Agendas, Minutes and Reports

Minutes

of the Meeting of the

Finance and Resources Policy

and Scrutiny Panel

Tuesday 1st November 2005

held at the Town Hall, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset.

Meeting Commenced: 6.30 p.m. Meeting Concluded: 8.40 p.m.

Present: Councillors Nick Brown (Chairman), Jeremy Blatchford, Mark Canniford, Carl Francis-Pester, Muriel Kraft, Richard Skinner, Sally Tabrett, Barry Walters

Also in attendance: Councillors Mike Bell (Executive Member for Finance), Bob Bateman, Peter Bryant, Robert Coleman, Alan Cotton, John Gething, Colin Golland, and Ann Harley.

FAR

Public Discussion – Mr. Mike Mortley

Local Government Pension Fund Deficit and Statement of Accounts 2004/05

Mr. Mike Mortley, Co-ordinator of the Weston-super-Mare Senior Citizens’ Forum Scrutiny Panel, addressed the Panel.

Mr. Mortley said that he had yet to receive a reply to the questions raised at the Panel meeting of 4th October relating to a review by Price Waterhouse Cooper on the Statement of Accounts.

Mr. Mortley also raised two issues on the Statement of Accounts 2004/05. He commented that as Council Taxpayers, the Senior Citizens’ Forum had raised a number of issues in connection with the Statement of Accounts and to date many questions remained unanswered. He expressed surprise that the recent Audit Report, the External Auditors, Robson Rhodes had made a statement that no questions had been raised on the Statement of Accounts.

In addition, Mr. Mortley also queried whether it was normal practice for capital purchases of new council houses not to be controlled through the Capital Board and asked whether these new council houses would be sold off for £1,000 each as part of the new LSVT in February 2006.

Members explained to Mr. Mortley that there was an opportunity for Council Taxpayers to meet directly with the External Auditors on the prescribed day and that in addition, Council Taxpayers could write to the Auditor at any time during the financial year.

The officers undertook to reply to Mr. Mortley’s outstanding questions.

FAR

Mr. Julian Parry

Council’s Green Waste Contract

Mr. Parry addressed the Panel on the subject of the Green Waste Contract.

Mr. Parry reaffirmed the point he had made at the Council meeting on 18th October 2005 and suggested that the Council would make considerable savings if they introduced home composting for all homes with gardens. Savings of £3m were estimated.

He also expressed concern that the matter was proposed for discussion in exempt session and considered that it should be the responsibility of the Executive to make such determinations.

The Director of Development and Environment pointed out that the Green Waste Contract included proposals to encourage home composting but that legislation did not currently exist to enforce composting at home. The Green Waste Contract took account of Government requirements and European legislation, and the Executive at its meeting on 6th September 2005 had been made fully aware of the stringent financial consequences of not introducing a new green waste scheme.

Mr. Parry noted the Director’s remarks but made reference to Forest of Dean Council and Tendring Council which had operated home composting schemes for a number of years.

The Chairman of the Environmental Services Policy and Scrutiny Panel commented that whilst a home composter himself, home composting was not as easy as Mr. Parry was suggesting.

FAR

Minutes of the meeting of the Finance and Resources Policy and Scrutiny Panel held on 4th October 2005 (Agenda Item 4.1)

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 4th October 2005 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

FAR

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The Panel discussed the order of the agenda items and whether or not the report on the review of the implementation of the Council’s Waste Strategy should be considered in exempt session. Following discussion, it was

Resolved:

(1) that the press, public and officers not required by the Members, be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the ground that its consideration would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972;

(2) that Members of the Council who are not Members of this Panel be invited to remain.

Minute No. 31 Reason for Exemption

Not for publication by virtue of

Review of the Implementation paragraph 9 of schedule 12A of

of the Council’s Waste Strategy the Local Government Act 1972

(Exempt Item 5.2)

FAR

Review of the Implementation of the Council’s Waste Strategy (Exempt Item 5.2)

The Director of Development and Environment and the Director of Finance and Resources explained that the Council on 18th October 2005 had resolved to defer the matter until their meeting on 22nd November 2005 so that the internal audit report could be considered as part of the scrutiny process and to enable the new Executive Members to examine the issues.

Members of the Environmental Services Policy and Scrutiny Panel in attendance sought clarification of their status at the meeting.

The representative of the Solicitor to the Council reaffirmed that the internal audit review report had been referred for scrutiny.This matter fell within the remit of the Finance and Resources Policy and Scrutiny Panel and members of the Environmental Services Policy and Scrutiny Panel had been invited to attend to comment and give their views. However, any conclusions reached and votes taken would be solely by the Finance and Resources Policy and Scrutiny Panel. It was a matter for them to hold their own urgent meeting, if they were not satisfied with the conclusions which may be reached by the Finance and Resources Policy and Scrutiny Panel.

The Chairman invited members of both Panels to comment and asked questions.

A debate ensued and questions, queries and comments were raised on the following issues –

(1) the viability of an in-house option

(2) clarification of issues and statements made in the exempt internal audit review report

(3) the use of disposable bags.

The Director of Development and Environment responded with regard to technical issues.

The Executive Member for Finance acknowledged the frustration members felt and added that the report raised issues regarding the ability to develop, tender and implement contracts of significant value.

Members generally considered that there was no evidence of a cheaper alternative and that the Council should be recommended to let the contract as recommended. A Member commented on the need for the Panel to examine the Council’s procurement process.

Recommendation to Council: that the proposed contract for green waste be accepted in the form now presented.

Concluded: that the examination of the process and appraisal of tendering for major contracts be added to the Work Plan of the Finance and Performance Policy and Scrutiny Panel.

FAR

Re-admittance of the Press and Public

Resolved: that the press and public be re-admitted to the meeting.

The Panel adjourned at 7.55 p.m.

_________________________________________

The Panel reconvened at 8.00 p.m.

FAR

Annual Audit Letter 2004/05 (EXE 94) (Agenda Item 5.3)

The Panel considered a report which had been referred from the Executive on 25th October 2005 on the Annual Audit Letter 2004/05.

The Director of Finance and Resources reported that the Council’s Officers were mainly pleased with the findings of the External Auditors, and that the areas of difference where further improvement can be made were relatively minor.

A Member congratulated the officers on their prompt actio,n and added that he would take up specific items of interest directly with the officers concerned.

The Executive Member for Finance undertook to pursue the queries that Mr. Mike Mortley had raised during public discussion and to respond to him.

Concluded: that the Annual Audit Letter 2004/05 and Action Plan be noted, both matters having previously been agreed by the Executive.

FAR

Budget Monitor (EXE 96) (Agenda Item 5.4)

The Panel considered a report which had been referred from the Executive of 25th October 2005.

The Director of Finance and Resources reported a projected overspend for the year of £393,000. This represented only 0.2 per cent of the overall budget, but this masked wide variations of overspends and underspends as identified in the overall general fund summary. It was anticipated that the position at month 6 would be slightly better.

A Member queried whether officers were being complacent about overspends because they realised these would be offset by underspends elsewhere.

The Director of Finance and Resources in response advised that the budget monitor set out reasons for overspends. He added that each Directorate managed its own budget, and highlighted by way of example, the action being taken by the Housing and Social Services Directorate to reduce costs. It was stressed that directorates were aware of the importance of addressing both underspends and overspends in their budgets. The Director added that there was no complacency on the part of officers with regard to overspends.

Concluded: that the report be noted,and that this Panel places on record its concern at the overspend in the General Fund Revenue Budget.

FAR

First Draft of the Medium Term Financial Forecast IV and Key Budget Principals (EXE 97)(Agenda Item 5.5)

The Panel considered a report which had been referred from the Executive of 25th October 2005 requesting Policy and Scrutiny Panels to identify the savings required in order to balance the need to achieve corporate priorities with affordability for the taxpayers.

The Executive Member for Finance introduced this report, which had been brought forward earlier than in previous years to enable Panels to look at and comment on the budget principles. These principles were identified as the level of grant anticipated, inflationary pressures and the recommended level of Council Tax. Savings had already been identified in the MTFF as well as additional income of £5.1m, but this was still well short of the level of savings necessary in order to achieve a Council Tax increase of 5 per cent.

It was acknowledged that whilst budget considerations were at a relatively early stage, and that the Government’s announcement on the settlement for local government was awaited, feedback from the Panels was welcomed.

The Chairman queried whether it was wise to advertise a Council Tax target in advance of knowing the settlement to be announced by the Government.

A Member commented that it would be prudent for the Council to make appropriate provision regarding the pensions of senior staff who had recently received increased in salary. He also expressed concern regarding the budget for refurbishing Backwell School, and the funding of the Science Block at Clevedon School. Reference was made also to the accuracy of Collection Fund assumptions.

The Director of Finance and Resources with regard to the Collection Fund, advised that officers were giving increased attention to movements in the tax base, and that there was on-going monitoring. If Government support for school capital projects was not forthcoming, the Council would have to consider how it could fund those projects.

Some Members also expressed concern at the increases in staffing levels, and their impact on the budget. A Member requested that information be provided to Panel Members on the number of staff employed by North Somerset Council, the number of vacancies, the number of vacancies due to be filled, and attrition rates. He pointed out that this was basic human resources data which the Council as a major employer should be able to provide readily.

The Executive Member for Finance agreed to arrange for this information to be provided.

The Member who made the request, asked that the current data be provided as soon as possible, and suggested that this could be done within one week.

Reference was made by a Member to the need to keep a close monitor on project management.

The Director of Finance and Resources reported that the project management methodology had been endorsed by the Corporate Management Team, and was in the process of being disseminated across the Council.

The Executive Member for Finance considered that setting a target of a five per cent increase in Council tax in advance of the Government settlement did make sense, as it was reasonable to have an objective. It was intended that the target would be met. All Members were aware of the need to balance value for money for Council tax payers with service provision.

Concluded: that the report be noted and that the comments of this Panel be referred to the Executive.

FAR

Response of the Former Executive Member for Social Care to the Working Group Report on Foster Care (Agenda Item 6.1)

Concluded: that consideration of this matter be deferred to the next meeting, and that in view of the recent political changes the new Executive Member be invited to attend to present the report.

________________________________

Chairman

________________________________