To report progress in the first two months of operating year 2007–08 against the Annual Operating Plan 2007-08 together with corporate risks. The report also provides an update on the year end position.

The Committee considered progress in the first two months of the operating year 2007-08 against the Annual Operating Plan 2007-08 together with corporate risks and arrangements for future performance reporting.

The report also provided an update on the end of year 2006/07 performance position.

The Head of Policy and Performance presented the report commenting on the final outturn on 2006-07 performance and describing the intention to revise the system of performance reporting.  This aimed to enable the Council to focus more effectively on its own performance, separating out indicators on which Cabinet led, and which would be reported in detail to Cabinet, from indicators where partners led.  The Herefordshire Partnership Performance Management Group would receive a full report on the detailed partnership indicators.  The revised system would assign clear responsibility for performance management to each of the partner organisations including the Council.  Cabinet would receive an update on performance as part of the Integrated Performance Report providing a full picture on progress towards achieving the targets of the Local Public Service Agreement, Local Area Agreement and Herefordshire Community Strategy.

The Integrated Performance Report would in future also include as a matter of course performance against indicators not in the Annual Operating Plan but against which the Council was externally judged.  These included Best Value Performance Indicators, Performance Assessment Framework Indicators and those used in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

The Head of Financial Services presented the corporate risk register noting the intention to provide more detail in future reports on the action being taken to address risks.

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

·         The Head of Policy and Performance confirmed that, although not shown in the appended flowchart depicting the revised performance reporting process, the process did provide for the Strategic Monitoring Committee to continue to receive the Integrated Performance Report after Cabinet.

·         The continuing pressure on the adult social care budget (CR2) was discussed.  The Leader of the Council reiterated that this was a national issue.  Complications were also created by Government increasing spending on the National Health Service but not similarly increasing allocations to Local Government for social care.  The Chief Executive commented that the indications were that for 2008/09 grant to local government would be increased by 2.4% but that was coupled with a requirement for 2.5% efficiency savings meaning a real term decrease in funding.

·         In relation to CR4: maintaining the Council’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment Rating and moving from improving adequately to improving strongly the Chief Executive explained that the star rating could be retained in 2009 provided performance improved in key service areas.  The 2005 Corporate Assessment had been influenced by the “staying safe” element of the Joint Area Review.  This score had now increased from 1 star to 3 star although the Audit Commission and other inspectorates were continuing to focus on all elements of the Council’s performance. 

·         A Member noted the potential for unforeseen problems to arise, which could affect performance.

·         On CR9 the delivery of the Local Area Agreement (LAA) the register indicated that a more detailed description of the control measures was needed and it was asked what these were.  The Chief Executive said that the Council was graded Green by the Government Office West Midlands for performance against the LAA performance indicators and for the Agreement’s governance and performance monitoring arrangements.  Only one other Authority in the Region had achieved that grading.  However, the monitoring regime was expected to become tougher and the Council would need to pre-empt the expected requirements.

·         It was noted regarding CR13 on the implementation of the Accommodation Strategy that it was now envisaged that a report would be made to Cabinet in September.

·         CR 16 relating to Waste Management and the major challenge this represented was also discussed.

·         The addition of a new risk (CR 24) relating to phase 4 of the Herefordshire Connects Programme and the need to keep a careful eye on progress was noted.  The interrelationship of CR24 with CR21 also relating to the Herefordshire Connects Programme was raised.   CR3, also about Herefordshire Connects, was also discussed.  In response to a question the Chief Executive outlined progress and the intention that it would shortly be possible to take a number of important decisions enabling the project to progress. An update would be provided to Cabinet in September.

·         It was proposed that the format of the risk register should be revised so that where there was action to be taken it was clearly shown who was responsible for taking that action and to what timescale.

·         The issue of the timing of performance reports to the Committee was discussed.  It was recognised that it was inevitable that, because the reporting procedure required that performance reports went first to the relevant Cabinet Member, by the time Strategic Monitoring Committee received the report it would be out of date to some extent.  The Chief Executive noted that there was an ongoing discussion with the Audit Commission over the Committee’s role in performance management.  The timing issue made it difficult for the Committee to assess performance in detail, although the Commission’s view was that that should be its role.  His view was that the emphasis should rather be on the Committee satisfying itself that the performance management systems were operating effectively.

RESOLVED:

That    (a)             the report be noted;

                        and

            (b)       it be requested that the format of the risk register should be revised so that where there is action to be taken it is clearly shown who is responsible for taking that action and to what timescale.