To update the committee on progress in implementing the recommendations raised in the Internal Auditor’s audit findings report regarding project management of the joint customer services hub (Blueschool House) capital project presented in September 2017.

It was noted that the committee would be meeting the chief finance officer in private session once the committee meeting had been formally closed.  

The chief finance officer presented the report and highlighted the following:

·         All invoices now have to have a purchase order number otherwise they are sent back to the organisation.

·         The internal control working group were thanked for their input which had been helpful. 

·         As from the new financial year, the system would require that all orders have a pre-loaded budget otherwise they will not proceed. 

·         The work on the Blueschool House recommendations had concluded but the internal control improvement board would continue as a continuous improvement board. 

During the discussion, the following points were raised: 

·         Concern over the length of time that it would take to change the culture, especially as some of the recommendations were matters which should be a matter of course.   The chief executive explained that it would take time to train approx. 1,200 employees on the new systems and for the culture to change.    There were changes to how projects were monitored which included gateways which had to be met otherwise the project would not proceed.  

·         Blueschool House had exposed governance issues which should not have occurred.      It was felt that the timescales needed to be tightened up and should be within 12 months.  

·         That if there was a culture that says you can work round any procedures, then this is separate to the roll out of training.   A robust system would not be able to be by-passed as there would be checks and balances in place. 

A member of the committee noted that there had been a recommendation at the committee meeting on 20 September 2017 that the corporate peer challenge have a focus on the economy, communities and corporate (ECC) directorate.   The recent corporate peer challenge had not had a sole ECC focus and an assurance was sought that the recommendation had been discharged in its fullest sense.    The chief executive explained that he had indicated at the committee meeting on 28 November 2017 that the peer challenge would not be solely focused on ECC.     It was anticipated that the full final letter would be received within the next 2-3 weeks and the recommendations would be accepted and prioritised.    However, the chief executive had contacted the lead chief executive reviewer and had provided a briefing on Blueschool House.   As part of the information which had been sent to the peer challenge team, a position statement had been prepared which had also included Blueschool House.    The chief executive agreed to circulate a copy of the position statement to the committee.  

The chief executive further explained that the SWAP report into Blueschool House had concluded that the procedures and systems were in place but that individuals did not follow them.    The report did not conclude that there was a broader culture issue.  A further full and detailed investigation had been commissioned which looked into the detail of why the individuals had not followed the systems which related to ECC and the responsible service areas and appropriate HR action had been taken.   The contents of the detailed investigation had been shared on a confidential basis with group leaders and members of the cabinet.   A decision was taken that as these two pieces of work were more substantial than a peer review, the review would cover understanding of the local place and priority setting, leadership of place,  organisational leadership and governance, financial planning and viability and capacity to delivery.  The issue of governance directly relates to ECC as they are responsible for corporate services.

Given the recent S20 critical court judgement and the presence of the chief executive, the chairman exercised his discretion to allow questions on the S20 finding as they related to the functions of the committee.  

It was noted that though the regular performance challenge meetings had been positively commented upon by both the corporate peer review team and the children’s peer review team, the S20 judgement was an example of issues slipping through the net and procedures not being followed.  

The chief executive stated that the judgement was fully accepted and apologised for the behaviour.    It was explained that the actions went back to 2008 but that the council needed to ensure that proper practice will be followed and that appropriate action had been or will be taken.  It was noted that it was professionally important that where the staff involved were no longer employed by Herefordshire Council that they and their employees are aware of the judgement.     The chief executive set out the process which had been established for S20 cases:

1.         All requests for admission to the looked after system must be presented to a legal gateway meeting or a threshold of care panel.

2.         Every agreement to voluntary care must be reviewed by a member of legal team within 28 days.

3.         Social workers must consider the capacity of those persons with parental responsibility when seeking informed consent for an action.

4.         Independent Reviewing Officers must be satisfied that parents of children looked after under S20 of The Children Act 1989 understand what they have agreed to and continue to agree. They must be reminded of their ability to withdraw consent.

5.         Independent Reviewing Officers must use the escalation process to challenge any instances of case drift.

6.         All decisions made within legal gateway meetings should be followed up within a month by the relevant head of service.

7.         The Placement Panel should review all looked after children who have been in Herefordshire Council’s care for more than six months. This will take place until permanence is secured.

The chief executive explained that the approach to S20 had changed over a period of years and there will be other local authorities who will not have used this legislation appropriately.    The care of the two young people mentioned in this case had been praised by the judge and this had been provided by Herefordshire foster carers.

A member of the committee commented that they were surprised that the above actions were not a matter of course.   

Following a query from a committee member, it was confirmed that the matter does appear on the ECC directorate risk register.   A discussion had taken place at management board and the matter would now be considered for inclusion on the corporate risk register.

It was noted that this matter had not been discussed at a performance challenge meeting.    Whilst members could request to discuss any matters, it was difficult for them to find out issues, for example whilst information on S20 may have been presented to meetings, the data had not indicated the duration a child or young person remained S20, this meant that members do not know to ask questions if it is not flagged to them that there is an issue.   The chief executive confirmed that members could request an update on any children or young people who are S20 and the length of time they have been S20.   

RESOLVED

THAT the report be noted