Minutes:
A number of questions were submitted in advance by Councillor Damian Bretherton:
At the last Council meeting the Leader refer to the Housing and Communities Minister, and the letter he sent to local authorities to do everything in their power to ensure the highest quality of housing standards.
Can equal praise be given to the Shadow Housing Secretary Lisa Nandy’s support for a council house tenant’s right to buy their home?
Does the Leader agree with Lisa Nandy’s comments that Labour supports the principle of council and social tenants being able to buy their homes and considers it a sustainable policy if the homes are replaced like for like?
Does the Leader agree that it would be prudent for councils to build high standard homes at a cost at least equal to end value so if the need came to replace them, in the event the tenant exercised their right to buy, councils would not suffer a financial loss? He queried a comment made by Councillor Matthew Tomlinson at the last meeting regarding ‘right to buy’.
Councillor Foster thanked Councillor Bretherton for the advance notice of the questions. He responded to clarify that Lisa Nandy did not support the ‘right to buy’ policy which had led to a lack of affordable rented social homes. The Labour Party was looking at a new policy with a ‘right to buy’ at market value on the proviso that every property was replaced an a ‘like to for like’ basis. He also agreed that councils should build high standard homes.
Councillor Matthew Tomlinson raised a point of order for personal clarification – that he was against the current policy of ‘right to buy’ as the money was paid to the Treasury, rather than the council or Registered Social Landlord, but not against ‘right to buy’ generally.
The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Karen Walton, noted the Governance Committee had considered the Commercial Services Directorate Procurement review which showed a pattern of non-compliance with governance procedures in previous internal audit reports. Now, a further Internal Audit report showed breaches of the governance framework, the Information Security Framework etc. The safeguards in place have failed resulting in reputational damage. What plans are in place to address this?
The overuse of waivers has been highlighted in the reports – when further investigation has been completed will the outcomes be report to Governance Committee and Council?
Councillor Foster clarified that the administration was transparent, decisions are published and Internal Audit reports with ‘limited assurance’ are reported to Governance Committee. He requested that the full question be shared with him, in writing, to enable a full response, but did not accept the criticism of the Senior Management Team. There had been an issue with one or two individuals which had been identified and dealt with because of the policies and procedures in place.
Councillor Margaret Smith queried when Councillor Foster had been made aware of the issue as Vice-Chair of the Shared Services Joint Committee and if any of the contracts involved were still ongoing?
Councillor Foster advised he was made aware, as Leader of South Ribble Council. Chorley Council was a sovereign Council and it would not be appropriate to be briefed on issues relating to Chorley. The question related to the internal audit report would be addressed as part of the response to the questions circulated by email.
Councillor Wharton-Hardman asked if the Leader agreed the importance of Councillors maintaining their register of financial and other interests. The Leader agreed this was important. Councillor Wharton-Hardman queried the detail of a declaration which would be reviewed following the meeting by the member in question.
Councillor Michael Green noted the potential for evidence to be found as investigations continued and queried if the internal audit reports should have been formally brought to the attention of all members, perhaps as an agenda item this evening? When will members of the council be provided with any additional information relating to this issue?
Councillor Foster agreed it was important that all members be fully aware of all the information by the Statutory Officers and the Internal Auditors. He noted that 90% of the issues raised related to Chorley Council. He read out an extract from the report which stated decisions to appoint a consultation have been made transparently through Cabinet and Executive Member Decisions, however, there is evidence of minor process failure’. There were two procurement projects which required a legal waiver and only one was obtained.
The Mayor noted that a number of questions had been circulated by email that afternoon from the Conservative Group and requested that questions be shared following the timescales set out in the Constitution to enable the Cabinet member to response in full.
The Mayor read the questions in full for the benefit of members of the public.
1. As an ex magistrate and still on the reserve list, I have serious concerns that an employee/ consultant of this Council has been allowed to tender or obtain waivers for large contracts due to the proactive lack of management and safeguards. Can you, as Leader, explain why there has not been any contact made to the Police or the Crown Prosecution service as it is the Council's duty to report such issues?
Councillor Julie Buttery
2. Could the Leader explain what security checks were undertaken by the IT department on the consultant before being allowed to access remotely, the most highly confidential information, including commercially sensitive data from direct competitors, breaking the Council's Code of Conduct?
Councillor Matt Campbell
3. Could the Leader explain what actual data was made available to the officer/consultant in his roles at the Council and what checks have been put in place to ensure that consultants do not have an unfair advantage by way of access to highly confidential data?
Councillor Mary Green
4. What steps have been taken to ensure that confidential data made available to the employee/consultant has not been transferred to another account. What data was deleted and as data cannot be fully deleted, has the account been checked for 'malware' to protect software data, and the security of the devices the employee/consultant used when the information was forwarded to personal accounts?
Councillor Gareth Watson
5. Within the report there are several failings in the awards of contracts, including breaches of the 2015 Public Contracts Regulations. Could the Leader confirm to whom these breaches have been reported?
Councillor Michael Green
6. Could the Leader explain why the Council still employ officers/consultants who have failed to comply with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and possibly gain from breaching the regulations. The public perception of the failure to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place is a serious risk to the reputation of this Council?
Councillor Stephen Thurlbourn
7. What will be the impact to the reputation and financial risks for this council should unsuccessful bidders in the procurement process find out that an employee/consultant of this Council had unfair access to their commercially sensitive data. Does the Leader think it is a good idea for any employee to set up their own business still working on contracts whilst still working for the Council?
Councillor Karen Walton
8. Serious questions need to be answered concerning the whole Governance of this Council. Can the Leader confirm that the External Auditors have been consulted for their opinion, are they going to take this issue of possibly a serious risk of fraud for this Council into consideration and will they be altering the Annual Governance Statement to reflect the reputation and financial risk caused by the clear breakdown of compliance within the Governance framework?
Councillor Damian Bretherton
Councillor Foster stated that no evidence had been found of fraud or law breaking. Internal Audit reports with a ‘limited assurance’ rating were shared with the Governance Committee and all members had access to the reports considered by that Committee. The Governance Committee worked to ensure that the governance procedures for the council were robust.
Decisions to appoint a consultation had been made transparently through Cabinet and Executive Member Decisions, however, there was evidence of ‘minor process failure’.
Councillor Foster responded to the questions in turn.
1. It would not be appropriate for the Council to contact the CPS – this would be for the Police.
2. The consultant worked for Chorley Council and so any security checks would have been undertaken by that authority.
3. The consultant did not have access to South Ribble ICT systems, as the data was transferred to the Chorley system.
4. In relation to the data being transferred to personal accounts that would be a question for the Leader of Chorley Council.
5. As regards the Public Contracts Regulations the vast majority of the issues raised related to Chorley Council.
6. There was evidence of ‘minor process failures’ at South Ribble.
7. The consultant was employed by Chorley Council as a consultant, not an employee of South Ribble Council.
8. There was evidence of ‘minor process failure’ at South Ribble.
Councillor Foster reiterated the need for all members be fully aware of all the information by the Statutory Officers and the Internal Auditors by means of an all member briefing with a focus on South Ribble, rather than Chorley.
In response to supplementary questions Councillor Foster noted there was evidence of ‘minor process failures’ at South Ribble. There was an ongoing process being undertaken by the Chief Executive and the issues had, and were being dealt with. It was not appropriate for members to get involved in staffing matters.
Councillor Foster noted he was made aware, by the former Chief Executive, in late summer the previous year, that there some issues were being investigated by Internal Audit. The report from Internal Audit was shared with him just before Christmas.
Councillor Julie Buttery raised a point of order for personal clarification – that she was not on the reserve list for magistrates as stated in the written question number one.
A member of the public raised a question regarding the number of residents who were not on the electoral roll. He queried the Leader’s view on members letting or owning properties. He noted work referenced during the meeting had been undertaken by the Internal Auditor and queried if the External Auditor should be involved. Regarding Registers of Interests he noted the importance of these declarations, noting that these were not showing on the website for a number of members. (It was clarified that this should be raised with the Monitoring Officer as a complaint and was not an appropriate question to the Leader).
The Leader advised he was not aware of the number of residents who were not on the electoral roll, but he would make enquiries. He noted the number of properties owned by members was a matter for them. The Council had appointed External Auditors, but noted that the Internal Auditor reported directly to the Statutory Officers and could report directly to the Chair of the Governance Committee.