Apologies for absence were received from Councillors MJ Fishley and R Mills.

There were no named substitutes declared.

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 made.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on the 19 June 2009.

The Vice-Chairman drew Members’ attention to the Review of Procurement Briefing Note attached to the Minutes as Appendix 1 which was, in his view, not the Briefing Note which had been circulated at the meeting on 19 June 2009. He produced a copy of the Briefing Note which he had received at that meeting and suggested that his copy should replace the copy attached to the Minutes.

The Vice-Chairman also referred to the penultimate paragraph on page 2 of the Minutes relating to paragraph 32 of the Commission’s report and informed the Committee that an answer had not yet been received from the Legal Practice Manager. He requested that the Legal Practice Manager expedite the matter.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting held on the 19 June 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments:

(i)                  the Review of Procurement Briefing Note attached to these Minutes as Appendix A replaces the Briefing Note attached to the 19 June 2009 Minutes;

(ii)                the second line in the penultimate paragraph on page 2 be deleted and replaced with the words ‘particular that the submission to Members for approval of the selected option was‘ ;

(iii)               the word ‘ analysis ‘ be deleted from the second line in the first paragraph on page 3 and replaced with the words ‘analyses and‘ ;

(iv)              the word ‘ analysis ‘ be deleted from the second line in Resolution (iii) on page 4 and replaced with the words ‘analyses and‘ ; and

(v)                the words in Resolution (iii) be added after the word ‘and’ in Resolution (ii) on page 6 and the semicolon in the second line in Resolution (ii) be deleted.

To introduce the external auditor’s Annual Governance Letter 2009 as an appendix to the Director of Resources report (to follow).

The Director of Resources presented a report which introduced the external auditor’s Annual Governance Report for 2009. The external auditor’s report set out

(a)               their opinion on the financial statements for 2008/09 approved by the Committee on 17 June 2008.

(b)               their opinion on the Council’s arrangements for securing value for money.

(c)               their recommendations for further improvements in the Council’s governance arrangements arising from their audit work.

Mrs L Cave and Mr T Tobin, representing the Audit Commission, attended the meeting to present the Annual Governance Report 2009.

Mrs Cave apologised for the lateness of the report. She informed the Committee that it was the Commission’s final report on her audit work for 2008/09. She drew Member’s attention to key messages which were all positive and were set out on pages 4 and 5 of the report.  With regard to the Financial Statements, Mrs Cave thanked the Director of Resources and his staff for their work on these matters. She stated that there were some issues but nothing of a fundamental nature had been identified and all had been satisfactorily resolved. Mrs Cave brought to Committee’s attention the significant reduction in the level of triviality for 2008/09 audit work that affected the report.  The previous year had a much higher level and so the issues raised would not necessarily have been reported under the former regulations governing their work on final accounts.  The issues that she had felt strongly about had been changed by management. She emphasised that the next steps were to formally consider the issues raised in the report and to agree the issues in the Financial Statement. In referring to page 7 and the errors in the Financial Statement, she was of the view that the writing off of debtors of around £500,000 was an issue which should be looked at more closely next year. In paragraph 8 another significant issue related to the non material insurance provision of £1.79 million. In the balance sheet £1 million of the total was in respect of insurance claims but £730,000 did not comply with the definition of a provision under accounting standards (FRS12). There were three other non material errors set out in Appendix 2 which had not been amended by management.

Mrs Cave made reference to the weaknesses in internal control most notably with regard to the authorisation of creditor payments and stressed that it was important that these are addressed.

With regard to teachers’ pension liabilities, paragraph 13 refers, although these had been excluded from Council accounts, the Council should be accruing for additional benefits such as added years as a liability. She stated that it was not likely to be material but should be included in the accounts next year.

Mrs Cave stressed the need for the Council to consider bringing forward the implementation of a new capital accounting system particularly with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) being operative next year.

 With regard to Value for Money, she informed the Committee that she  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To report to the Committee on the project plan for implementing International Financial Reporting Standards.

The Acting Head of Financial Services presented a report on the project plan for implementing International Financial reporting Standards. She emphasised that the Council had adopted the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy recommended format for developing the project plan.

In answer to the Vice-Chairman’s questions, the acting head of Financial Services informed the Committee that with regard to paragraph 5 in appendix A, identifying systems and procedural changes were being carried out manually. Regarding paragraph 8 in Appendix A, these matters were up to date.

 A Member referred to the fact that there had been two reviews of Strategy but that despite these reviews, the Member was confused regarding the Herefordshire Connects position. The Director of Resources informed the Member that with regard to the Herefordshire Connects and position there was funding and cost information available. He would send a copy of a letter which had been sent to another Member recently which contained that information. He further informed Members that an integrated ICT system had been investigated and that Management had settled on the Aggresso system. However, shared Partnership services were also being investigated in this area and that it was only proper to reflect the way forward for the future whilst trying to get the benefits out of the Herefordshire Connects Programme.

The Acting Head of Financial Services informed the Committee that the Aggresso shared services issue was separate to IFRS.

The Vice Chairman indicated that it was his understanding that the Council did not know of the net resource requirements arising out of the IFRS implementation.

The Acting Head of Financial Services stated that employee benefits were the only financial impact with the introduction of the IFRS which would need to be taken account in budgeting.

RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report.

To report on the provisions in place for the control of costs in relation to the Service Delivery Partnership with Amey.

The Highways Network Manager presented a report on the provisions in place for the control of costs in relation to the Service Delivery Partnership with Amey. He made reference to the key points summary on page 17 and drew the Committee’ attention to the key considerations with Amey which set out in detail the following:

(i)                  Existing Contracts with Amey

(ii)                How the payment mechanism in the existing contract services contract can be used to control costs and the support delivery of desired outcomes.

(iii)       How the payment mechanism in the existing consultancy services contract can be used to control costs and the support the delivery of desired outcomes.

(iv)              Existing Payment Processes

(v)                Improvements Secured through Service Delivery Review Negotiations

(vi)              Payment Process for Managing Agent Services

(vii)             Rationale for the Selection of Payment Mechanisms

(viii)           Future Financial Reporting Requirements

(ix)              Value for Money Review as part of the Annual Service Plan

(x)                Effective Strategic Client Team

The Chairman referred to instance where a member of the public might feel that a job could have been carried out for less money and asked how the more expensive job could be defended. The Highways Network Manager informed Members that there will be occasions when jobs for projects could be carried out for less money. However, the overall cost of a service would need to be evaluated and it would be necessary to ensure that corporate standards are met and the risk element has been properly managed by the Council and partner. It would also come down to overall value for money.

The Director of Culture and Environment informed the Committee that where the Council passes the responsibility for road conditions to the partner, the partner would receive a lump sum of money and if jobs were not done properly, the partner would have to go back and do the job again at no extra cost to the Council.

A Member asked if the parish maintenance plan still existed and how would the partner get feedback from the parishes.

The Highways Network Manager stated that the Parish maintenance plan was still in operation and that arrangements were in place so that parishes would receive routine maintenance visits. In terms of feed back from parishes, all parishes had received an Amey contact list and the parishes would complete a monthly return which would be sent direct to Amey. He would circulate the Committee with a copy of the list.

A Member asked that the position of Property Services be clarified. Also, how did the  partner select  contractors since there was not a section in the report explaining this issue and how were costs arrived at for work carried out by subcontractors. The Member also asked if Internal Audit was satisfied that Amey were doing sufficient work themselves and where contractors did not satisfy the Council’s criteria, would they go direct to Amey to do the work.

The Director of Culture and Environment informed the Committee that Property Services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To provide a position statement on major projects being undertaken by the authority.

The Director of Resources presented a position statement on major projects being undertaken by the authority. He drew Member’s attention to the report definition in paragraph 4 of the report. He also made reference to the increase in the programme forecast for 2009/10 which was due to slippage in the previous year and the reasons for the slippage. He informed the Committee that a significant proportion of the programme was central government funded.

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

To consider the draft Internal Audit Joint Working Protocol.

The Chief Internal Auditor presented a report which was circulated at the meeting and is attached to the Minutes, on the Audit Protocol for joint working with CW Audit Services, (Primary Care Trust (PCT) Auditors). He informed Members that the report sets out the working arrangements with the PCT. He informed the Committee that if the PCT auditors worked for the Council they would follow the Council’s rules, and vice versa if the Council’s auditors worked for the PCT.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

To update the Committee on the progress now being made against key elements of the rolled forward data quality action plan.

The Head of Policy and Performance presented an update to the Committee on the progress now being made against key elements of the rolled forward data quality action plan. He informed the Committee that the report was outside the six monthly cycle for such reports because the Committee had requested an early report. He drew Members’ attention to the improved progress on the two issues set out in paragraph 3 of the report that were highlighted at the last meeting. Both tasks had now been completed and the officers would now be able to carry on with data quality training.

The Vice-Chairman asked why a list of staff requiring data quality training had not been included with the report. The Head of Policy and Performance informed the Committee that the list was large and therefore he did not feel that such a list should be included. At the request of the Vice-Chairman, he informed the Committee that the target was 120 staff to be trained this year. So far 90 staff had received training. At that rate it would take over 4 to 5 years to train the approximate 600 staff across the organisation who were a priority. There was, however, an issue with data sharing partners in that out of 25 who had been approached regarding data quality policies only 14 had responded. The non respondents would be chased for a response and this would be included in the six monthly report to the Committee.

The Chairman was of the view that the responses were not good enough and asked that the officers write on his behalf to request an immediate response.

The Chairman of the Strategic Monitoring Committee offered his support to the Chairman’s letter.

RESOLVED:   That

(i)                 the progress being made on the areas of the data quality action plan where the Committee had particular concerns be noted; and

(ii)        the Head of Policy and Performance write a letter on the Chairman’s behalf to the data sharing partners to request an immediate response in respect of data quality training.