Agenda item

The confidential “long list” of corporate governance issues was tabled. The Group Manager (Risk/Audit) explained that the Committee was being consulted on which issues should be included in the Annual Governance Statement as part of the process shown in Appendix 1 of the report. The list had been compiled through the exercise of “sound judgement” and guidance provided by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, as described in paragraph 4.7 of the report.

Officers explained the background to individual issues. Members commented on them.

1.  Parking Services and Bus Lane Enforcement

Cllr Sandry said that he thought that the purpose of traffic penalties was to strengthen traffic control; they should not be regarded as tax revenue and have budgets set for them. The Chair agreed that the problem seemed to be that a windfall gain following the introduction of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) had been used for future income projections.

Cllr Ward suggested that there was a lack of joined-up policy thinking in that on the one hand the City wished to promote tourism, but on the other discouraged visitors through parking penalties.

Cllr Simmons said that he understood that in Bristol 56% of penalties imposed through ANPR were rescinded on appeal.

2.  Stowey Quarry and Woolley Valley

3.  Planning – Decision Making and Planning Inspectorate Findings

Cllr Laming noted that the former Fuller’s Earth site was not mentioned. The Group Manager (Audit/Risk) replied that it had been included in the list for previous years.

Cllr Sandry said that he thought residents had been misled about the risks arising from the proposed storage of asbestos waste at Stowey Quarry. He wondered whether, if a successful appeal against a decision which the Development Control Committee had taken against officer advice had more serious consequences than an appeal against one taken in accordance with officer advice, it would be possible for sensitive decisions to come to the Committee without an officer recommendation. Cllr Simmons agreed that the risks of the Stowey Quarry proposal had been misrepresented. He thought the Council was in a difficult position when dealing with knowledgeable site operators who were able to exploit grey areas in planning law. Cllr Curran, Chair of the Development Control Committee, updated members on the state of play with these applications. He then said that the Committee would have no point, if it could not take a decision against officer advice. The best the Council do in such cases was to take the best possible legal advice and then defend its position as best it could.

The Chair thought these items should certainly be included in the list of significant issues, because of the damage to the Council’s reputation these high profile planning cases could cause.

4.  Care Quality Commission/Ofsted Report – February 2012

The list stated that the overall effectiveness and capacity for improvement of the Council’s Safeguarding and Looked after Children Services had been assessed as Grade 3 “A service that only meets minimum requirements”.

Cllr Sandry noted that one key area for improvement noted in the CQC/Ofsted report was “the need to ensure that Health Partners comply with statutory guidance”, which on the face of it appeared to be a governance issue for the partner organisations rather than the Council. He wondered whether, with the reduction from 4 Strategic Directors to 3, the Council had sufficient capacity to manage these issues. The Strategic Director – Resources said that it was difficult at present because it was a period of change, but in time the role of the Strategic Director - People and Communities should be much more sustainable. He emphasised the CQC/Ofsted had stated that the Council “fully” met the minimum standards.

It was agreed that the Chair would speak to the Chair of the Wellbeing Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel about this issue.

5.  Transfer of Social Care and Health Services – Sirona

The issue was noted.

6.  Continuity of Service Provision – Project 28

Cllr Laming was concerned to note that an advance payment of £41,000 was made to an organisation that subsequently entered into voluntary liquidation. The Group Manager (Audit/Risk) said cash flow issues always presented difficulty; organisations could fold if advance payments were not made. In this case it was fortunate that service provision resumed in four weeks and that some of the original staff were re-employed.

7.  Teachers’ Pension Fund – Qualification

This had been considered at the December 2011 meeting of the Committee. The issue was noted.

8.  Carbon Management Plan

Cllr Macrae suggested that this should not have a high priority. The Group Manager (Audit/Risk), however, emphasised that if the Council failed to reduce carbon emissions it would incur Carbon Reduction Commitment tax costs from 2014.

Cllr Ward wondered why Fleet Management had increased carbon emissions when drivers had been on careful driver courses. Cllr Macrae pointed out that because of a reduction in parking spaces in Midsomer Norton, drivers of refuse collection vehicles had to use their own cars to drive from Midsomer Norton to Bath and then drive the collection vehicles to Midsomer Norton and vice-versa at the end of the day.

The Strategic Director – Resources said that there had been operational changes, which meant that rubbish collection vehicles had to go further to dump their rubbish. The cold weather had increased heating costs and, perversely, the Council remained accountable for energy use in Academies. The financial penalties for not meeting carbon reduction targets were serious: £300,000 in the first year, rising in subsequent years.

9.  Traffic Management Accounts

The issue was noted.

In the ensuring debate, Cllr Macrae said that different levels of audit needed to be distinguished and suggested that there was a need to develop a policy audit function to help prevent policies conflicting and bringing unintended costs and consequences. Cllr Curran suggested that it would be helpful if the Chairs of the Policy Development and Scrutiny Panels were made aware of any issues in the service areas which they monitored which came before the Committee. The Chair agreed, and said that it was the role of the Panels to recommend policy changes. Cllr Sandry suggested that the PDS panels should have a higher place governance review process; at the moment they were only listed in a box at the very bottom of the methodology chart in Appendix 1. John Barker noted that many issues had long-term implications and that with the move towards commissioning there would in future a very different structure of service provision. He suggested that the terms of reference of the Committee might be reviewed to allow it to engage with higher-level issues.

RESOLVED to note the report.