To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors SJ Robertson and JK Swinburne.  Councillor RJ Phillips (Leader of the Council) and Councillor JP French (Cabinet Member Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources) also sent their apologies.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 6 March and 10 March 2008.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meetings held on 6 March and 10 March 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following words being added to the last line of bullet point 2 on page 5 the of the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 March (Minute 78 Integrated Performance and Finance Report): “with the assistance of the appointment of a Joint Chief Executive.”

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 note progress against the action plan that was developed as the Authority’s response to the audit of its performance management arrangements in the autumn of 2006, and the associated communications action plan.

The Committee received a report on progress against the action plan developed as the Authority’s response to the audit of its performance management arrangements in the autumn of 2006, and the associated communications action plan.

The report to Cabinet on 21 February was appended.

The Head of Policy and Performance (HPP) reported that the action plan was now somewhat dated and substantially completed.  Following the meeting his intention was to revise the action plan to focus on the remaining tasks and changing performance management requirements.  These revisions would be incorporated into the forward looking preparation plan for the Comprehensive Area Assessment.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         A plea was made for the Council’s documents to be written in plain English so that they were clear and Members and the public could readily understand them.

·         The amount of information being presented to Members and the level of detail was also discussed generally.  In this case the HPP said that circumstances had led to a number of performance related reports appearing together on the Committee’s agenda for 10March, some of which had had to be carried over to this meeting.   The revised performance Improvement cycle was designed to lead to a regular flow of reports. 

·         A general concern was expressed that the volume of information being presented to Members, in part in response to the findings of the Crookall report, reviewing ICT contractual and governance arrangements, could achieve the opposite to the desired objective.  There was a danger that rather than being better informed the overwhelming volume was making it difficult for members to focus on the key issues and what it was that Members were being asked to determine.  It was essential that a balance was struck so that the pertinent facts were presented to Members supported by relevant, but not excessive, information.

·         It was questioned whether performance management was yet really embedded within the Council.   The approach to performance management within the Police Service was commented on and it was suggested that this seemed more robust and embedded.  The HPP said that the Council’s performance management arrangements were improving and, crucially, performance indicators showed service delivery was improving too.  There were elements of good practice within the Council but the approach was not consistent enough across all service areas.  He was aware of the Police Service’s system of monthly challenge meetings and, although it was not practical to replicate this given the significantly wider range of Council services, the Council’s performance improvement cycle incorporated elements of that type of approach, drawing on peer challenge and the use of comparators.

·         Concern was expressed that a considerable resource seemed to be being devoted across the Council to managing the performance management process.  It was important that the principal focus was on improvement in services and that performance targets were relevant to this objective.  The HPP said that the Integrated Performance and Finance Report demonstrated that performance in service delivery was improving in most priority areas, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To consider the proposed action plan to ensure that the Council, with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and its other partners, is well-placed for the new system of Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).

The Committee considered the proposed action plan to ensure that the Council, with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and its other partners was well-placed for the new system of Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).

The Head of Policy and Performance presented the report.  He drew attention to action 4.12 of the Plan referring to the establishment of strengthened scrutiny arrangements to demonstrate through its work programme how the Scrutiny function’s role contributed to the CAA process.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         In response to a question about the resourcing for scrutiny the Head of Legal and Democratic Services informed Members of recent recruitment to Democratic Services and the resources allocated from all Directorates to supporting Scrutiny.  The closer working arrangements with the Primary Care Trust and recent legislation would necessitate consideration of the future role of scrutiny and the support it required.

·         That the Plan did not take sufficient account of the need to engage more directly with Parish Councils.  The only reference to Parish Councils appeared at action 2.3: establish stronger more effective links with neighbourhoods and parishes.  The entry at 2.3 of the Plan also referred to Parish Plan action plans being made available to services.  However, very few Parish Plans had been prepared and the perception was that the Council’s response to those that had been had been low-key.

·         Action 8.1 referring to the communication of the CAA programme made no specific reference to Parish Councils and should do so.

·         The Head of Legal and Democratic Services noted that a lot of the Council’s communication to the Parish Councils was through Herefordshire Association of Local Councils (HALC).  He added that the Parish Agreement setting out the Council’s working relationship with HALC and Parish Councils generally was currently being reviewed and might be something Members would like to scrutinise.

·         Members observed that not all Parish Councils were Members of HALC and that the extent to which HALC was considered representative of all views was debatable.  Whilst it might be convenient for the Council to seek to communicate through HALC it was essential that there was more direct engagement with individual Parish and Town Councils.  It was proposed that the CAA programme should be developed to reflect this point.

·         The Head of Policy and Performance said that it was recognised that action needed to be taken to develop the relationship with Parish Councils.  He suggested that in addition to considering the Parish Agreement the issue of the Council’s wider working relationship with Parish Councils might also be something worth scrutinising.

He added that account had been taken of the Parish Plans that had been submitted to the Council and Service Plans should reflect aspects of them.

He also noted that partners were to be consulted on the draft CAA programme and confirmed that this consultation would include Parish and Town Councils.

·         The objectives in the CAA preparation programme of improving well/having prospects for improvement in the direction of travel assessment in 2009-10 and to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

To consider the draft Corporate Plan 2008 -2011.

The Committee was invited to comment to Cabinet on a draft of the Council’s Corporate Plan 2008-11.

An updated version of the Plan had been circulated to the Committee on14 March 2008.  Page numbers quoted below relate to this revised document.

The Head of Policy and Performance (HPP) presented the report.  He reported that the Plan, which was a rolling 3 year Plan, would set the key direction for the Council.  He highlighted how the Council’s themes and top priorities related to the Herefordshire Sustainable Community Strategy and the Local Area Agreement, as set out on p6 of the Plan and the Planning Framework as set out on p7.  He noted that because of the way the Plan was now drafted there was no longer a need to produce an Annual Operating Plan as a separate document. 

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         One Council Priority read: “Affordable housing to meet the needs of local people”.  It was suggested that, reflecting the approach at national level, the priority should read to provide “decent” affordable housing.

·         That in addition to the Plan referring to closer working with the Primary Care Trust the importance of the Police delivering its targets in partnership with the Council needed to be highlighted.

·         Noting the priority of achieving value for money concern was expressed about the Extra Care Housing Scheme at Rose Gardens Hereford.  It was suggested that the amount of public money, from various sources, expended on the Scheme did not represent value for money when compared with what might have been provided by the private sector for the same level of investment.  It was proposed that the Committee should receive a report on the Scheme and review its value for money and whether there were any lessons to be learned for future schemes.

·         That sections of the report that looked back rather than forward (for example p23-27, 32-34 and 38-56) and appeared rather to be seeking to promote and publicise achievements in the previous year sat uneasily within the Plan.  Noting the HPP’s comment that the Plan had to report back on what had been achieved as well as looking forward it was suggested that backward looking sections might be set out as an appendix to the Plan.

·         That there were a number of places where the Plan was unclear.  Examples given were the diagram on p 7, the box on the left hand corner of p29, and the presentation of p40 (appendix D) where the fact that further data was awaited in a number of cases made the information unusable. 

·         That no reference was made to the Schools Review at pages 9, 24 and 58 where it seemed appropriate to do so.

·         That the document paid insufficient attention to the role of Parish and Town Councils (p6, 12 and 16 were cited.)

·         That appendix c (how satisfied are our residents with what we do and what we provide) overall showed a significant decline in satisfaction and this needed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

To consider a draft updated performance improvement framework for the Council, together with an associated two-year performance improvement cycle; and to offer comments for Cabinet to consider. 

The Committee was invited to comment to Cabinet on a draft updated performance improvement framework for the Council together with an associated two-year performance improvement cycle.

The Head of Policy and Performance presented the report.  He noted that the new proposed framework reflected developments since it had been last updated in March 2007.  A lot of the framework concerned operational and managerial matters but there were elements relating to the role of Members.  He drew attention to those elements relating to the scrutiny function emphasising the role for scrutiny in testing the robustness of plans, the effectiveness of performance management arrangements and the delivery of high quality services.

He drew particular attention to the increased opportunities for member scrutiny of proposals for future years provided by the two year cycle and also the proposed strategic consultation in the autumn

Members welcomed the proposed approach.

RESOLVED: That the draft performance improvement framework and the associated two-year performance improvement cycle be welcomed and endorsed.

To note Cabinet’s response to the recommendations made by the Strategic Monitoring Committee following the call-in of Cabinet’s decision on the acquisition of the preferred technology to replace the current client systems used within both Adult Social Care and the Children and Young People’s Directorate and the Committee’s consideration of a consolidated report on the Herefordshire Connects programme. 

The Committee was advised of Cabinet’s response to the recommendations made by the Committee following the call-in of Cabinet’s decision on the acquisition of the preferred technology to replace the current client systems used within both Adult Social Care and the Children and Young People’s Directorate and the Committee’s consideration of a consolidated report on the Herefordshire Connects programme. 

It was noted that Cabinet had approved the revised submissions and the Committee’s further recommendations.

RESOLVED:  That Cabinet’s response to the Committee’s recommendations be welcomed and endorsed.

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

Items 5-10 listed above were on the Committee’s agenda for 10 March 2008 which is available on the Council’s website. Consideration of them was deferred.  The detailed reports for those agenda items are to be found with those agenda papers.  Members are asked to bring those papers with them to the meeting.  Members are reminded that an updated version of the Corporate Plan will be circulated.

Further copies of the agenda papers are available to Members or to the public on request or via the Council’s website: (http://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/ieDocHome.asp.) 

The Committee considered its work programme.

It was noted that in the view of its earlier discussions the following issues needed to be reflected in the work programme: Monitoring progress against the Comprehensive Area Assessment reparation programme; ICT issues registered in the corporate risk log (as part of revisiting review of ICT); and a report on the Rose Bank Garden Scheme, as highlighted for possible consideration during discussion of the Corporate plan earlier in the meeting,  reviewing its value for money and whether there were any lessons to be learned for future schemes.

It was also proposed that the Community Services Scrutiny Committee should consider scrutinising the Parish Agreement.

The possible need to scrutinise the Government’s proposed Post Office closure programme was also raised.

RESOLVED: 

That (a)           the Work Programme as amended serve as the basis for further development; and

         (b)          the Community Services Scrutiny Committee be asked to consider scrutinising the Parish Agreement.