Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and details of any Councillor (or co-optee substitute) nominated to attend this meeting in place of a member of this Committee.

There were no apologies or named substitutes.

To invite Councillors to declare any interest they may have in items on the Agenda and any Party Whip.

There were no declarations of interest or of any party whip.

To confirm the minutes of the most recent meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as a correct record.

(Minutes attached)

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 June 2009 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To note the contents of the Overview and Scrutiny Actions List.

(Report attached)

The Committee considered the latest version of the Actions List.  Specific mention was made of the following matters:

a)                 Scrutiny of the Countryside Centre

The Committee was informed, in relation to Action One, that a report was due to be considered by the Executive Committee at a meeting on 22 July, recommending that the Committee approve expenditure of £10,000 for consultants to undertake a piece of work examining the management and use of the Countryside Centre.   Officers had approached Councillor Anderson regarding his proposal for a scrutiny exercise to examine the usage of the Countryside Centre. He had indicated that he felt there were advantages in the Overview and Scrutiny Committee reviewing this issue.

The Chair suggested that this issue could be examined just as effectively by a Task and Finish Group and at no additional cost to the Council.  He therefore suggested that a recommendation be made to the Executive Committee that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to establish a Task and Finish Group to undertake this work.  The Committee unanimously agreed this suggestion.

b)                 National Angling Museum Domain Names

Officers updated Members under Action Three, about the purchase of the National angling Museum internet domain names.  Instead of all four domain names having been purchased, the Council had only been able to buy two of the names.  These had been the .org and .org.uk versions of the domain names.  The more common .co.uk and .com versions had already been purchased by a different organisation.  Members questioned whether the two domain names were operational.  Officers confirmed that the domain names purchased by the Council were linked to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee pages but did not contain any content.  The other domain names were currently with a host site and would remain so until the organisation’s website became live.  

c)         Public Transport in Redditch

Officers referred to Action Ten, regarding the Committee’s request for information from the Health Authority about public transport access to the Alexandra Hospital.  Officers explained that they had received a response from John Rostill, the Chief Executive of Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust, to the questions Members had formulated at a previous meeting.  This response was circulated to the Committee.  Members noted the responses and agreed that a letter should be written to Mr Rostill stating that the Committee agreed that better public transport was needed to remedy these problems and thanking him for his response.

RECOMMENDED that

the Executive Committee be asked, under the relevant item at the meeting of the Executive Committee on 22 July, to agree to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee commissioning a Task and Finish Review of the Countryside Centre.

RESOLVED that

1)                 a letter be written to Mr Rostill, Chief Executive of the Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust Hospitals to thank him for his response; and

2)                 the Actions List be noted. 

To consider whether any Key Decisions of the Executive Committee’s most recent meeting(s) should be subject to call-in and also to consider whether any items on the Forward Plan require pre-scrutiny.

(No separate report).

Officers referred to the Decision Notice for the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 1 July 2009.  It was explained to the Committee that a report was considered at this meeting outlining proposals for Council reinvestment due to the economic downturn.  Within these proposals was the request for resources to fund the Grants Support Officer post which was recommended by the Third Sector Task and Finish Group.  It was reported that the Executive Committee had approved this particular proposal which would be considered by full Council at a future meeting. 

Members requested that as Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings were held in public, where any reference to Appendices was made in the Decision Notice, these appendices should be made available at the meeting.  This would ensure that any members of the public would be able to follow the discussion. 

There were no call-ins or suggestions for pre-scrutiny.

RESOLVED that

appendices to reports referred to in the Decision Notice for Executive Committee meetings be made available at future Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings.

To consider any scoping documents provided for possible Overview and Scrutiny review.

(No reports attached)

There were no draft scoping documents. 

The Chair informed the Committee that as some of the current Task and Finish Group reviews were nearing completion, capacity would soon exist to progress new Task and Finish Reviews.  He suggested that Members think about any possible ideas for scrutiny to propose for when current reviews finished. 

Councillor Thomas explained that she had been very interested in the report published by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) regarding Local Area Agreements (LAA) in two-tier authorities.  She expressed concern about the process by which LAA targets were evidenced and agreed, and the amount of opportunity Members of Redditch Borough Council were given to be involved in this process.  She also explained that she had concerns about the openness and transparency of the Redditch Local Strategic Partnership (LSP).  She felt that, again, many Members engaged very little with the LSP and that more should be done to offer opportunities for Member interaction with the LSP. 

RESOLVED that

Councillor Thomas meet with Officers to produce a draft scoping document regarding the process of establishing the LAA targets and a review of the LSP and submit this to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a future meeting. 

To consider progress to date on the current reviews against the terms set by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The current reviews in progress are:

1.                  Council Flat Communal Cleaning – Chair, Councillor P Mould;

2.                  Dial-A-Ride – Chair, Councillor R King;

3.                  National Angling Museum – Chair, Councillor P Mould; and

4.                  Neighbourhood Groups – Chair, Councillor K Banks.

(Oral reports)

The Committee received reports in relation to current reviews.

a)                 Council Flat Communal Cleaning – Chair, Councillor P Mould

            The Chair confirmed that this report would be considered by the           Executive Committee at a meeting on 22 July.

b)                 Dial-a-Ride – Chair, Councillor R King

Councillor King informed the Committee that the Group had not met recently.  However, individual members of the Group had visited the Dial-a-Ride Offices to look at how the booking system operated and for a journey on the Dial-a-Ride buses.  He informed Members that the next meeting of the             Group was scheduled to take place on Thursday 16 July where the Group would be able to discuss their experiences of their visit to the Dial-a-Ride Offices.

c)                  National Angling Museum – Chair, Councillor P Mould

            The Chair explained that the Group would be presenting a report at the           next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee scheduled for 29        July. 

d)                 Neighbourhood Groups – Chair, Councillor K Banks

Councillor Banks informed the Committee that the Group had held their first meeting and that they had planned a Work Programme for the exercise.  She also explained that a questionnaire had been circulated for completion by Members, the Police and also Officers involved in the Neighbourhood Groups process.  She urged all Members and relevant Officers to complete this questionnaire and return it as soon as possible and stressed that all answers would be kept        confidential. 

RESOLVED that

the Task and Finish Group update reports be noted. 

To discuss the Council’s budget strategy and budget deficit in detail and to determine whether the subject requires further scrutiny.

(Reports attached)

Members considered the budget strategy and deficit item on the agenda.  The Chair informed the Committee that questions had been proposed for Officers to answer regarding the budget strategy process. 

a)           What was the intention when the Council set the three year Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP): that it would balance; or run at a deficit; or even set a surplus?

Officers explained that the intention of the MTFP was to advise Members and other Officers of the forecast position and what actions the Council would need to take based on assumptions in the Plan.  Members would be requested to take action for the forthcoming financial year in order to achieve a balanced budget in time for Council Tax setting.  For the current year the Council’s forecast had been for there to be a deficit and that there would be a need for the Council to make savings over time. 

Members enquired what the deficit was.  Officers explained that at the time of the report, the Plan had identified a budget gap of £630,000 for the years 2009/10, £720,000 for 2010/11, and 130,000 for 2011/12.  Members asked for the current position regarding this deficit.  Officers explained that owing to the savings that had already been approved by the Council, there would not be the need to make further savings until 2012/13.  Officers explained that this was because when the original budget setting took place it was assumed that there would be a 2.9% pay increase.  However this had now been set at 1.5%.  It was important to note that the Council would need to take into consideration the costs that would be incurred through the Job Evaluation exercise in 2010. 

b)           What are the “rules” for setting MTFP?  Can we set a deficit in every/any year (assuming the current year must always show a balanced budget)?

Officers explained that it was possible for deficits to exist within the MTFP but these had to be addressed in the budget setting process. The Audit Commission’s Use of Resources Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) process also had clearly set out the requirement for the Council to manage the financial health of the organisation effectively.  Members asked whether the MTFP process was based on a formula or on Officers own assumptions.  Officers explained that it would be based on their estimations and on other sources.  These sources included using information gathered from regular meetings with treasurers from other local authorities.

c)            At what stage does the Council have to take steps to seek a balanced budget / MTFP?

Officers confirmed that the Council had to have taken steps to seek a balanced budget by March each year for the Council Tax setting. 

d)     Is there any maximum level of a deficit which can be set for each year of the MTFP?

Officers confirmed that there was not any maximum level of deficit which could be set in the Plan each year of the MTFP.

e)           Is there any maximum level of planned surplus which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To receive an update on actions that have been taken in response to the recommendations contained in the final report from the District Centres Task and Finish Group.

(Report attached)

Officers explained that the purpose of this item was to monitor the responses to the recommendations that were made by the District Centres Task and Finish Group in June 2008. 

Members asked if it would be possible to establish an improvement fund, as recommended by the Task and Finish Group.  Officers confirmed that this would be possible but that a decision would be required by Council.  The relevant Portfolio Holder, the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Management, commented that he believed that what was needed was a long term asset management plan for the allocation of resources and plans for the maintenance of all the Council’s assets including the District Centres.  He also informed the Committee that the Council had recently submitted a bid for funding from the Local Strategic Partnership to fund estate enhancements and security improvements at the Winyates Centre. 

RESOLVED that

the report be noted.

To receive information from Members regarding the West midlands Local Government Unit course on Scrutiny Skills, which took place 1 July 2009.

(Oral reports).

The Committee received a report from Councillor Pearce regarding a training event that she had attended organised by the West Midlands Local Government Association (WMLGA). 

Councillor Pearce explained that the training was very effective as it made use of interactive training techniques such as role play using actors to act out a scrutiny Committee scenario.  The training demonstrated the differences between the old Committee and the new Cabinet and scrutiny system.  One of the key messages from the training was the need for scrutiny Members to demonstrate political impartiality when participating in scrutiny related activities. Councillor Pearce explained that the training exercises helped participants explore some of the benefits of scrutiny and participants agreed that scrutiny enabled members to bring their own ideas to the table rather than their political party ideas.

A further message she had taken from the training was that scrutiny Members should be familiar with their Council’s procedures and protocols.  Councillor Pearce enquired if there was a protocol for Overview and Scrutiny at the Council.  Officers confirmed that there was a procedures document for Overview and Scrutiny.  However, with all of the ongoing additional changes to scrutiny processes, such as the introduction of Councillor Calls for Action (CCfA) it would not be issued until all of these new procedures had been approved by Members. 

RESOLVED that

the report be noted. 

There were no referrals.

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme.  They were informed that consideration of Councillor Anderson’s proposed policy for the award of contracts to the Voluntary and Community Sector had been scheduled for the meeting on 29 July.  However, owing to Officer availability, this had been rescheduled for the 19 August meeting. 

Councillor Thomas expressed concern that neither she, nor any other member of the Third Sector Task and Finish Group, had been consulted on this proposed policy.  She explained that she would be meeting with relevant Officers to discuss the need for this additional policy.  It was requested that Policy Officers, Legal Services Officers section, and Councillor Anderson be invited to attend the meeting on 19 August. 

The Chair suggested that as this rescheduling would make the agenda for the 19 August very full, the monitoring of the Role of the Mayor Task and Finish Group’s recommendations be moved to the meeting scheduled on 23 September. 

RESOLVED that

the Committee’s Work Programme be noted.