| Place: | Cross Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland, PR25 1DH |
| Present: | Councillor Mr G O'Hare (in the chair) Councillors Mrs A A Ball, Mr J E J Breakell, Mr C P Hamman |
| In attendance: | Corporate Directors (Policy and Neighbourhoods) (John Dakin) and (Resources) (Mike Nuttall), Principal Management Accountant (Jane Blundell), Senior Democratic Services Officer (Andy Houlker) and the Cabinet member for Finance and Resources (Councillor S Robinson) Representatives from the council?s External Auditors (Audit Commission) Gareth Winstanley and David Brown |
| Public attendance: | 1 |
| Other Officers: | Councillors Titherington and M Tomlinson and the Audit Services Manager |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPEN ITEMS | ||||
| 16 |
Apologies for Absence An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Ogilvie. |
Noted | ||
| 17 |
Minutes of the Last Meeting Minutes attached The chairman commented that the committee had as yet not received any information from the Cabinet member for Regeneration & Planning (min. no. 11(4) refers). RESOLVED: 1. that the minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2009 be signed as a correct record; and 2. that the Cabinet member for Regeneration & Planning be reminded of resolution 11(4). |
Agreed | ||
| 18 |
Draft Protocol For Dealing With Areas Of Joint Responsibilities Draft Protocol attached The committee received a draft protocol for dealing with areas of joint responsibilities of the Governance and Scrutiny Committees. The Scrutiny Committee had considered and accepted this protocol at its meeting held on 24 November 2009 (min. no.32 refers). RESOLVED: that the draft protocol be accepted for dealing with areas of joint responsibilities. |
Agreed | ||
| 19 |
External Audit - Use of Resources Auditor Judgements Use of Resources attached At the chairman?s invitation, the council?s External Auditors (Audit Commission) presented the Use of Resources (UoR) Auditor Judgements. This summarised the findings from their assessment of how the council was managing and using its resources to deliver value for money and better and sustainable outcomes for local people. This was the first year of assessment under new methodology for UoR measuring how well the council delivered outcomes for the benefit of the community. They were pleased to report that the council was performing well. The themes for the UoR scores were managing finances, governing business and managing resources. A score of 3 and above was expected to be in the upper quartile nationally. This was bearing in mind that the assessment criteria was much higher than previously. The chairman was interested to know if the Audit Commission had conducted the assessment as the council's external auditor or as the Audit Commission. It was informed that it was part of its remit nationally as an external auditor and other firms appointed such as KPMG. The external auditors assessed local authorities to the same criteria and the national report on councils' performances would be published on 9 December 2009. The committee was also informed that the Audit Commission carried out over 200 assessments (around 70%) of district and unitary authorities. This particular audit team had done four in Lancashire and two others. In response to a question asking how this council compared with others, the auditors commented that there was excellent co-operation, timely provision of information and very productive lines of enquiry. In respect of whether all aspects of the assessment were prescribed. Whilst there were not necessarily areas of variation there was an element of rounded judgement. However there was a rigorous process where councils' scores were compared to ensure a consistent application of the process and it was robust. It was noted that the council's scores for each theme appeared co-incidentally to be three. The external auditors commented that this reflected good arrangements and the council had performed well across the themes. Responding to an enquiry about being rated as excellent, the committee was told a council had to stand out above the rest, demonstrate innovation and best practise consistently across the themes. The chairman then asked how this linked to the CAA (Comprehensive Area Assessment). It was informed the UoR was part of the council's Organisational Assessment. This in turn was an aspect/level that went in to the CAA. Councillor Hamman referred to point 28 which indicated that sickness absence at 10.02 days was comparatively high. The Audit Commission confirmed this as the national average was between 6 to 7 days. However, the committee was reminded that this information related to 2008/09. It was recognised that the council had worked hard in the first six months of 2009/10 to improve this. Also there might be trends behind the figures such as long term absence skewing the results. It was anticipated that the council would show a significant improvement in 2009/10. The chairman referred to the findings/conclusions in Appendix 1 and based on that wondered why the council had not scored higher. Had this been influenced by the problem with the Icelandic Banks? The auditors commented, not unduly as they had considered and were satisfied with the council's Treasury Management Strategy (including Icelandic monies) compared against best practise and CIPFA guidance. The chairman further asked what the council needed to do to achieve 4 (excellent). In response external audit commented that the report gave a backwards look and summarised what had been found. That being good solid, robust processes delivering well for the people of South Ribble. The nature of the report was not to suggest/recommend what was needed to be done to score excellent. However, the auditors were aware of the council's progress with its C-Smart programme (VFM/business re-engineering) but had not felt this sufficiently progressed at the time of assessment to be scored excellent. The council's track record provided a firm foundation and it was moving in the right direction. Councillor Breakell felt it would have been beneficial if the report had included more recommendations. In respect of the single recommendation (R1) relating to data from third parties, the auditors explained that the council needed to be satisfied the data was accurate/timely and soundly based, robust (had an audit trail) and could be trusted. The chairman commented that the recommendation appeared reasonable and the Corporate Director (Resources) added that management?s comments included in Appendix 2 had accepted the recommendation and this was being attended to. The Cabinet member commented that the basic purpose of auditing was to add value and whilst accepting the report was historic there were few recommendations which he felt was slightly worrying. Whilst the auditors had had access to the council?s documentation, to produce added value there should have been some recommendations to the council to take the next steps (particularly as very few councils were expected to scored 4). The council was keen to improve and progress but it was very difficult to know where to go and how to move onward. External audit replied that the Audit Commission?s national report would be published on 9 December and it had a database of best practise and those who had scored excellent which would be available to share, and it encouraged a debate around this so others could see what and how things were done. It was suggested to make contact with other authorities and the auditors were happy to share examples of notable practise. The Cabinet member then further commented in respect of recommendation (R1) that there were limits to the extent the council could validate data from third parties. He understood the message but this was not easy, for example Lancashire County Council was a very large organisation compared to voluntary bodies. The auditors understood the comment and stated there had to be an appropriate approach to risk, which would limit the length the council could go. It should be sought that the data added value, there were checks/validations in place and it could be trusted and for example if relating to funding did it provide value for money. The external auditors would engage with officers to agree arrangements for this, the council might find some were organisations already doing this. The member of the public asked what the external auditors remit was and was informed it covered the whole of the council?s operations. He sought an example of a excellence and was told this was a new assessment and the national report would be published on 9 December. The chairman asked if any of the six authorities the external auditor had assessed had receive excellent and for what. He was informed the ones they were aware of had been for such as people management and data quality. RESOLVED: 1. that the committee welcomes the external auditor?s positive report; 2. that the recommendation (R1) and the council?s response be accepted; and 3. that the committee feels the report could have been more informative in what the council needs to do to move from performing well to performing excellently under the new regime. |
Agreed | ||
| 20 |
Budget Monitoring Report - Quarter 2: July-September 2009/10 Budget Monitoring Report attached Councillor S Robinson presented the mid year report which provided an update on the council?s overall financial position and financial strategy for the current financial year. He felt a lot of the figures were self explanatory and gave a reasonable indication for this year?s out turn, but at this stage it was too early to be precise. The cabinet member was encouraged by the council?s performance and conscious decisions had been made to hold certain posts vacant and defer certain expenditure. The council?s target of making ?2.28m savings during 2009/10 was a real challenge. However to date savings were in the region of ?1.2m, together with further non-recurring savings of ?700,000. The council was currently looking to see how these could be made recurring. This was not the final position and the council still had to work very hard to achieve the target set in the budget. The chairman referred to the reported under spend of ?312,000 on employee costs and was informed that the council had budgeted for a 2.5% pay award which had actually been 1%. This had created a 1.5% recurring saving which had been included in the report. The discussion then mentioned the council?s CSmart programme and that all posts when they became vacant were assessed and decisions taken to fill, hold vacant etc. The chairman requested the next report include details of the number of vacant posts. The chairman complimented the Cabinet member for the explanations in section 6.1 (revenue performance against budget). However, the committee commented that section 6.3 (budgetary pressures) did not give any explanations or what the council proposed to do. It was felt this would be helpful. It was noted that car parking income was identified as below target and it was wondered if this was a problem or seasonal cash flow. It was difficult for the committee or members to comment without guidance. An explanation was sought by the chairman and one given on section 6.1(f) relating to Grounds Maintenance that the current under spend of ?120,000 was seasonal and would be spent in the year with the exception of ?30,000 which was a budgetary saving. The Cabinet member commented that he was wary to include in this report monies to be spent over the remainder of the year as things might change. The chairman referred to the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) also known as the South Ribble Partnership (SRP) and sought clarification on the funding/grant issue. He was informed that this had been a government funded county wide issue through the Lancashire Area Agreement (LAA). A target of ?0.204m had been identified in Appendix D to the council?s 2009/10 budget report. However, due to circumstances beyond the council?s control the revised timing of such grant payments to the LSP now meant that it was not likely to be available for the council to bid for during 2009/10. There was then a discussion about the appropriateness of this money (?0.204m) being identified as a saving or whether it was additional income. It was suggested that additional income was not a saving. This was countered in that if the monies had been received by the council in time it would have been possible to off-set costs in other areas. The Cabinet member felt this was a matter of terminology in the report and this could be changed for future reports if appropriate. The chairman noted that the council?s overall target to save ?2.28m in 2009/10 would consist of a combination of actual savings and extra income. Councillor M Tomlinson in the audience referred to Commercial Services and the target to save ?193,000. It was suggested that if this consisted of ?50,000 additional income and ?143,000 saving but neither were achieved it would be difficult to examine based on this report. The Cabinet member accepted this, commenting that the report contained factual information and sometimes too much information was provided. He added that if there were any particular areas of interest members wished to look at before the meeting he would obtain the detail. The committee was reminded that the Cabinet member and Corporate Director (Resources) wanted feedback on the format and information contained in the report. Following the last meeting comments had been taken on board and the report amended. It was generally felt the format was good with a little more attention needed to explanations and headings. It was acknowledged that the next budget monitoring report with figures to December 2009 would provide a different/clearer picture of performance for the year. Councillor Titherington also in the audience felt the report was good and easier to understand. However, stated that the ?2.28m savings target was never achievable from 1 April 2009. In respect of car parking income, this directly related to the council. The Cabinet member acknowledged the point and he hadn?t anticipated the savings from 1 April 2009 with a range of strategies to follow. In respect of car parking he agreed it was within council control and commented that the council?s Street Scene had been very active in this area. The take up of business permits was very low with no explanation. As part of the budget process the council had to assess the level of take up. There had been an increase in the car parking charges, discussions with market traders and the trialling of free spaces. The member than referred to the council?s Capital Programme 2009/10. Following the decision not to go ahead with the joint offices (?1.57m withdrawn from budget) what was needed to refurbish the Civic Centre, and would the previous proposal to install double glazing be restored. He was advised that an update on the council?s Financial Strategy would be looked at in February/March 2010 which would include the capital programme and schemes deferred as part of the joint offices project. The progression of the joint project had been dependent on the council disposing of the Civic Centre and the item was removed from the programme rather than keep varying the figures because nothing was happening. Councillor M Tomlinson referred back to Grounds Maintenance and the saving of ?30,000. He thought the service would spend more in the summer months than later in the year. He was informed that there would be specific pieces of work programmed outside of the busy summer period (and this seasonal spending pattern could be profiled). The same member then referred to the item on Concessionary Travel (6(g)) which to date showed a positive variance compared to the previously reported delay in receipt of the LSP monies. He added that when setting the budget there had been strong concerns about the financial impact of concessionary travel but confidence the council would receive the LSP monies which had not happened. It was felt consistency of approach would be very useful. In response the Cabinet member did not feel the comment was warranted, as the member had been talking about actual/budgeted expectation not certainties. It was possible to budget with a degree of certainty but there were many elements of uncertainty. The council had really tried to produce the budget report as openly and honestly as possible and it was felt the use of uncertainty was valid in this instance. At the time the council was setting the 2009/10 budget whilst not 100% certain it was confident it would receive the ?204,000 through the LSP but the implications of concessionary travel were still very uncertain. RESOLVED: 1. that the committee welcomes the generally positive report; 2. that the committee acknowledges the progress being made in respect of target savings for the 2009/10 budget; 3. that the committee welcomes the revised report format; 4. that the committee recommends that there be a better distinction between additional income and savings; 5. that the committee recommends that where possible to identify seasonal spending patterns; and 6. that the next Budget Monitoring Report include details of the number of vacant posts. |
Agreed | ||
| 21 |
Review of the Constitution Constitution Report (35K/bytes) attached The chairman introduced this item and explained the committee's remit included reviewing the council's constitution. He had discussed this with other councillors and it was felt there were a number of issues/topics for consideration/discussion. For example, frequency of meetings, chairman reports to council, public participation at meetings and, discussing more local issues at meetings of the council. It was noted that a report on the council's constitution was usually considered at the last meeting of the council in a municipal year. This year this was 14 April 2010. However, scheduled meetings of this committee were 17 February 2010 and 29 April 2010. Therefore in order for the committee to finalise its review it might be necessary to convene an additional meeting prior to the meeting of the council on 14 April. There was a good general discussion by those present about the merits of the style/methodology of review the committee might adopt. It was also suggested by the member of the public that as the constitution affected the public they should be able to contribute. On balance it was felt a task group approach was more appropriate. The task group to consist of members of the committee and the Labour Group be invited to suggest someone from the group. RESOLVED: 1. that the committee creates a task group to look at the council's constitution; 2. that membership of the task group be those councillors on the Governance Committee and also include a member of the Labour Group; 3. that the initial meeting of the task group be held in January 2010; 4. that initially members of the task group be provided with a briefing note on the issues/topics to consider; and 5. that should it be necessary an additional meeting of the committee be convened to enable the task group to report its findings, in time to be subsequently considered by the meeting of the council on 14 April 2010. |
Agreed | ||
| 22 |
Forward Plan Forward Plan attached The committee considered its Forward Plan. It was suggested that consideration of the Assurance Services Strategy be moved to 29 April 2010. This was because the strategy was currently being updated for 2010/11 and the new strategy would be available in April. RESOLVED: that subject to consideration of the Assurance Services Strategy being moved to 29 April 2010, the committee's Forward Plan be noted. |
Agreed | ||