To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor AM Toon.

To receive any named substitutes.

Councillor A Oliver substituted for Councillor AM Toon.

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 declared.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2008.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2008 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

(i)                 the deletion of the word ‘not’ in the sixth line in paragraph 3 on page 6;

(ii)               the deletion of the word ‘live’ in the third line in paragraph 6 on page 6;

(iii)             the deletion of the word ‘not’ in the second line in Resolution (a) on page 7.

To report to the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee on the extent and values of pooling of budgets under the National Health Service Act 2006 along with current thinking/planning towards further pooling.

The Head of Financial Services presented a report on the extent and values of pooling of budgets under the National Health Service Act 2006 along with current thinking and planning towards further pooling. He referred to the seven Section 75 agreements between the Council and the Primary Care Trust, paragraph 12 on page 6 refers, and briefly outlined the areas covered in the agreements. He emphasised that the financial risk was not fully shared. The Council had however put considerable resources into adult social care services which would help with the redesign of services.

The Director of Integrated Commissioning referred to the concerns of the Committee regarding comments made by the Audit Commission about agreements which had not been signed off. He informed Members signed agreements were in place although some needed updating, overall framework would be put in place within which the Section 75 agreements would be held. There would also be a need to address the risk sharing elements of expenditure and that agreements on these would be in place from 2009.

Councillor RH Smith asked if the terms and responsibilities of the current structure and agreements were entirely proper from the Council’s standpoint.

The Head of Financial Services stated that they were from Council’s viewpoint and that the Council’s risks were clear.

Councillor Smith referred to paragraph 10 of the report and was of the view that there seemed to be some degree of tension between the Council and the Primary Care Trust (PCT) with regard to the risk sharing.

The Director of Integrated Commissioning stated that delivering the priorities of the PCT and the Council would be embedded in the Section 75 agreements. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he stated that there was no statutory way to bring the PCT and Council organisations together, so the Section 75 agreements were the key vehicle.

Dr P Ashhurst, Chair of the PCT Audit and Assurance Committee, agreed that the Section 75 agreements were the vehicle for the way forward in the integration of services but with the provision that the two statutory bodies maintain their separate responsibilities in funding and risk sharing.

RESOLVED:   that the report be noted.

To update the Committee on progress against the data quality action plan as required by the Council’s data quality policy.

The Head of Policy and Performance presented a report which updated the Committee on progress against the data quality action plan as required by the Council’s data quality policy. He reported that the report was positive and that the data quality position was improving. Progress, however, was not as quick as was originally anticipated in the first six months of the action-plan with more attention needed in certain areas, paragraph 5 of the report refers.

 In the 24 hours prior to the Committee meeting, he had received the draft summary of the Audit Commission’s 2008 audit. This showed no problems against performance indicators. The summary pointed out that the full effects of the improvements would not be seen until the next assessment and that improvements needed to continue.

Councillor Smith asked whether resources or commitment was the reasoning for the slower progress and who was driving the process.

The Head of Policy and Performance stated that data quality was a relatively new area of work but that it was not seen by some managers as top priority. He oversaw the delivery of the action plan. The Joint Management Team (JMT) had taken an interest and supported more work on data quality.

The Deputy Chief Executive (Interim) informed the Committee that it was his role to drive the data quality process and that JMT were in receipt of regular data quality reports. There were significant improvements but there was a need for more work by services to ensure that all services treat data quality with the appropriate priority. With the necessary directions from management and the improvement to systems, data quality management would improve further.

Councillor Smith referred to paragraph 10 of the report regarding employee training and the need to pursue this area.

The Head of Policy and Performance informed Members that the Assistant Chief Executive Human Resources had informed all key managers of the need to amend job descriptions and identify staff who would benefit from training with regard to data quality.

Councillor Smith referred to the pre-Crookall culture of the way in which some officers responded on issues and took the view there were signs with regard to data quality that the culture was clinging on.

The Deputy Chief Executive (Interim) stated that in data quality an approach is being set out and actions would be taken in appraisals and reviews. There was a need to move in areas of poor performance. Procurement had also been tightened. There was recognition that there is a significant cultural change in data quality as well as the culture of change in the PCT and Council joint working. He was of the view that managers want to perform for the Council and he did not consider that the pre-Crookall culture was clinging on.

Dr P Ashurst, Chair of the PCT Audit and Assurance Committee, stated that with regard to culture change, the PCT was undergoing intense scrutiny on World Class Commissioning, commissioning services, the procurement of services and the data quality agenda  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

To report to the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee on the Council’s Use of Consultants in 2007/08.

The Head of Financial Services presented a report on the Council’s use of consultants in 2007/08. He referred Members to the Strategic Monitoring Committee (SMC) report on the use of consultants, attached as an appendix to the report, which was key to the discussion. He emphasised that there had been occasions when the term consultancy had been used when in fact interim management arrangements had been the correct definition. He made reference to an example in ICT where the definition of consultancy had been used incorrectly, paragraph 5 of the SMC report refers. Paragraph 8 of the SMC report contained the definition of consultancy agreed by that Committee. He made reference to the Value for Money questionnaire which had been completed by service areas with the results detailed in paragraph 14 of the SMC report. The findings were that consultants had been appropriately used and appropriate procedures had been followed and value for money had been achieved. He stressed strongly that there was nothing wrong with using consultants and referred to Hereford Connects where Capita had carried out testing and that they had been excellent value for money. In summary, he emphasised that tendering processes were being adhered to with regard to the use of consultants.

The Chairman asked if there was a preferred list of consultants and also questioned the use of former employees as consultants.

The Head of Financial Services informed the Committee that there was an approved government list of consultants. However, managers did take advice on which consultants to use, such appointments being in accordance with standing orders.

Councillor PJ Edwards referred to need for consultants costs to be charged in a uniform way. With regard to paragraph 11 of the report, Councillor RH Smith stressed the need to confirm budgetary cover before engaging consultancy support.

The Head of Financial Services agreed and stated that the coding of consultancy charges had been tightened up.

RESOLVED: that the report be noted.

To review arrangements for Planning Obligation Agreements.

The Planning Policy Manager presented a report which reviewed arrangements for Planning Obligation Agreements. He referred to information which had been requested by the Committee, paragraph 4 of the report refers. He drew Members attention to paragraphs 5 to 14 of the report which gave details of the planning obligations. He emphasised that planning obligations are used to address the impact of any development. Therefore, the planning file would contain details showing where Section 106 monies would be utilised. He informed Members that copies of the Section 106 agreements were held by the Legal service and the Land Charges section.

Councillor R Mills referred to the perception that the Head of Planning and Transportation Services had the responsibility to account for Section 106 monies received but that this aspect was questionable.

The Head of Planning and Transportation Services informed Members that the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) contained the policy which had been approved by Council and was followed in respect of Section 106 agreements. There was a clear route to which the monies would be used and the service departments were the recipients of the monies so that  they track receipt and expenditure. The SPD suggests, however, that there should be a more central and corporate procedure on tracking and receipt of the monies. The Service had not yet appointed a Monitoring officer who would provide the new procedure. Due to the current economic climate, the appointment had been delayed. Arrangements were being put in place to appoint the officer to be in post in April 2009. After discussions with the Director of Resources, it had been agreed that the Monitoring officer would have a centralised role linking up the various issues arising from Section 106 agreements.

Councillor A Oliver wanted to make reference to a particular Section 106 agreement.

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic advised the Committee that it was not the remit of the Committee to discuss individual Section 106 agreements.

In answer to a Member’s question, The Head of Planning and Transportation Services stated that Section 106 agreements set out the projects where such monies would be spent.

The Chairman asked what would happen if developers decided not to adhere to the contents of a Section 106 agreement.

The Planning and Policy Manager  informed the Committee that a housing developer, for example, would not be able to sell properties on a site if they did not adhere to the Section 106 agreement. The Council could if necessary pursue the non compliance of a Section 106 agreement through the Courts.

The Head of Planning and Transportation Services stressed that it was important that Section 106 agreements were complied with. The agreements were flexible to the extent that they could be amended where circumstances prevail in a development. In the current economic climate, some developments remained at the planning approval stage for some time and, therefore, did not provide the trigger point for the Section 106 agreement to take effect. Payments were being secured as a consequence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

To  provide an update on the Annual Governance Framework in line with the Code of Governance approved by Council on 31st October 2008.

The Chief Internal Auditor presented a report which updated the Annual Governance Statement Framework in line with the Code of Governance approved by Council on 31 October 2008.

RESOLVED:         that the updated framework for gathering evidence supporting the Annual Governance Statement as set out in appendices 1 and 2 to this report be approved.

To identify the resolutions and recommendations made by the Audit & Corporate Governance Committee between May 2007 and June 2008 that require further monitoring.

The Chief Internal Auditor presented a report which identified the resolutions and recommendations made by the Audit & Corporate Governance Committee between May 2007 and June 2008 that required further monitoring because:

(i)         The position reported to the Committee by the responsible officer was satisfactory but the matter was not yet concluded – ‘open and ongoing’ items.

(ii)                The position reported to the Committee by the responsible officer was not satisfactory.

He made particular reference to paragraph 7 of the report which set out the position of the remaining Recommendations and Resolution which were not yet closed.

RESOLVED:   that the report be noted.

To provide the Committee with an update on progress in making the planned improvements to the internal control environment and progress with the Annual Audit Plan for 2008/09.

The Chief Internal Auditor presented a report which provided the Committee with an update on progress in making the planned improvements to the internal control environment and progress with the Annual Audit Plan for 2008/09.

Councillor RH Smith informed the Committee that he and the Chairman were content that the recommendations referred to in paragraphs 26 and 29 of the report were issues that had now been dealt with satisfactorily. With regard to item 9 on page 87, he questioned whether this should be revisited. However, the Chief Internal Auditor informed members that employees and managers had been issued with clear guidance on how to make and authorise travel and subsistence claims in accordance with the Council’s terms and conditions of employment and circulated a copy of the guidance for Members information.

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic referred to item 42 on page 90 regarding election expenses and informed the Committee that negotiations would be entered into with the Herefordshire Association of Local Councils as to the costs of local elections in 2011. What was before the Committee was a basic update on the way in which the issue was moving forward. He reminded Members that the election process was the remit of the Returning Officer who makes accounts available to the Electoral Commission. Also, that although it was the responsibility of the Returning Officer to make sure elections take place, it was not that Officer’s responsibility to ensure that finances were in place. The Council had a statutory duty to promote elections and the Strategic Monitoring Committee had made suggestions in this regard. Performance Indicators would be put in place in 2009. He would make enquiries of the Commission with a view to the accounts being made available to Members.

With regard to a Member’s question, the Director of Resources informed the Committee that the Employee Code of Conduct was in place.

The Chief Internal Auditor informed  the Committee that the Code was specific about entertainment given by officers and that this had to be signed off by Directors.

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic informed the Committee that there was a White Paper currently on the review of the Member’s Code of Conduct which would bring into being a statutory code of conduct for Members and this would include some of the issues raised.

Councillor Smith requested that item 71 on page 92 of the report should be re-opened as this has not yet been reported to Committee.

RESOLVED:   That subject to the following the report be noted:

            (i)         item 71 regarding Learning Disability Inspection and Action Plan on page 92 of the report be re-opened and a report be submitted to the Committee.

The Chairman informed Members that it was the last meeting of the Committee that Sonia Rees, Director of Resources, would be attending before leaving the Council for a post with the Audit Commission. He thanked her for all her hard work whilst being with the Council.