To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors KG Grumbley and JK Swinburne.   Apologies were also received from Councillor JP French (Deputy Leader of the Council) and RJ Phillips (Leader of the Council).

The Chairman expressed disappointment that no Member of the Executive had been able to attend the meeting.  It was important that a representative of the Executive was present to respond to the Committee’s questions.

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.

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest as a former Cabinet Member in agenda item 5: Integrated Corporate Performance Report in relation to the discussion of waste disposal.

Councillor PM Morgan also declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 on the discussion of waste disposal because her husband had a potentially associated business interest.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2008.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Chairman’s Statement – Integrated Back Office Accommodation Strategy.

The Chairman referred to the fact that the Committee’s agenda was shorter than had been expected in September, as recorded in the Minute of the discussion on the work programme, with no opportunity to discuss a report on the emerging proposals for an integrated back office accommodation strategy.

He reported that following recent developments it had been felt that a report coming forward at this stage could well prejudice commercial negotiations to the Council’s detriment.  He had been informed that a report would come forward in line with the Council’s decision making procedures at the appropriate time. 

The Chief Executive said that he would brief Group Leaders on the position.

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 report the Council’s performance for the first four months of 2008/09 against the Corporate Plan 2008/11 and national performance indicators used externally to measure the Council’s performance, taking account of the separate but complementary financial performance report, the updated Council risk register and progress against the action plans produced following the Crookall review.

(Councillors PJ Edwards and PM Morgan declared personal interests.)

The Committee considered a report on the Council’s performance for the first four months of 2008-09 against the Corporate Plan 2008-11 and national performance indicators used externally to measure the Council’s performance, taking account of the separate but complementary financial performance report, the updated Council risk register and progress against the action plans produced following the Crookall review. 

The report considered by Cabinet on 2 October was appended.

The Corporate Policy and Research Manager presented the report.  He said that, taking note of comments by both the Committee and Cabinet, further efforts had been made to simplify the report to make it easier to use.  Although the detailed budget monitoring report was now presented separately, the Integrated Corporate Performance Report (ICPR) continued to take it into account and to highlight significant financial issues, such as the level of overspend and action to mitigate this, so as to make the necessary connections between expenditure and performance.

Whilst early in the financial year, the initial indications were that the overall picture suggested performance was heading in broadly the right direction, although there were important areas in which this was not the case.  He drew attention to the inclusion in the ICPR of commentaries by Directors which showed how performance issues were being addressed. 

He highlighted the following points:

·         Page 19 of the report showed mixed performance in Children’s Services, with a number of indicators marked red (not on target), notably including core assessments for Children’s care; the timeliness of placements of looked after children for adoption and referrals to children’s social care going on to initial assessment.  Steps were being taken aimed at remedying the position.

·         It was too early to judge the position on Health and Social Care.   The Direction of Travel indicators were positive but there were a few red indicators and a projected significant overspend in respect of which a recovery plan was being developed.

·         Affordable housing was – and would remain - a challenging area, brought about by the credit-crunch and economic down-turn. This meant there was a number of red indicators but action was being taken both to improve performance and reduce projected overspending. These had already brought the initially very high projected over-spend down to £300k, with measures being taken to bring that down further.

·         In terms of corporate performance, the Audit Commission’s Annual Governance Letter 2008 had given the Council a clean bill of health.

·         Sickness absence figures were increasing, with measures being taken by Human Resources with managers across the Council.

·         In terms of the revised Council risk register, three risks, all of which related to ICT, were scored as high, even after the mitigating measures had been taken into account. 

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made (numbering cross refers to pages in the agenda papers and indicators):

·         (p11) That, in addition to action to prevent homelessness, it was important that further action was taken to provide affordable housing, noting that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To note the detailed proposals for the new system of Comprehensive Area Assessment and how Cabinet has agreed Herefordshire’s preparations are to be taken forward.

The Committee was informed of the detailed proposals for the new system of Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) and how Cabinet had agreed Herefordshire’s preparations were to be taken forward.

The report considered by Cabinet on 2 October was appended.

The Corporate Policy and Research Manager presented the report.  He said that revised proposals for the assessment had simplified the CAA arrangements so that there would be two complementary assessments: an area assessment and an organisational assessment.  He highlighted six key headings at paragraph 5 of the report performance on which it had been agreed it would be important to focus.

He added that in terms of the Committee’s role the extent to which the Council’s partners were meeting performance requirements in addition to the Council itself was important.  He suggested that the Committee might wish to consider with relevant partners particular areas of performance.  

Given the information now available about the proposed CAA assessments Cabinet had agreed to end the current CAA preparation programme and focus on the delivery of improvement programmes of the Council and the wider Herefordshire Partnership, tested against the proposed CAA key questions and lines of enquiry, rather than on processes. 

He added that the CAA system was a very different type of system to the former Comprehensive Performance Assessment process and would not require new information to be provided specifically for the Inspectors. Instead it would use the information the Council itself and the Herefordshire Partnership and individual partner organisations used to monitor and manage performance.  Likewise there would be no special period with inspectors on site.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         Members discussed the new statutory duty to involve people in local decision making.  The role of Parish and Town Councils was highlighted. 

·         Members emphasised the importance of the Local Member and the need for the Council to keep them informed as the first point of local contact.  It was noted that Local Members considered that the current Codes of Conduct restricted their ability to represent their communities.  The Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic) advised that the Code, as revised, did afford Local Members more flexibility in this respect.

·         In response to a question about the demands of the new system the CPRM emphasised that the CAA was likely to be a more demanding system of assessment because it expected the Council and its partners to be on top of understanding needs and to be delivering improved outcomes for people, rather than testing compliance with particular check-lists or processes.  It was not a one-off inspection but should rather be considered as the core of planning and performance management and, therefore, of reporting for the Council, public service arrangements with the PCT and with the Herefordshire Partnership. 

The Committee noted that further reporting relevant to the CAA would  be included as part of the Integrated Corporate Performance Report.

To report on the Council’s performance against revenue and capital budgets as at 31 August 2008 and provide an indication of the estimated outturn for the 2008/09 financial year. 

The Committee was informed of the position on the revenue and capital budgets and the estimated outturn for the 2008/09 financial year. 

The report to Cabinet on 2 October was appended.

The Head of Financial Services presented the report.   He said that the current projected overspend on the revenue budget at £1.671 million was a lower forecast of overspend at this point in the year than in previous years.  This was attributed to a more vigorous approach to financial management at Directorate level.  He added that the Chief Executive had set an expectation that Directorates produce management proposals to bring expenditure back to balance at the end of the financial year.

This was particularly important because the level of interest on investments achieved in previous years, which in the past had been used to offset directorate overspends, could not be guaranteed in the present financial climate.  This had an implication for the level of the general reserves, which based on current projections could see the level at the year end being close to the recommended level of minimum general reserves of £4.5 million if the projected overspend of £1.671m was not managed.

He drew the Committee’s particular attention to the assumption that the Primary Care Trust would meet the costs of individuals meeting the continuing health criteria; the position on the winter maintenance budget; and the overspend on the HALO job evaluation payment issue and the drop in income for Planning Services.

In relation to the Capital Programme the Head of Financial Services reported some slippage on the Capital Programme.  He also drew attention to an overspend on the Ross flood alleviation scheme which he advised would be met by the Government as it was their scheme.

He informed the Committee that the opportunity had been taken to provide additional scope in the Capital Programme by taking out a loan of £5 million (for 50 years) at what was considered a very favourable rate (4.36%).

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         It was proposed that the Executive should review the level of contributions developers were required to make in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document adopted by Council in February 2008.  This proposal was not agreed on the understanding that the Executive had already agreed to review this issue after one year.

·         Asked about the management of the projected overspend the Head of Financial Services reiterated that the current projection was lower than in previous years and the Chief Executive had issued a clear instruction that a balanced budget must be achieved.

·         In reply to a question about payment of overspend on the HALO job evaluation payment issue the Chief Executive confirmed that the overspend would be dealt with in accordance with the agreed policy.  He understood this to mean that it would be met centrally rather than from the Service budget.

·         In response to questions the Head of Financial Services agreed to write to Members with information on whether the Wyebridge Academy Scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

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 Committee’s current and future work programmes.

The Committee considered the Scrutiny Committees’ current and future work programmes.

Members expressed some concerns about the administration of aspects of recent Parish Council elections.  The Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic) said that a report on progress against the elections action plan, previously presented to the Committee, could be made to the Committee in November, the report of a healthcheck by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives having recently been received.  It was noted that the Committee had previously requested the attendance of a representative of the electoral commission when it next considered a report on election matters.

RESOLVED:

That       (a)     the current work programmes as amended serve as a basis for further development; and

               (b)    the time of the Committee’s meeting on 19 January 2009 be changed to 2.00pm.