| Place: | Cross Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland, PR25 1DH |
| Present: | Councillor Mr G O'Hare (in the chair) Councilors Mr W L Bennett, Mr P A Foster, Mr M A Green, Mrs J A Mort |
| In attendance: | Democratic Services Manager (Martin O?Loughlin), Principal Management Accountant (Jane Blundell), Internal Audit Manager (Clare Ware) and Senior Democratic Services Officer (Andy Houlker) and the Deputy Leader and Neighbourhoods and Street Scene (Councillor Peter Mullineaux) Fiona Blatcher (Senior Auditor Manager/Engagement Lead (Audit Commission (council?s external auditor)) |
| Public attendance: | 1 |
| Other Officers: | Councillors Hamman and Martin, and 2 officers |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPEN ITEMS | ||||
| 26 |
Apologies for Absence An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Patten. Whilst not members of the committee, the chairman also took the opportunity to report apologies on behalf of the Cabinet member for Finance and Resources (Councillor Stephen Robinson), Director of Corporate Governance (Maureen Wood) and Democratic Services Officer (Carol Eddleston). |
Noted | ||
| 27 |
Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest. |
Noted | ||
| 28 |
Minutes of the Last Meeting Minutes attached UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2011 be signed as a correct record. |
Agreed | ||
| 29 |
Annual Audit Letter 2010/11 Report attached The chairman welcomed Fiona Blatcher, the Audit Commission?s Senior Auditor Manager/Engagement Lead. She apologised that the information presented in this annual report was very similar to that in the Annual Governance Statement as part of the council?s Statement of Accounts considered by the committee at its last meeting (min. no.16, 28 September). However, because of different regulatory requirements both had to be produced and reported. This information was published and available on both the council and Audit Commission?s websites. The committee noted with pleasure the auditor?s comments on page 3, that the council had adopted a strategic approach to dealing with a significant reduction in resources and had a good track record in identifying and delivering significant savings whilst also maintaining or improving services. This was felt particularly significant in the current climate. In response to an enquiry regarding this council?s shared services arrangements with Chorley, Ms Blatcher commented that it was clear this arrangement worked for both of the two councils. There had been a pragmatic approach which had not been rushed over a period of time. Whilst there were larger/wider partnerships delivering greater savings, there were also some horror stories. Both councils could (subject to political will) consider including the majority of services they provided. In respect of widening joint working to other partners, this council obviously had a good existing arrangement with Chorley. Whilst there was no reason joint working could not be widened to include other bodies it was essential to a good partnership that there was a willing partner and it worked for the parties. Referring to previously stated optimum level of council reserves (10% of turnover), as this council?s current level was above 20%, the committee wondered if there were any restrictions/rules and whether its current level of reserves was appropriate. The external auditor replied that there were no specific rules as it was a judgement by an individual council based on risks it faced and the cost if they materialised. In the current climate (and the council had already identified a funding gap) it was better to have a higher level of reserves. UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: That the report be noted. |
Agreed | ||
| 30 |
Budget Monitoring Statement - 2nd Quarter Report attached Appendices 1&2 (178K/bytes) attached Appendix 3 (50K/bytes) attached The Deputy Leader and Neighbourhoods and Street Scene (Councillor Mullineaux) presented this item commenting this formed part of the corporate performance report considered by Scrutiny on 29 November. This represented the mid year and the council was in a slightly better position than expected. The council had already achieved ?1.5M efficiency savings against the ?1.8M target. Although whilst in some service areas projected increases in income had not materialised this had been compensated by additional savings. The report also provided an update on the council?s capital programme including the re-scheduling of some items. Councillor Foster referred to the capital programme on page 2 of the report expressing concern that it appeared as inaccurate budgeting with a projected 25% under spend. He asked if there were any plans to tighten budgeting. The Cabinet member confirmed the council wanted its budgeting to be as tight as possible. The chairman commented that there was a Scrutiny report on the capital programme but this had been focused on its reporting rather than spending. The chairman noted that employee costs had been taken from reserves. The Principal Management Accountant replied these one-off costs were planned to be funded from reserves and show an on-going revenue saving. Dependent on the revenue position at the end of the year would determine whether remained from reserves or was revenue. Councillor W Bennett referred to Appendix 2 (page 5) commenting on the significant shortfall in projected income which was explained as staffing re-structure part way in the year. The chairman also referred to income generation, in particular relating to building control and planning fee income. The Principal Management Accountant commented that there was a summary on Appendix 1 (page 1), which whilst these showed a shortfall there were other elements to off-set this. The council was quite confident this would not be an issue for 2011/12 and work was ongoing across the council to increase ongoing recurring savings. The chairman then asked about a mechanism for flagged items and was informed there was monthly reporting (identifying variances etc) and accountants had ongoing dialogue with their specific service areas. Some times the income/expenditure profile might look like there was a variance but this levelled out. The Cabinet member added that it would be remiss if all members of Cabinet did keep regular checks as it was their responsibility to monitor driven by the Cabinet member for Finance and Resources. Councillor Foster mentioned the recent Autumn Statement, including the announced 1% pay award for employees. He wondered about the impact of the statement whether this contained any worries or good news for the council. Councillor Mullineaux did not feel there was any good news at the moment adding that after next year the council did not know its level of funding from the government. The chairman asked if the council had budgeted for next year?s pay award and was informed it had made provision for a pay award. The Chief Executive (in the audience) added that whilst confirming a pay award had been included in the statement, the details of its implications including a pay award were still being ascertained. The committee turned its attention to Laptop Replacement Programme (Appendix 3, page1) and discussed the longer term merits of the council?s decision to purchase its previously rented personal computers and sought clarification on the rationale for the decision and by whom. Councillor Martin (in the audience) referred to the item in the capital programme, Cycle Routes (Appendix 3, page3) and asked for an update on the comment that external funding was being sought. The Principal Management Accountant did not have the information to hand and offered to find out. UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: That the committee noted the Budget Monitoring Report 2nd Quarter 2011/12 and sought the following; a) an update on the details of the Autumn Statement?s pension implications on South Ribble; b) a clarification of the rationale for the decision and by whom regarding the computers; and c) an update on the external funding being sought for Cycle Routes. |
Agreed | ||
| 31 |
Treasury Management - Update Report (112K/bytes) attached The Deputy Leader (Councillor Mullineaux) introduced the report which primarily updated the committee on the implications of the recent Icelandic Court decision. Councillor Foster complimented Councillor Robinson (Cabinet member for Finance and Resources) stating the Labour Group backed his good work on recovering and securing the council?s assets. He asked if there was anything more that could be done to protect the council?s assets during this unsettled financial period. Councillor Mullineaux replied that following the Icelandic situation, the council had already considerably tightened its arrangements and he personally did not feel there was much more that could be done. There were sensitive negotiations taking place and the latest information was in the update. Councillor Foster then asked and had confirmed that investments backed by this government were 100% guaranteed. The chairman commented that whilst no monies had been returned from Landsbanki it was forecast this could be between 95-98% by 2018 and wondered what proportion might be seen and how soon. In response, this was unknown at this stage. The chairman also asked if the final date for receipt of all monies relating to the Heritable Bank was 2018 or sooner. The Cabinet member understood sooner. The Chief Executive (in the audience) felt this might be over the next couple of years as it was understood the bank?s administrator wanted to realise the assets. [Editor?s Note: based on the latest accounting guidance, its expected the final Heritable dividend payment to be made in January 2013. Obviously this might change should the Administrator?s assumptions change at any time before then.] In response to an enquiry the Chief Executive (in the audience) replied that the payments in respect of Landsbanki were in different currencies because it had not been wanted all in Icelandic Krona. The member of the public wondered why this council was making deposits with Lancashire County Council and asked if it was known what these monies were subsequently being invested in. The Cabinet member commented that this had a good security rating and the county council had a very good credit rating (exceptional for a local authority) and suggested it was comfortable. The chairman then asked if this council received any policy statements or information relating to its investments. The Cabinet member replied not specifically. The Chief Executive added that in respect of Treasury Management, the county council acted the same way as this council (treasury reports to committees etc). This council has subsequently made a deposit with the county council which is in the category classed as government backed. The member of the public then referred to the council?s deposit in the Prime Rate Money Market Fund and wondered what the ?3M was invested in. The Chief Executive replied this was a money market fund which the council had moved into with treasury advisors to spread the council?s risks. It was suggested that one be Prime Rate Money Market Fund which was the equivalent of an on call account. If the council requested its investment tomorrow it would receive it. UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: That the report be noted. |
Agreed | ||
| 32 |
Constitution ? My Neighbourhood Arrangements Report (125K/bytes) attached As requested at the last meeting of the committee (min. no.24, 28 September refers), a report was received regarding proposed governance arrangements for the council?s new My Neighbourhood areas. The My Neighbourhood areas framework was approved at the meeting of the council held on 21 September 2011 (min. no.33 refers). The proposed process was designed to meet the framework approved at the meeting of the council and be as open and transparent as possible to enhance accountability and improve information to elected members, but more importantly to local communities. The proposals gave the chairmen of the My Neighbourhood areas delegated authority, following efforts to seek consensus from other members of their area, to make decisions and progress based on their respective My Neighbourhood Plan. It was emphasised that all decisions would come out of an area?s My Neighbourhood Plan. These decisions would subsequently be published and publically appear on the council?s and respective My Neighbourhood websites and be subject to call in by members (as were decisions taken under the current scheme of delegation). Councillor W Bennett commented that he had sought clarity that the process would not focus on small amounts and hoped to promote the relatively small area budgets but more focus was needed to influence services. In response the Democratic Services Manager stated this report related to the governance arrangements and deciding the decision making process. Whilst this report added clarity, Councillor W Bennett commented further that he would like this matter to be discussed by each political group to ensure absolute clarity by members. The chairman commented that a process had been produced and suggested that this be reviewed after one or two years. The Democratic Services Manager welcomed any feedback (including groups) on how it was felt it could work better/increase transparency. However, until decisions started to be made it was difficult to see how it worked (or could be improved). Councillor Foster commented that this process created some very powerful people who ?should? seek the consensus of the area, he stated that it needed to be clear that if not all agreed then it needed to be the majority. The Democratic Services Manager replied that each My Neighbourhood would produce different Community Plans and an area?s decisions would follow from this. These plans would initially be subject to approval by the Cabinet and the constitution would state that the chairman ?shall? consult but if delegation was not to the chairman it would need to be a committee. The proposals had replaced this to reduce bureaucracy. Councillor Foster added that with the addition of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) there were potentially very large amounts of funding for the areas. The Democratic Services Manager referred back to the need for a chairman?s decision to be based on the Community Plan which needed to have been approved by Cabinet and Council. The chairman commented that this proposed process had followed the decision of the council. It was a new unused system which could be implemented and reviewed after 12 months and changed if need be. Councillor Green stated he agreed with Councillor Foster. He did not feel the process was right, open or transparent. The nomination of the chairmen should have been based on who was best for the position (not majority group). He referred to page 6 of the report and questioned that My Neighbourhood meetings should act in interests of the whole council rather than a specific area, was their purpose not to look locally? Councillor W Bennett stated he had previously had similar concerns. The council had looked to streamline structure, although the requirement for Community Plan and Cabinet approval introduced hurdles. However, he felt there were issues regarding CIL and Section 106 monies. This put the chairman possibly at risk (more accountable) and if people were not happy they would be replaced. The plans would be produced through a consultative process and if members had concerns these could be raised through Cabinet/Council. He felt this was an opportunity to reduce regulation and increase the ability to get on and do. Whilst he felt Community Involvement had been rushed Scrutiny would be looking at this again in a few months. He added that each My Neighbourhood would evolve differently. The key to the process was the approval of the Community Plan by a My Neighbourhood Area. Councillor Mullineaux (in the audience) stated that there needed to be governance arrangements which would be as flexible as possible but the council needed to see how these would develop. The initial meetings had gone well (much better than the old area committees) with attendees far more involved. There would be teething issues. Whilst these first meetings had a large officer presence this was not envisaged for future meetings. He felt the council was moving in the right direction for the benefit of its residents. The member of the public present commented that he had understood it would be the public decision making process facilitated by councillors. The chairman stated that councillors were the elected representative which could not be delegated. The member of the public?s additional comment was that people wanted to be involved in the decision process. Councillor Mullineaux (in the audience) added that the main thrust of the meetings had been to let residents have their say on what they wanted. It was now time to assess these and see if we could achieve them. The Eastern My Neighbourhood?s second meeting was on 13 December 2011 and would look at what people had said and look at its top priorities. In response to the member of the public?s question who was the ?we?, Councillor Mullineaux stated, ?we? residents comments and ?we? the council looked at to see if they could be achieved. Councillor Foster agreed that there needed to be flexibility, transparency and clarity when spending public money. However, with the lack of minutes etc and instead delegation to the My Neighbourhood chairmen, he had concerns about the transparency of the decision making process. The member of the public stated that he wanted the public to be driving this process and was told they were as the council was asking what residents wanted in their areas. Following the above discussion of the proposed governance arrangements, it was clear that the committee had reservations. The chairman then asked if the committee felt it appropriate to act now or wait and see how the new structure and governance arrangements worked in practise. The committee was also reminded that Scrutiny would be looking at Community Involvement in the next few months. The general consensus was that these arrangements had been produced in line with the council?s decision and should be introduced and then reviewed at a future date. UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: 1. that the committee appreciated that the proposed governance arrangements for the My Neighbourhood areas reflected the decisions of the council; and 2. that the committee?s concern at the extensive powers being delegated to the chairmen of the My Neighbourhood areas be noted, subject to further consideration by the committee in the New Year. |
Agreed | ||
| 33 |
Anti Bribery Policy Report (55K/bytes) attached Policy (2M/bytes) attached The Internal Audit Manager presented the draft Anti-Bribery Policy which had been produced following changes introduced by the Bribery Act 2010, such as a consolidated scheme of bribery offences. In response to an enquiry if an employee had a duty to report any instance or was it felt there should be, the Internal Audit Manager referred to page 6 of the report and the council?s Whistle Blowing Policy. The chairman asked how this might affect the council?s day to day activities. The Manager hoped it would just be there, but it would provide a defence to the council (section 7 failure to prevent) if had an instance. There were numerous other policies/procedure in the council?s governance arrangements which this strengthened. It was also confirmed that Internal Audit (Garry Barclay) had a key role working with the council?s legal services. It was also confirmed that a person using the Whistle Blowing Policy would remain anonymous. Councillor Foster congratulated Internal Audit on the production of clear concise piece of work. In respect of the risk to the council under Section 7, he asked if background checks on those the council conducted business with would be retrospective. The Internal Audit Manager was unsure but thought it was more forward looking whilst acknowledging the council might be liable. Councillor Green also complimented the service for a very clear and well written document and asked if there were the resources to fully implement. The Internal Audit Manager commented that the council had done a lot of work to prevent corruption and fraud. Whilst there was still more to do this was an ongoing process. There were fortunately not too many irregularities which if this remained the yes there were adequate resources, if this rose then more resources might be sought. The service worked to raise the profile of anti-fraud and had given an awareness session aimed at new councillors and governance information had been included in members? induction packs. In conclusion she added that whilst this council had now produced an Anti-Bribery Policy not all councils had. The member of the public took this opportunity to ask about members? interests. He commented that he had previously asked if this information could be accessed through the council?s website (like other neighbouring authorities such as Preston and Lancashire County Council), in stead of having to visit the council offices to inspect the relevant file. In the past he had been informed this was in hand but as yet the information did not appear to be available on the council?s website. UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: 1. That committee noted the report and supported and approved the adoption of the Anti-Bribery Policy; and 2. That the committee supported in line with the council?s commitment to openness and transparency, the request to make this council?s members? interests available through the council?s website. |
Agreed | ||
| 34 |
Forward Plan 2011/12 FP (35K/bytes) attached The committee received and noted its Forward Plan. The committee also discussed future meetings of its Constitution Task Group and agreed that the meeting in December needed to be re-scheduled. |
Agreed | ||