There were no apologies for absence as all members of the committee were present.

Councillors Mrs Mary Green and Mrs B Nathan both declared a personal interest in Item 5 (Scrutiny Review of Licensing ? the way in which the external licensing investigation was handled by South Ribble Borough Council) because each were related to someone mentioned in the report and both were able under the National Code of Conduct for Elected Members to remain in the meeting and take part in the discussion and voting thereon.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 June 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.
?

The committee considered the list of matters arising from the last and earlier meetings. It was agreed to remove all the matters from the list, with the exception of the following:

23/06/15 ? Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? year end 2014/15 (April 2014 ? March 2015) ? min. no.5 (7)
26/01/16 ? Cabinet Member Update ? Neighbourhoods & Streetscene ? min. no.41 (5) ? more information was requested
26/01/16 ? Worden Park Vision Plan ? progress update ? min. no.43 (3)
08/03/16 ? Consultation on the Draft Housing Framework ? min. no.53 (3)
08/03/16 ? Cabinet Member Update ? Regeneration & Leisure ? min. no.54 (4 & 7)
19/04/16 ? Chorley & South Ribble Community Safety Partnership ? min. no.59 (5)
19/04/16 ? Strategic Asset & Property Review ? Phase 1 ? min. no.60 (3)

The chairman introduced the committee?s task group?s report and initially re-capped for clarity, the previously endorsed terms of reference. He confirmed that the task group took full ownership of the report. It had made a distinction between opinion and fact. Information had been collated and provided the basis of the findings. The chairman stated that any questions and comments should relate to the recommendations and matters of fact and not opinions.

Councillor Titherington confirmed that the task group had not dealt with any individual cases as this was not in the terms of reference and any issues relating to the handling of those matters would be dealt with under the council?s procedures and go through due process. The chairman hoped that the report would be received as intended, identify where lessons needed to be learned, take those lessons on board, repair any damage done, make improvements and restore residents? trust and confidence in their council. It was confirmed that the normal procedure for discussion would apply ? members of the committee would initially ask questions followed by members not on the committee and then the public.

In conjunction with the report, the committee considered additional information (circulated prior to the meeting) regarding submissions received earlier in the week relating to the report?s recommendations. Those comments were noted with the exception of a point relating to Recommendation 6 for which it was agreed to amend the wording to read - ?That the conduct of the five Members of Cabinet involved in taking unconstitutional
decisions be referred to the Monitoring Officer for formal consideration as to whether any breach of the members Code of Conduct has taken place.?

It was felt that this was a very difficult issue to grasp and it had been a wise move to engage the LGA?s advisor (Alison Lowton) whose expertise had been vital to pull the report together. The report was fact/evidence based and was believed to be very hard to dispute.

In responding to any enquiry about how the membership of the task group was chosen and why there were no meetings in public, the chairman reminded those present that the task group had been in place and endorsed by the committee and council. In particular, members of the committee had just approved the minutes of the last meeting. In respect of no further meetings in public, the chairman commented that subsequent to earlier comments it had become clear that enough information had been gathered and it was not felt holding public interviews would add value.

The chairman was not aware that anyone had found the reviews findings as light. The matter had not been taken as light and he referred back to the facts/findings. There had been an unconstitutional Cabinet decision which had resulted in an unpublished delegated decision, also contra to the constitution.

Following an enquiry regarding persons interviewed face to face or just by telephone, the recommendation that five members of Cabinet be referred to Standards Committee and no opportunity to ask the external solicitors. The chairman reminded those present that when he was asked to make arrangements to receive the external report for council it was made clear it was not scrutiny?s job to re-write the report. The external solicitor?s had confirmed they took full ownership of their report. It was a matter for council to decide if appropriate to interview them. At that council meeting there was no comment/question on the report but how received and who had done what. He added that five of the seven member Cabinet had been present when it had made the unconstitutional decision to appoint external solicitors to investigate licensing.

The chairman commented that scrutiny did not know why the Leader, one Cabinet member and the Chief Executive were excluded from being interviewed as part of the investigation by the external solicitors. Nor why they had agreed to be excluded from the investigation.

Councillor Michael Green in the audience commented that sadly the council had failed the vulnerable and good taxi drivers. Once this had been identified external solicitors had been commissioned to investigate and correct the service. He added that he had a submission for the committee on behalf of himself and Councillors Bennett and Mrs Moon. The chairman commented that at 5.30pm that evening during the committee?s pre-meeting Councillor Green had given the officer present a number of papers for the Scrutiny Committee to consider. Those papers had not been considered as it was inappropriate to be presented at 5.30pm but indicated this submission could be read out. The chairman reminded the meeting that tonight was really about delivering the task group?s agreed terms of reference, findings and the recommendations.

Councillor Green then read out the submission for those present questioning the formulation of the task group and suggested that a number of the findings were unsound as they were not supported by corroborating evidence. It was not understood why certain other officers had not been interviewed as part of the process. It was stated that the councillors had acted on advice received. In summing up it was requested that the first draft and all subsequent versions of the external solicitor?s report from 12 April be made available; make available the redacted the redacted Interim Report for the external solicitors; as it is incomplete at this stage reject the draft final report; give right of reply to correct inaccuracies; reconsider report in view of chairman?s previous assurance that witnesses would be interviewed in public and a voice given to victims and families; and establish lines of enquiry and interviews all witnesses (included suggested additional ones) in public with opportunity for everyone to ask questions of witnesses.

The chairman commented that a number of points had been raised most of which he disagreed with. The findings had been produced and backed by evidence. He confirmed that the Chief Executive had not written the task group?s terms of reference. The chairman had drafted the task groups terms of reference which were forwarded to the LGA advisor and the Chief Executive had collated the two. This was then agreed by the Scrutiny Committee and endorsed by full council. The task group followed its terms of reference with evidence to substantiate the findings with time lines (supported by FOIs and emails). It had to be conceded that the Cabinet made a very important decision at an informal meeting and a delegated decision was signed but not published. It was not felt that this submission changed the findings and/or recommendations in the report. The chairman welcomed a debate at council. He added that it was important the council took on board lessons learned so that it could move forward positively.

In respect of a query regarding the delegated decision and the waiver, the chairman commented that if anyone had information, they should send it straight away. At the time the delegated decision was signed there was no waiver, it was made five days later. Hence it was not constitutional. The documents were not pleasant reading.

From the audience, whilst it was acknowledged that the task group had put a lot of effort into this matter and gathered a lot of information, it was suggested it was largely uncorroborated. There had now been two reports, this one and the earlier from the external solicitors but neither appeared to have any meat in stripping down to what happened in the first place. The council?s General Licensing Committee was tasked with maintaining public safety, could it not have added value to the investigation? It had no opportunity to be part of the discussion. Also, earlier tonight there was a comment that public involvement would not add value. The chairman again referred the meeting to the task group?s terms of reference and clarified his earlier comment regarding future public involvement. In that, it would no add value to hold public interviews and that the task group had complied with its terms of reference. He added that it was not for scrutiny to investigate individual cases and if a member of the public was not satisfied the matter could be taken elsewhere.

It was then suggested that as the council?s Constitution was often complex/unclear then instead a 30-40 page brief guide be provided for officers and members identifying the rules. The chairman referred the meeting to the recommendation that the council?s governance arrangements be strengthened (such as its Governance, Scrutiny and Standards Committees). He acknowledged that councillors could not be expected to know every part of the Constitution but senior councillors should. It was a matter for council that councillors and officers were aware of and conscious of the Constitution.

In response to a comment that the task group?s terms of reference were not clear enough to satisfy council and that going forward an apology should be given to those affected (the council had done so far), the chairman stated that that was not his gift and he was not aware of individual cases/issues.

From the audience, in support of Councillor Michael Green?s earlier address, there was a willingness to learn lessons but a lot in the report was uncorroborated and this very lengthy document had been put in the public domain without checking the facts (number of factual inaccuracies). Further observations would be made on the report.

A member of the public asked if the LGA advisor and the external solicitors would be willing to be scrutinised by the public and Councillor Foster appeared to know facts. Who chose the interviewees and why was he not included? The chairman stated he could not answer for the external solicitors but confirmed that the LGA advisor would not be interviewed. That person had assisted the task group in its enquiries which had been invaluable. This was the task group?s report which had taken full ownership of it not the LGA advisor. There had been a meeting with the external solicitors and the task group had asked those involved with their commissioning. Councillor Ogilvie had asked that question at council and the chairman had subsequently written to him but it was not scrutiny?s gift but a matter for council. In respect of Councillor Foster, the chairman commented that he was not interviewed because he had not been involved in the process.

It was moved and seconded that the report with an amended Recommendation 6 and with the circulated Additional Information appended be approved for submission to council on 5 October 2016. There was a proposed amendment (that the report be returned to the task group to be considered further and that all the witnesses including the external solicitors be called in to be questioned in a public meeting). However, an amendment should not negate the proposal or introduce a new proposal. Therefore in this case it was a straight vote on the original proposal, which was carried.

RESOLVED (10 in favour, 2 against) that the report with an amended Recommendation 6 and with the circulated Additional Information appended be approved for submission to council on 5 October 2016.

The chairman apologised that due to the council?s current circumstances this report had not been considered sooner. He congratulated the community work in Leyland to strengthen links with local groups which was seen as an opportunity to ensure that there was a level of support in place should similar unfortunate events re-occur.

Councillor Wharton in the audience commented he had sat on the review?s task group. Whilst the council?s staff on the ground had been fantastic he hoped that the lessons had been learned from the short comings around senior management and lack of communication and there was now a structure in place prepared to deal with such an event.

Councillor Ms Bell in the audience commented on the events on 26 December 2015, including the volunteers who had all mucked in to help residents. She was aware that Councillor Mrs Snape had continued to work with residents of Western Drive and the Environment Agency (EA). At the time the EA had advised Councillor Ms Bell to contact the police. As she chairman of the Leyland Neighbourhood Forum, she would write to volunteers such as C W Berry and put forward nominations for the South Ribble Partnership Community Awards.

Councillor Mrs Snape in the audience confirmed that she had been involved with residents and there had been a meeting with the EA, United Utilities and the county council on Western Drive. She added that resilience and preventative measures had been put in place.

The committee was aware that the council and its staff when dealing with the flooding to assist residents was doing so beyond its statutory obligation/responsibility. The committee was also reminded that in the following days the council had subsequently assisted 49 local businesses.

Councillor Bennett in the audience (at the time Cabinet member for Emergency Planning) also thanked council staff but had felt that the issue had been the initial 24-48 hours to engage the process. He added that the government had been quick to respond to make monies available and the council?s call-centre (Gateway) had opened and pro-actively processed flood resilience payments. He hoped lessons had been learned and felt that a lot of good had come from the events.

In his summing up, the chairman thanked those members for their comments adding that the task group was aware of the community spirit and taken on board that this council was not the statutory body. There had been special circumstances around Storm Eva and events around Lancashire. It was felt that the recommendations showed lessons could be learned which in future would improve the council?s co-ordination and reaction. He thanked the volunteers and expressed appreciation to officers and public.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the committee endorses the task group?s findings/recommendations and agrees that the report be considered at the next meeting of the council on 5 October 2016.

The chairman commented that events had overtaken consideration of this report as it was almost time to consider the next six monthly (mid-year) report. He again apologised that due to the council?s current circumstances this report had not been considered sooner. The chairman welcomed Councillor Mullineaux (Leader of the Council) and Denise Johnson (Director of Development, Enterprise and Communities) who was currently covering for the council?s Chief Executive.

The Leader felt that overall this was a very good report but concurred that the report was now a few months out of date.

In response to a comment that the council?s refreshed 2015 Corporate Plan looked very similar to the previous one and despite requests for the actions to be SMART, Councillor Mullineaux commented that the council always looked to improve where possible and the plan would be re-visited where the committee was not particularly happy.

The committee wondered if the council was confident that the targeted efficiencies could be achieved without affecting frontline services. Whilst not all efficiency saving had been achieved, the Leader was quite happy with the results. However, whilst acknowledging the council had a very good record of achieving efficiency savings, the committee was aware that this had included efficiencies (money saving) regarding the licensing service. Recent and on-going events made it very hard to argue that those efficiencies had not had an adverse impact on the service.

The Leader confirmed the council tried to improve all the time and new Neighbourhood Plans for the borough were being prepared.

In respect of the Lancashire Waste Strategy, Councillor Mullineaux confirmed that the current arrangements would stop in 2018 and the council would almost be on its own. It was trying to work with other borough council?s in Lancashire to get a way forward. He added that the recent new refuse contract had saved this council around ?600,000. The council needed to look at increasing shared services and work with others the best it could.

In response to an enquiry around Key Action 8 (develop a range of town and village centre environmental schemes) and development work in Leyland, the Leader stated he would provide an accurate response after the meeting.

The Leader confirmed that the council was continually looking at opportunities to invest/use its reserves (best use of its assets to increase revenue), which could include the purchase of industrial units or possibly build houses. In respect of the strategic asset and property review, the Leader confirmed that whilst there was nothing to report at the moment, this was coming to a close and would be reported soon.

Whilst the committee congratulated the council on retaining the Green Flags for a number of its parks, in respect of Worden Park it had become aware of reduced staffing and wondered if the park?s vison plan would be refreshed in 2016/17. Councillor Mullineaux reminded the committee that the plan was a vision for the park over 20 years and would be updated as time went by and staffing and financial resources would be allocated as appropriate. He did not have the information to hand regarding staffing levels had offered to find out. However, he had not felt that this would be detrimental to the park?s status.

The committee commented that regarding risk management that whilst it was known the council faced an increasing budget deficit in future years along with an apparent deficit in the City Deal finances. However, there was no reference to those major matters in the risk register which was a cause for concern. The Leader commented that the matter regarding City Deal finances was not new and it was a case of managing it.

Councillor Mullineaux acknowledged that there had previously been a backlog in dealing with Disabled Facilities Grants but this had been dealt with and it was hoped that those that deserved the grant would receive it. He added he was not aware of anyone dying whilst waiting for a grant. The council wanted to get the grant to people as soon as possible.

The Leader commented that in respect of enforcement, the council was looking to use new technologies and encourage residents of the borough to assist by being eyes and ears to tackle instance of fly tipping/dog fouling etc as soon as possible. The Director responded to an enquiry regarding the type of support the council gave to the 303 businesses. There was to be a Member Learning Hour on Business Support and Regeneration where members would be able to ask specific questions. As would be expected the council did not simply throw monies at businesses. It worked in partnership with such as the county council and applied for external funding (ie Coastal Communities Fund). The council hosted events which had developed over the last 18 months which were targeted at such as jobs/skills, business breakfast club, supporting the networking of businesses, advise how small/medium businesses could benefit from City Deal.

Councillor Mullineaux confirmed that this council was still involved with the shadow Lancashire Combined Authority.

Councillor Ms Bell in the audience commented that in the borough there was a very good domestic abuse service. However, she was saddened that government cuts would result in service cuts at the Women?s Refuge which could close in March 2017. This needed to be given serious consideration. The service had already been affected with the loss of the floating support. The Leader understood the concern and felt this was an area where the Community Safety Partnership could possibly help suggesting this needed to be looked at before it was too late.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the committee:
1. again requests that the corporate plan be reviewed to ensure that its actions and measures were SMART;
2. recommends that the Cabinet ensures that the efficiency programme did not adversely affect frontline services and that any affects were effectively assessed;
3. looks forward to the Leader providing further information on the Town & Village Centre Plans;
4. congratulates the council on the retention of the Green Flags but expresses some concern that the feedback indicates the number of council staff had reduced and requests further information;
5. requests that a report on the council?s approach to risk management be presented to a future meeting of the committee;
6. welcomes the proposed Member Learning Hour on Economic Development and asks that it provide practical examples and outcomes of the council?s economic development work; and
7. supports the Leader?s work in maintaining the women?s refuge in the borough.

a) Verbal update on the committee?s recent workshop ? the chairman confirmed that this had been useful and another workshop would be held in the near future

b) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ?
the chairman reported he had attended a meeting that day which in particular had looked at the closure of the A&E department at Chorley & South Ribble Hospital

c) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? the chairman had attended a meeting of the Scrutiny NW Network

d) Scrutiny Work Programme ? the committee was reviewing its work programme

e) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans ? these were noted.