsman Annual Letter 2005/06 and the figures for complaints and compliments recorded, including complaints determined by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Complaints Panel for the year ended 31st March, 2006.

The report noted that the Local Government Ombudsman had decided to issue Annual Letters for all Councils reflecting on complaints received by individual authorities and setting out any recommended action.  Aspects of the letter were summarised in the report.  A copy of the letter was appended to the report.

The Director of Corporate and Customer Services drew attention to improved recording of complaints, the arrangements for dealing with them within Directorates and the planned link to the Performance Management Framework.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made.

·         The report recorded that the average time the Council took to respond to the Ombudsman’s first enquiries on a complaint had improved from 47.9 days to 31.8 days.  It was suggested that this still appeared a long time but noted that it compared to the Ombudsman’s target of 28 days.

·         It was noted that there had been a significant increase in the number of complaints about planning and that the Ombudsman had written that although these had risen slightly countrywide in 2005/6 the Council may wish to consider whether special factors had caused the increase in Herefordshire.  Members discussed the sorts of issues which could generate complaints about planning and requested a report to clarify the position.

RESOLVED: That a report analysing the complaints about planning should be made to a future meeting.

To consider the work being undertaken by the Scrutiny Committees.

The Committee noted the work being undertaken by the Scrutiny Committees.

To consider the Scrutiny Committees’ current and future work programmes

The Committee considered the Scrutiny Committee’s work programmes.

RESOLVED:  That the Work Programmes be endorsed.

To note progress on the Scrutiny Improvement Plan.

The Committee was invited to note progress on the Scrutiny Improvement Plan.

RESOLVED: That progress against the Scrutiny Improvement Plan be noted.