Agenda item

(To receive a report which provides the Committee with independent insight on the facts surrounding the decision making process associated with the Libraries Project and identifies suggested areas for improvement)

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Committee with independent insight on the facts surrounding the decision making process associated with the Libraries Project and identified suggested areas for improvement.

Members were advised that the report provided a chronology of events and a comprehensive examination of the decision making process throughout the Libraries Project, leading up to the Executive decision in December 2013.  It was reported that the review of the Library Service involved a complex range of political, economic and social objectives and that the decision around the future delivery of libraries was sensitive, difficult and multi-faceted and the proposed changes were significant.

Initially it was queried whether it was appropriate to discuss this matter in light of the considerations of the proposals for the library service by the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee the following day, and whether the deliberations at this meeting would have an effect on that meeting?  Members were advised that this report would not have an effect as it related to what had already happened, and the Audit Committee was not being asked to determine policies around the library service.  It was about the processes that led to the Judicial Review, and to ensure that decision making in the future took account of what had happened.  There was a need to examine how the authority could learn from this experience and so make better decisions in the future.

The Chairman stated that the Audit Committee would not be revisiting the decisions which had been made, that was the role of the scrutiny committee.  This was a regulatory committee, and needed to be apolitical.  The Chairman stated that non-members of the Committee would not be allowed to speak.

Members were advised that the role of internal audit had been to look at the critical systems and processes, not to question the policy or the decisions that were made.  This report was based on good governance principles and the recommendations were seeking how governance might be improved following the Library Service review.  The lessons learned had been detailed in the report, and it recognises that there was a lot of work done and that there were key improvements for management to consider.

The Executive Director for Environment and Economy was in attendance to address the Committee and respond to questions in relation to this report.  It was suggested that instead of Members considering what went wrong in the process and the Judicial Review, it was better to question why the outcome that was anticipated was not achieved.  However, the Executive Director welcomed the report.  It was noted that the focus for this report was on the process, advice, governance and decision making.  It was acknowledged that the authority always expected to be challenged, but this was not something to be afraid of.

The Executive and officers were required to save £1.97m from the libraries budget whilst maintaining an effective and comprehensive library service.  However, it was important to note that there was no definition of what this was.  It was felt that it was important that only deliverable options were presented to decision makers, and there were two issues to be resolved – what was a comprehensive and efficient library service, and how should it be delivered.  One option proposed by officers firmly rejected: to retain 13 main libraries and close the others.

Consultation would remain as an essential factor in decision making, and in the future would use internal resources and the internal community engagement team. 

The report would be carefully considered by the Executive Director and his colleagues, as well as by the Audit Committee, Executive and other councillors.  In the future the authority would be faced with a succession of complex changes with fewer resources to plan and implement them.  It was important that the authority did not become risk averse and so make little change.  It must consult fairly and be open to valid alternatives and not mislead the public by offering choices that were not affordable or deliverable.  Lincolnshire County Council must continue to be a learning organisation that was willing to undergo transformational change.

Members of the Committee were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was noted that there was a typographical error at point 3.32 of the report, and the date should have read 22 November 2013, not 2011;

·         One member expressed disappointment that non-members were not able to speak at this Committee;

·         It was suggested that when scrutiny committees did not support recommendations, it was good practice for them to suggest alternatives;

·         The Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL) proposal was received on the last day of the consultation and it was not perceived as a 'Community Right to Challenge'.  The proposal was still considered despite the limited information which had been included with the submission.  The rationale for not considering this proposal further was outlined in paragraph 3.28 of the report;

·         The judgement suggested that if there had been more input from Legal Services, it may have highlighted some of the issues that the Consultation Institute was not qualified to have picked up on;

·         The Consultation Institute had been approached in order to give a degree of independence to the consultation, and to ensure that it was prepared in a transparent way;

·         Concerns were raised regarding the timeframe, and it was queried whether it was felt that due to the timing of the submission from GLL, there was a tendency to look for reasons why the proposal was not suitable?  Members were advised that all proposals were considered by the Panel that was set up to consider all expressions of interest.  It was commented that it was felt as though there was enough time to consider the submissions;

·         It was queried whether the timing of the election in May 2013 had had an effect on the process, as a lot of scrutiny experience was lost in the election.  Some of the new councillors may not have been scrutinising at the level that they should have been;

·         It was recognised that the proposal submitted by a member of the public (Proposal X) was a genuine attempt to find another delivery model;

·         It had not been recognised that GLL could be classed as a 'relevant body' under the Localism Act;

·         From a governance point of view, the Council chose not to take a controversial decision before an election, and there was no right or wrong way in this approach.  One issue for a council when taking decisions such as these before an election, was that one council would set the budget, and the new council would need to implement it;

·         One of the issues picked up by the report was the vast amount of paperwork which was circulated as part of this process.  It was commented that it was difficult to get the balance right between providing members with every piece of information or just giving them the relevant information;

·         It was queried what the role of scrutiny was; what powers the scrutiny committees had; and what could be asked of the Committees;

·         It was observed that the Judicial Review was critical of the consultation process, not the decision;

·         It was commented that a presentation was made to one political group, and queried whether this was offered to any of the other groups;

·         Concerns were highlighted regarding the document that was provided to the Scrutiny Committee by Sheffield Hallam University 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.  It was queried when this document was received by officers, and if anyone had had prior sight of the report?  It was considered important that Scrutiny Committees were fully informed.  It was reported that generally members would receive papers five working days prior to the meeting.  Members were advised that the report which had been circulated on the day of the scrutiny committee had only been completed that day, and was intended as background material to the presentation which was given to the Committee by Sheffield Hallam University;

·         Members were advised that it was appropriate and normal for any report coming from external organisations to be analysed by officers.  It was also mentioned that officers should be able to comment on any report prepared by a consultant (however, the comments did not have to be included within the report).  Only the author was able to amend a report, and authors would only allow others to change the content of their report when they agreed with the comments;

·         In relation to the timing of the report presented to the scrutiny committee, it was noted that it would have been possible for officers to suggest to the Chairman of the meeting that it be deferred until members had had an opportunity to fully consider the report.  The amount of time members were given to consider this report was identified as a key pressure point;

·         Representatives from Sheffield Hallam University were in attendance at the scrutiny committee and presented their report and gave a presentation to the Committee.  The scrutiny committee did not make the request to defer the report;

·         In relation to risk assessment and management, it was queried whether there was executive oversight of the individual operating boards and workstreams and also if there was a risk management framework in place? 

·         One of the risks highlighted did include the timetable for the consultation process due to waiting until after the election and then having to work to a compressed timescale.  However, it was felt that there was sufficient engagement to ensure that these risks were understood;

·         There was a Programme Team whose purpose was to support the different projects within the Council, and people within this team had been offered to the Libraries Review Project;

·         At the Budget setting meeting of Full Council in February 2013, officers were directed to put more money into the budget to take account of the process being extended;

·         It was acknowledged that the Executive did have oversight of the risk assessment;

·         It was suggested that there was a need for the advice to have been more robust, for example regarding not recognising GLL's proposal under the Localism Act;

·         It was suggested that some controversial issues may require more time to go through the scrutiny process.  The Executive listened very carefully to what was said by the scrutiny committees;

·         It was said that the proposals for the library service were judged to be legal by the High Court, but it was the consultation process which was flawed, as well as not considering the GLL proposal under the Localism Act.  However, it had been felt at the time that localism referred to people in the local area;

·         Members were advised that the authority had been very keen to keep the Library Service in-house, rather than handing it over to an external organisation, such as GLL, who would take control of the whole service;

·         It was noted that this interpretation of the Localism Act could affect other services, as at any point an authority could receive a challenge from another relevant body to take over a service;

·         There had been some very positive discussions around the areas for improvement, and it had become clear that it was very important to look carefully at options appraisals and the consultation process;

·         It was commented that the report was very good, but was queried whether audit had become involved at the right time, or should this have come to the Audit Committee earlier? Members were advised that this had been the right time for Audit to be involved, as the role of audit was to ensure that good governance was maintained.  It was right and appropriate that Audit examined the lessons learned and that an action plan was developed and implemented;

·         There was a need to examine how the Audit Committee and Scrutiny Committees could work better together;

It was proposed that the Committee should accept the suggested areas for improvement in the report and that officers be directed to address them and bring the findings back to this Committee.  It was also suggested that the action plan should be considered by the Executive and Corporate Management Board and a report brought back to the meeting in March.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee accept the suggested areas for improvement outlined in the report and officers be directed to address them and bring the findings back to a future meeting of this Committee;

2.    That the action plan be considered by Executive and Corporate Management Board and a report brought back to the meeting in March.