Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received on behalf of Councillor Craig Warhurst.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and / or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Leader advised that at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 8^th June 2023 Members had pre-scrutinised the Corporate Peer Challenge report, due to be considered at Minute Item No. 5 at the Executive Committee meeting.  At the end of their debate, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had proposed a recommendation on the subject which had been published in a supplementary pack for the consideration of the Executive Committee.  Members were urged to consider the Committee’s proposals alongside the report.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on Tuesday 21^st March 2023 be approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chief Executive presented the Corporate Peer Challenge report and action plans for the Executive Committee’s consideration.

The Committee was informed that the Corporate Peer Challenge had been requested at a Bromsgrove Council meeting held in December 2022, following the authority’s receipt of a Section 24 Notice from the external auditors, Grant Thornton.  The decision had subsequently been taken to invite the Local Government Association (LGA) to undertake a joint Corporate Peer Challenge for Redditch Borough Council and Bromsgrove District Council. 

There were a number of key themes that were addressed in all Corporate Peer Challenges undertaken through the LGA but in addition, Councils could ask for the peers to focus on particular areas; for this Corporate Peer Challenge, a request had been made for peers to focus on governance and culture as well as Council finances, due to the points raised in the Section 24 Notices issued to both authorities.  The Corporate Peer Challenge team had comprised representatives from a number of different Councils, including elected Member representatives, and their report had been published prior to the local elections in May 2023. 

The Corporate Peer Challenge report had contained a number of recommendations and these had already been reviewed by the Corporate Management Team (CMT).  In some cases, Officers had identified that action was already being taken to address the points that had been raised.  The appendices to the report provided further detail on the action being taken and Members were asked to note the following key points:

·             The Corporate Peer Challenge had emphasised that, given the financial challenges for local government, the Council needed to identify clear priorities and to ensure that these informed the content of the authority’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP).

·             In respect of the governance issues that had been identified, Members were asked to note that there was already a lot of work being undertaken with respect to Member training, as part of the new Member induction process, as well as the ongoing review of the Council’s constitution by the Constitutional Review Working Party (CRWP).  In addition, CMT had identified that all Member briefings on particular topics might need to be organised on a case-by-case basis moving forward.

·             A lot of work had already been undertaken in respect of the Workforce Strategy, which had previously been approved by Members, and a high-level action plan had been developed.  Many of the projects within this plan were complex and required action from Heads of Service and managers and progress with this would be monitored.  Some of the priorities underpinning this would be considered by CMT shortly and would thereafter be managed by a Strategy Working Group.

·             In respect of the Council’s approach to agile working, an Agile Working Policy had been developed following a pilot of agile working arrangements.  The policy took into account best practice and staff briefings had been delivered to help communicate the terms of the policy.  There was an Agile Working Project Board, which assessed implementation from a strategic perspective, although service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented recommendations that had been agreed at a meeting of the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee held on 9^th March 2023.  During this meeting, the Committee had considered a report that had been produced by the Bromsgrove Audit Task Group, which had been launched by the Bromsgrove Audit, Standards and Governance Committee, at the request of their Council, in response to their Section 24 Notice.  Members were asked to note that the Redditch Audit, Governance and Standards Committee had responded in a different fashion to the Council’s Section 24 Notice, by agreeing to hold more frequent meetings of the Committee than had previously been the case and to receive a regular update at each meeting of the Committee on the Council’s progress in addressing the issues raised in the Section 24 Notice.

The Bromsgrove Audit Task Group had considered hundreds of pages of written evidence and had held eight meetings over a period of 20 hours in February and early March 2023.  Based on the evidence gathered, the group had proposed two groups of recommendations; the first group had focused on general lessons learned in respect of areas such as project management, the need for proper minutes of project board meetings and escalation of issues for mitigation whilst the second group of recommendations had focused specifically on the issues arising in relation to the ERP finance system and the implications for closing the Council’s accounts.  The Redditch Audit, Governance and Standards Committee had concluded that the recommendations were sensible and that they should therefore be endorsed by the Council.  The Committee had also proposed that the Executive Committee should write to the Bromsgrove Audit Task Group to thank them for their hard work.

Since the report had been published, further progress had been achieved with the implementation of the ERP system, although it was anticipated that the backlog in the cash receipting module would not be cleared until the end of the calendar year.  Bromsgrove District Council’s Cabinet was also due to consider a report in respect of the project management arrangements at the authority, in line with one of the recommendations in the report.

In concluding the presentation of the report, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling commented that he had consulted with senior officers concerning the viability of implementing the Bromsgrove Audit Task Group’s recommendations.  They had indicated that, whilst further work was required to implement some of the recommendations, this would be deliverable and would add value to the Council.

Members subsequently discussed the report in detail and in doing so commented on the following matters:

·             The signficant progress that had been achieved by the Council, in terms of addressing the issues identified in the Section 24 Notice.

·             The need for lessons to be learned from the challenges that had been encountered during the introduction and implementation of the ERP system.

·             The benefits in terms of the Council monitoring the work delivered by third parties on behalf of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented a report in respect of the renewal of the Council’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System contract.  The Executive Committee was informed that the existing contract was due to expire at the end of June 2023 and therefore a new contract was required.  The Council was aiming to procure the system using a local government framework and the new contract would need to take into account that the Council would not be using the HR and Payroll modules, as had been originally intended.  There remained a backlog in respect of cash receipting, but the Council was on track to clear this by the end of the calendar year.  The only other option would be to procure another system from an alternative supplier.  However, the cash receipting backlog would still need to be cleared on the existing system prior to transfer and there would be extra implementation time and financial investment required.  The contract for the Wincave system, required in relation to cash receipting, was due to expire later in the year but would also need to be renewed.  In concluding the presentation of the report, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling recognised that there had been challenges for the Council in terms of the introduction and implementation of the ERP system but Members were asked to note that the organisation was generally satisfied with how the majority of the system functioned.

After the report had been presented, Members commented on the following matters:

·             The length of the report and whether this was sufficient to make a decision, given the difficulties with the implementation of the ERP system and the issues identified in the Section 24 Notice.

·             The level of savings that would arise from renewing the ERP system without including the HR and Payroll module.  Members were advised that the figures would be subject to the outcomes of the tender process, although it was likely to result in financial savings.

·             The potential to recoup funding from the software provider.  Officers explained that pricing would be set out in the framework contract, and reductions would be made as not all modules originally purchased (HR and Payroll) would be repurchased.   This would be the same framework as that which had originally been used and it was anticipated that this would result in a reduction in the fee by approximately 25 per cent.

·             The acronyms and other terminology used in the report and the benefits of providing clarification in these types of reports in respect of such technical terms, particularly where they were referenced in the resolutions or recommendations in a report.

·             The implications of postponing taking a decision on this matter after the contract had expired.  Officers explained that the current contract would remain in place, as there would be a requirement to continue to work with the existing contractor for at least a further two years to resolve the backlog and have a year of “normal running”.  This framework contract duration was two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Quarter 4 Performance Monitoring Report for the 2022/23 financial year.  Members were advised that usually this report would have included financial monitoring data but, to provide time to gather more information, a decision had been taken to report the financial information in July.  Progress had been made in a range of areas since the previous update to the Executive Committee, including through a reduction in staff turnover below the national average and an increase in Council Tax collection rates to a level that was better than expected.

The Executive Committee discussed the report and in doing so commented on the delays with respect to the development at Edgeworth Close.  Member questioned when the development would be progressed further and the financial implications of the delay.  Officers explained that initially there had been an aim to complete required actions by March 2023, but this had been delayed to August due to a range of issues, including challenges accessing materials.

Reference was made to the graphs and other images that had been included in the report.  As Committee agenda packs were always published in black and white, some Members commented that it could be difficult to view the graphs on printed copies of the agenda as they appeared in different shades of grey.  However, it was noted that the full report could be viewed quite clearly in the electronic version, as published on the Council’s website and which was accessible using the modern.gov app.  The Leader urged Members to use the app to access their papers electronically to help address this problem moving forward.  The Committee was asked to note that modern.gov app training had recently been provided to Members and further training could be provided if needed.

RESOLVED that

the Quarter 4 Performance data for the period up to 31^st March 2023 be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Quarterly Risk Update for Members’ consideration.  The Committee was advised that this was the fourth risk update report to be presented for the Committee’s consideration since risk monitoring reports had been reintroduced at the Council in 2022.  The Council had taken a lot of action in this time to address both the corporate and departmental risks that had been identified and as a consequence, the authority’s risk assurance had improved from a limited to a moderate level.

During 2022/23, the number of departmental risks had declined from 119 to 58 by March 2023.  The majority of remaining risks related to compliance.  The one remaining red flagged risk was in respect of the Revenue and Benefits team’s work, where certain tasks had to be undertaken manually and there was a high volume of work involved. 

Corporate risks continued to be monitored by the Council, including by CMT.  Many of these corporate risks, such as in respect of cyber security, were likely to remain of concern moving forward.

RESOLVED that

the present list of Corporate and Departmental Risks be considered and noted.

There are two sets of minutes attached from meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23^rd February and 16^th March 2023.  There are no outstanding recommendations for consideration.

Members considered minutes from meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23^rd February and 16^th March 2023.  The Leader confirmed that there were no outstanding recommendations due for consideration.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23^rd February and 16^th March 2023 be noted.

The attached minute extract details a recommendation that was agreed at the meeting of the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee held on 30^th May 2023 for the consideration of the Executive Committee.  An extract from the minutes of that meeting has been attached for Members’ consideration.

The Leader highlighted that at a meeting of the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee held on 30^th May 2023, Members had recommended that the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling should write to the appropriate Government minister to request a three-year local government financial settlement in order to provide certainty to the local government sector.  This recommendation had been forwarded for the consideration of the Executive Committee.

In considering the recommendation, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling explained that he did not feel that it would be appropriate to approve this recommendation.  Instead, he suggested that the best way to secure a three-year financial settlement for the Council would be through working with the LGA.  Members were informed that the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling planned to write to the Chair of the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee to explain his position.

During consideration of this item, reference was made to the content of the extract from the minutes of the Audit, Governance and Standards Committee meeting held on 30^th May 2023, which had been provided for Members’ consideration.  Members questioned whether any further clarity had been received regarding the potential increase to the external auditor’s fee for auditing the Council’s accounts.  Officers explained that any increase to the audit fee had to be agreed with the Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) organisation.  The level of increase to the audit fee still remained unclear and therefore it could not yet be confirmed whether this increase would need to be funded from balances.

Members also questioned the progress that had been achieved in terms of the external auditor’s audit of the Council’s 2020/21 accounts.  The Committee was advised that the external auditors had assured the Council that Redditch Borough and Bromsgrove District Councils would be their priority over the following months.  However, Officers had been advised that it could take the auditors up to six months to complete the audits.  Despite this, the Council had been assured that, as these delays were not the fault of the authorities, this would not result in further Section 24 Notices being presented to the Councils.  Furthermore, Members were asked to note that there was a significant backlog nationally, in terms of external auditors signing off Councils’ 2021/22 accounts.

“That, under S.100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following matter(s) on the grounds that it/they involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs (to be specified) of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the said Act”.

These paragraphs are as follows:

Subject to the “public interest” test, information relating to:

·         Para 1 – any individual;

·         Para 2 – the identity of any individual; and

·         Para 3 – financial or business affairs.

RESOLVED that:

Under S100 A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following matters on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 of the said act, as amended.

Minute Item No. 13 – Compulsory Purchase of a Long-Term Empty Property.

The Strategic Housing Services Manager presented a report on the subject of the compulsory purchase of a long-term empty property.

(During the consideration of this item, Members discussed matters that necessitated the disclosure of exempt information. It was therefore agreed to move to exclude the press and public prior to any debate on the grounds that information would be revealed relating to any individual, which was likely to reveal the identity of any individual and which related to the financial and business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)).