Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Bridges, Mrs J Brockway, A J Jesson, C E D Mair and Added Members: Mrs P J Barnett and Mr P Thompson.

An apology for absence was also received from Richard Wills (Executive Director for Environment and Economy).

It was noted the Chief Executive, having received a notice under Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, had appointed Councillor G Ellis as a replacement member of the Committee in place of Councillor P M Dilks, for this meeting only.

No interests were declared.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2016 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(To consider any Call-Ins, should any be received)

No Call-Ins had been received.

(To consider any proposals for Scrutiny Reviews, should any be received)

No proposals for Scrutiny Reviews had been received.

(To consider any Councillor Calls for Action, should any be received)

No Councillor Calls for Action had been received.

The Chairman advised that he had attended the last meeting of the Executive on 1 November 2016.  The Executive had considered three reports which had been subjected to pre-decision scrutiny including the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Site Locations (Pre-Submission Draft); The A15 Lincoln Eastern Bypass – Construction Contract; and Children's Health Services Model and Commissioning Plan.  The Chairman had presented the comments of the relevant scrutiny committees.

The Chairman provided Members with an update on Devolution.  It was noted that out of the ten authorities in Greater Lincolnshire, eight had voted in favour and two against.  The Leader had deferred his final decision, which was due to be taken on 21 November 2016, until the County Council had received the final order from Government. 

(To receive a report by David Forbes (County Finance Officer), which provides an estimate of the budget shortfall being faced by the County Council over the next three financial years in the wake of the acceptance of the four year funding deal from Government)

Consideration was given to a report by David Forbes (County Finance Officer), which provided an estimate of the budget shortfall being faced by the County Council over the next three financial years in the wake of the acceptance of the four year funding deal from Government. 

The report also provided the foundations for the forthcoming budget cycle and it had recently been provided to all councillors in preparation for the Scrutiny Committee budget workshops that were now underway.

The County Finance Officer presented the report to the Committee and in doing so, highlighted the current projected budget shortfall; the balance of the County Council's reserves; an update on the capital programme; and the timetable for the budget approval process.

Members were advised that the Government's Autumn Statement, which had been announced on 23 November 2016, had not provided any relief to local government nor had it recognised the budget pressures being experienced by Adult Care authorities. It was noted that the Provisional Local Government Grant Settlement was due to be announced late November/early December 2016, which meant that the Executive could consider budget proposals at its meeting on 20 December 2016, which would form the basis of public consultation.

It was highlighted that the main budget pressures for 2017/18 for the County Council currently comprised the following: -

·    Adult Care demography and minimum wage increase - £8.5m;

·    Increase in the number of Looked After Children - £1.8m;

·    Waste Disposal (volume and price impact) - £1.0m;

·    Microsoft licences - £1.4m; and

·    County Council Elections (one year only) - £1.1m.

NOTE: Councillor Mrs C A Talbot declared an interest as she was currently participating in research undertaken by Durham University on the funding for Public Health services.

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions, where the following points were noted: -

·       The total of the County Council's long term debt was approximately £480m, with a total interest rate of 4%.  A large proportion of the long term debt was of a historic nature.  Further to this, it was noted that any new borrowing would be at a rate of approximately 2-3%, as it was currently a favourable time to borrow.  It was also noted that the County Council's long term debt was in the average range, compared to other local authorities;

·       A Councillor commented that the County Council should be using its capital to encourage business growth, rather than predominantly being spent on housing developments;

·       Government had introduced a new three year concession, which had provided upper tier local authorities with more flexibility in the way of which they could use capital receipts.  This meant that the County Council could fund certain revenue costs for transformation change (for example, redundancy costs) by using capital receipts and thereby freeing up the revenue budget allocation in those three years.  It was noted that upper tier authorities were lobbying Government to make this concession permanent, similar to combined authorities;

·       A Councillor suggested that the County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

(To receive a report by David Forbes (County Finance Officer), which considers the outcomes from the financial risk assessment for 2015/16 and updates the risk assessment to help determine an appropriate target level for the Council's general reserves for 2017/18)

A report from David Forbes (County Finance Officer) was considered, which provided an update on the outcomes from the financial risk assessment for 2015/16.  The report also provided an update on the risk assessment to help determine an appropriate target level for the Council's general reserves for 2017/18.  The Council's Financial Risk Register was attached at Appendix A to the report, which consisted of 15 potential risks.

The County Finance Officer presented the report to the Committee and highlighted that the net total of the risks was approximately £12.265m.  This could be interpreted as the total cost to the County Council should all the items listed within the Financial Risk Register occur in 2017/18.  It was noted that the County Council should maintain its general reserve at a sum at least equivalent to the net total risk.

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions, where the following points were noted: -

·       In relation to reference number 15 – Major emergencies or disasters, Members were assured that the County Council's threshold for the Bellwin Scheme for Emergency Financial Assistance had been lowered to £800k, provided that the incident was eligible for assistance under the Bellwin scheme;

·       Members supported a suggestion to create a Reputational Risk Register and requested an item on it at a future meeting.  Further to this, it was suggested that the register should also cover communications and public relations.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the content of the report be noted.

(2)  That the comments of the Committee be presented to the Executive Councillor responsible for Finance.

(3)  That an item on the creation of a Reputational Risk Register, including Communications and PR, be presented to a future meeting of the Committee.

(To receive a report from the Chairman of the Review of Scrutiny Working Group, which sets out the findings of the Review of Scrutiny Working Group and proposes new scrutiny arrangements to be implemented in the period before and after the election of the new Council in May 2017)

Consideration was given to a report by Councillor R B Parker (Chairman of the Review of Scrutiny Working Group), which set out the findings of the Working Group and proposed new scrutiny arrangements to be implemented in the period before and after the election of the new Council in May 2017.

The report was introduced by Nigel West (Head of Democratic Services and Statutory Scrutiny Officer), who updated the Committee on the work of the Working Group.

The Chairman of the Working Group presented the Group's fourteen recommendations, as detailed on pages 34-41 of the report, which included:

·       Recommendation A – Overall Structure;

·       Recommendation B – Frequency of Scrutiny Committee Meetings;

·       Recommendation C – Flood and Drainage Management Scrutiny Committee;

·       Recommendation D – Crime and Disorder Committee;

·       Recommendations E and F – Scrutiny Panels – Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen;

·       Recommendations G and H – Scrutiny Panel Membership;

·       Recommendation I – Meetings of Scrutiny Panels;

·       Recommendation J – Work Programme Development;

·       Recommendation K – Prioritisation Tool – Scrutiny Review;

·       Recommendation L – Corporate Parenting Sub-Group;

·       Recommendation M – Safeguarding Boards Scrutiny Sub-Group; and

·       Recommendation N – Special Interest Roles.

The Chairman of the Working Group thanked all those Councillors and Officers involved in the Review.

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions, where the following points were noted: -

·         Two Councillors raised concerns relating to the anticipated size of the workload for the proposed Environment, Economy and Transport Scrutiny Committee.  In response, Members were advised that this Committee would have sufficient capacity to handle the combined workload and this should be managed through the use of the proposed prioritisation tool;

·         Members were advised that the frequency of scrutiny committee meetings was a proposal at this stage and for the timing and frequency of individual committees would be decided later.  The proposed frequency within the report was the suggested maximum number of meetings that could be held per committee;

·         The days in which meetings fell and their start times, had yet to be agreed;

·         It was requested that a review of the proposed arrangements should be programmed after one year, in order to ensure that the committees workloads were well balanced;

·         The Committee was assured that the number of Parent Governor and Church representatives would remain the same in the proposed structure;

·         A number of Councillors were supportive of the proposal to introduce Special Interest Roles;

·         A Councillor highlighted the need to consider the purpose of scrutiny, and for the need for skills, interest and expertise to be effectively matched in order to get the best out the process.  It was also highlighted that workload had already been reviewed as part of the working group activity;

·         It was identified that there would be a need for the Chairmen to review the workload of their respective committees to ensure it was manageable and ensure effective prioritisation;

·         Members supported the use of Scrutiny Panels to undertake more focused work outside of the formal committee setting.  Further to this, it was encouraged that all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

(To receive a report by Jasmine Sodhi (Performance and Equalities Manager), which presents Quarter 2 performance against the Council Business Plan)

Consideration was given to a report by Jasmine Sodhi (Performance and Equalities Manager), which presented Quarter 2 performance against the Council Business Plan. Appendix B to the report provided proposals for presenting historical performance trends.

The commissioning strategies which had performed well and those which had seen mixed performance were highlighted in the report and brought to the Committee's attention.

RESOLVED

That the Quarter 2 performance and proposals for presenting historical performance trends be noted.

(To receive a report by Nigel West (Head of Democratic Services and Statutory Scrutiny Officer), which enables the Committee to consider both its own work programme and the scrutiny committee work programmes for 2016/17)

Consideration was given to a report which enabled the Committee to consider its own work programme and the work programmes from the scrutiny committees for 2016/17.

Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

Further to Minute 53 – 'Review of Financial Risk Assessment', a report on the possible creation of a Reputation Risk Register be added to the work programme in the New Year.

Members were reminded that the Brexit Working Group would be holding its first meeting during the afternoon of 24 November 2016.  Further to this, Councillor Mrs C A Talbot requested to sit on the Working Group, as the membership had been appointed in her absence.

Adults Scrutiny Committee

There were no changes to the published work programme.

Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee

There was one change to the work programme.  A report on Department for Education Innovation Bid, which would be for pre-decision scrutiny, had been added to the agenda for the meeting on 20 January 2017.

It was queried whether the Committee would be considering the impact of asylum seeking children on County Council services.  The Vice-Chairman agreed to raise this at the Committee's next pre-meeting.

Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee

There was one change to the work programme.  A report on Citizen's Advice Lincolnshire, which would be for pre-decision scrutiny, had been added to the agenda for the meeting on 14 December 2016. The report would seek approval of a new Grant Funding Agreement.

Economic Scrutiny Committee

There was one amendment to the work programme.  A report on Progress on international trade relationship with Hunan, China had been added to the agenda for the meeting on 21 February 2017.

Environmental Scrutiny Committee / Flood and Drainage Management Committee

There were two changes to the work programme. A report on the Water Recycling Centres Update scheduled for the meeting of the Flood and Drainage Management Committee on 9 December 2016, would now be considered by the Environmental Scrutiny Committee on 2 December 2016.

The meeting of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee on 17 February 2017 had been rearranged to 3 March 2017, following the meeting of the Flood and Drainage Management Committee.

A Councillor queried whether or not all of the household waste that was sent to waste transfer centres was sent to the Energy from Waste facility, or if it was shipped elsewhere.  It was agreed that the Councillor would contact the Executive Councillor for Waste and Recycling for clarification.

Health Scrutiny Committee for Lincolnshire

i)           Grantham Accident and Emergency Department

The Chairman advised that on 23 November 2016, the Committee had considered an item on the temporary overnight closure of Grantham Hospital Accident and Emergency Department.  After consideration of the information presented by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, the Committee had made a determination that the closure represented a substantial variation in local health care provision.  Furthermore, the Committee was not satisfied that overnight Accident and Emergency Services would be reinstated at Grantham Hospital by 17 February 2017 and concluded that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.