Minutes for Corporate Policy and Performance Committee meeting, Apr 29 2010, 2.00PM official page

The Committee heard from the Convener who advised that Satrosphere was one of two science centres that met its annual visitor targets set by the Scottish Government and that it was the only centre to meet its visitor targets for the Easter weekend, and commended the staff for their achievement.

In terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public from the meeting during article 12 so as to avoid disclosure of exempt information of the class described in paragraphs 10 and 12 of Schedule 7(A) to the Act.

The Committee had before it the minute of its previous meeting of 4 March, 2010.

The Committee resolved:-

to approve the minute as a correct record.

The Committee had before it a statement of Committee Business prepared by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

In relation to item 4 (Byelaws), the Committee heard from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services who advised that information on the general criteria by which the Scottish Government assessed requests for the implementation of a new byelaw had now been received. However, she highlighted that there remained confusion in this area as different sections within the Scottish Government had different perceptions of byelaws and used varying criteria when assessing requests.

With regard to item 3 (Shared Revenues and Benefits Services – Feasibility Study Update), the Committee heard from the Director of Corporate Governance who advised that at a meeting of the North of Scotland Local Authorities Revenues and Benefits Services (NoSLA) it was agreed that, Moray, the lead Local Authority for NoSLA, write to the Scottish Government regarding the availability of monies for the introduction of shared services. The Scottish Government had now responded in which they advised that no funding was available for these type of shared services. In light of this position, the Director advised that these type of shared services could no longer be pursued in this manner and that different options would now have to be assessed.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         in relation to item 3 (Shared Revenues and Benefits Services – Feasibility Study Update), to note the oral update from the Director of Corporate Governance and to delete from the statement;

(ii)        in relation to item 4 (Byelaws), to note the oral update and to request the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to:- (a) write to local MPs and MSPs regarding the difficulties experienced by the Council in relation to byelaws; and (b) report to the next meeting of the Committee on the criteria for enforcing a byelaw;

(iii)       in relation to item 5 (Domestic Central Heating Replacements), to note that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services would provide an oral update, in confidence, later on the agenda (article 12 refers), and subject to the decision taken to remove from the statement;

(iv)       in relation to item 7 (Single Outcome Agreement 2008/2009 Performance Report) to delete it from the statement subject to the decision taken by the Committee later on the agenda; and

(iv)       to otherwise note the updates contained within the Business Statement.

The Committee had before it a Motions List prepared by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

In relation to motion 1 (Renaming Council Wards), the committee heard from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services who advised that a letter regarding the renaming of wards had been circulated to all members, and that following this consultation a report detailing the proposed changes to ward names would be submitted to the next meeting of this Committee. In response to a question she advised that the deadline for members to respond was fourteen days, however given the forthcoming election the deadline could be extended if necessary.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         in relation to motion 1 (Renaming Council Wards) to:- (a) note the oral update by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, (b) request that a report detailing the proposed changes be brought back to the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee at its meeting on 10 June 2010, and (c) that the “Northfield/Mastrick ward” be renamed “Northfield/Mastrick (North) ward”; and

(ii)        in relation to motion 2 to note that a report was to be considered later on today’s agenda (article 7 refers), and to remove subject to the decision taken.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance which advised of the requirements relating to Statutory Performance Indicators (SPIs) for both 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 and sought agreement for financial and performance monitoring and reporting arrangements to elected members.

The report covered two main issues, firstly the issue regarding the Council’s response to the Direction of Audit Scotland with respect to SPIs, and secondly regarding the development of comprehensive performance reporting to each of the Council’s committees.

Firstly, in terms of the SPIs, members were reminded that Audit Scotland had made substantial changes to the SPIs which Councils had to report for the 2009/2010 year and explained that these changes were to be maintained for 2010/11.  The number of defined SPIs remained at twenty-five and were now referred to as “Specified Indicators”.  In addition, Councils were also required to publish a range of performance information sufficient to demonstrate that it was securing Best Value across a defined range of services and criteria.  Details of the requirements were outlined.  It was also highlighted that whilst at the time of writing, the annual Direction from Audit Scotland on SPIs had not yet been received, however it was believed that no significant changes would be made for 2010/2011.  Councils, therefore were again required to review and agree those performance indicators which they would be reporting to address new SPIs 1 and 2 (the requirements of new SPI 1 and 2 were outlined). As such, it was recommended that the Committee request each of the Council’s Services to report to the relevant Service Committee setting out appropriate indicators.  In doing so, services would propose targets for each indicator in 2010/2011 based on previous performance trends, benchmarked comparisons with other service providers and anticipated improvements / investment.

The report highlighted that the focus of the external audit work for SPIs was changing.  It was the view of Audit Scotland that the focus of external audit should now be on validation of the performance management arrangements.  Validation of the accuracy of data was clearly the responsibility of the Council, however external audit might choose to sample some records.  They would place reliance on the Council’s own arrangements for data validation and would need to be satisfied that these arrangements were robust.  Therefore, it was proposed that the Corporate Governance Service provide an independent co-ordination and verification of SPIs to give this assurance.

Turning to the wider financial and performance monitoring and reporting, the report outlined an effective performance management framework.  It was highlighted that for a number of years, the Council’s Committees had been receiving performance information covering key performance indicators, budgetary data, actions and risks.  However, it was proposed that these strands of monitoring be brought together in a consistent and co-ordinated manner within the Council’s new organisational and Committee structure.  In terms of the criteria for an effective performance management framework, it was recommended that each Service Committee receive a consolidated Service performance report on a quarterly basis which monitored, as appropriate:-

(a)       all Statutory Performance Indicators which fell within the Committee’s remit;

(b)       other Key Performance Indicators which the Service and/or the Committee deemed necessary to manage performance;

(c)        specifically, data showing actual and projected expenditure on revenue and capital budgets, as well as delivery of agreed savings;

(d)       progress with actions set out in the relevant Service Business Plan; and

(e)       the relevant Service Risk Register

In line with this, the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee would have a Council wide role in monitoring performance.  A work programme for the Committee was currently being prepared and would set out the nature of and timing of reports which would include performance reports monitoring of the Single Outcome Agreement, the Corporate Business Plan and all Statutory Performance Indicators.  A proposed workplan for the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee which showed an annual timetable for its consideration of those issues which fell within the Committee’s remit was attached as an appendix to the report.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         that all Service Committees be asked to consider and agree discretionary statutory indicators for 2010/2011 which appropriately address the requirements of the “New SPIs 1 and 2”, as detailed in the report;

(ii)        that all Service Committees receive a consolidated Service performance report four times per year which monitored, as appropriate:-

·        all Statutory Performance Indicators which fell within the Committee’s remit;

·        other Key Performance Indicators which the Service and/or the Committee deemed necessary to manage performance;

·        specifically, data showing actual and projected expenditure on revenue and capital budgets, as well as delivery of agreed savings;

·        progress with actions set out in the relevant Service Business Plan; and

·        the relevant Service Risk Register;

(iii)       that the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee receive performance reports on an annual basis showing progress and outturns in relation to:-

·        Key Performance Indicators

·        The Single Outcome Agreement;

·        The Council’s Corporate Business Plan; and

·        All Statutory Performance Indicators; and

(iv)       to request officers to report a scheme for exception reporting to the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee, in order that exceptionally poor performance should be reported as soon as possible for early action.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Corporate Governance which advised of the arrangements for the Shared Risk Assessment which would determine the external scrutiny of the Council over the next three years and the links of this to the Audit of Best Value and Community Planning – BV2.

By way of background the report explained that following publication of the Crerar report in September 2007, the Scottish Government had stated its aim of establishing a simplified approach to delivering local government scrutiny. A key aspect of this was improved coordination and streamlining of scrutiny. The Audit of Best Value and Community Planning (BV2) was part of the new scrutiny arrangements.

 In terms of progress to date, it was advised that a Local Area Network (LAN) had been established for each Council.  The aim of the LAN was to facilitate the efficient scheduling and planning of scrutiny activity based on a shared assessment of the risks for the council, and comprised of representatives of all the scrutiny bodies who engaged with the Council, including those engaged with the Council’s public service partners.  The key output from the LAN was a three year Assurance and Improvement Plan for each council, commencing April 2010, but updated annually.  The Plan would give local authorities clear information about what scrutiny activity they would be engaged with and when this would happen.

Specifically, with regards the Shared Risk Assessment, it was advised that one of the principles of the approach, which was highlighted within the Crerar report, was the need for a risk based, proportionate approach to scrutiny.  That was, a Council should only be subject to scrutiny where the level of risk justified that and that this would vary from Council to Council.  Scrutiny would be aligned to the assessed level of risk and the agreed scrutiny activities would be set out by the LANs in the draft Assurance and Improvement Plan.  It was highlighted that in developing the proportionate scrutiny response, a varying range of responses were available to scrutiny bodies, (a list of the range of responses available were detailed within the report).

In addition, it was advised as part of the scrutiny process, a Single Corporate Assessment (SCA) would be undertaken.  This would give the scrutiny judgment on performance against organisation-wide issues.  The judgments were about the overarching framework which supported the council in delivering best value services.  The areas covered by the SCA were detailed.            The detail of how the SCA would be undertaken would follow once the evaluation of the five BV2 Pathfinder audits has been completed and analysed by Audit Scotland.

Finally, the report advised that the Shared Risk Assessment and subsequent scrutiny placed a high degree of focus on the Council’s self evaluation of their own performance.  There were a number of existing self evaluation approaches in place across local government.  The Council’s Corporate Management Team (CMT) had undertaken an options appraisal of the self-evaluation models available and were currently beginning the implementation of “How Good is Our Council?”.  The use of this model would see the self-evaluation become a routine management process across the Council and not a one off event to address external scrutiny.  Further details of the self-evaluation approach was provided.  It was intended that the first self-evaluations would be undertaken by the CMT and Extended Corporate Management Team.  This would give senior management direct experience of the model and would equip them to lead and support colleagues.  It was also intended that the first corporate and service based self-evaluations be undertaken for the high level questions only.  This would give a broad look across the Council and the work of each Service.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to note the national and local arrangements in place for Shared Risk Assessment and external scrutiny of Scottish councils;

(ii)        to note that officers were implementing a corporate wide self-evaluation programme based on “How Good is Our Council”;

(iii)       to receive regular updates on the progress with all external scrutiny; and

(iv)       to request officers to report back to the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee regarding the implementation of “How Good is Our Council” in two cycles.

With reference to article 1 of the minute of the meeting of the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee of 21 January 2010, the Committee had before it a report by the Chief Executive which provided an update on the position of the Scottish Government on local government finance distribution and sought authority to remove Councillor Graham’s motion in this regard from the Committee’s Motions List.

The report provided a detailed overview of the steps taken to date to address the terms of Councillor Graham’s motion.  It was advised that on 16 February 2010, the Council Leader and the Chief Executive, along with their Aberdeenshire Council counterparts, had met with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to discuss a range of issues including the Local Government finance distribution formula and its impact on the funding allocations to both Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils.  At the meeting the Cabinet Secretary made it clear that in terms of the formula he did not intend to move from the COSLA recommendations agreed at the conclusion of the review undertaken during 2009.  The Council Leader and the Chief Executive for their part made clear that the Council would continue to press the case for a fairer funding settlement for Aberdeen.  Subsequent to the meeting in February 2010, the Cabinet Secretary’s office made contact with the Office of the Chief Executive to confirm that given that the Cabinet Secretary had made his views clear on the issues a meeting with the Leadership Board was unlikely to offer any new perspectives from him.  Consequently no date was currently identified for a meeting between the Cabinet Secretary and the Council’s Leadership Board. The Leadership Board discussed this matter at its meeting on 17 March 2010, and it has agreed that the invitation to meet that was sent to the Cabinet Secretary before Christmas 2009, be reaffirmed and be left open with a view to a discussion being held with him when diaries allow.  In the meantime, the Council Leader continued to discuss matters with colleagues at COSLA and the Chief Executive had recently made use of a number of national speaking engagements, including at the annual conferences of both COSLA and SOLACE (Society of Local Authority Chief Executive), to press the case for a fairer funding settlement for Aberdeen City Council stressing the importance of the City and the wider North East in driving economic recovery and generating national tax revenues.

The report recommended:-

that the Committee:-

(a)        note the Scottish Government’s position on local government finance distribution;

(b)        request the Leadership Board and the Chief Executive to continue to press the case for fairer funding for the Council;

(c)        request that future reports on developments relating to the Council’s funding settlement be taken to the Finance and Resources Committee; and

(d)        remove Councillor Graham’s motion on the matter from the Committee’s Motions List

The Convener, seconded by the Vice Convener, moved:-

that the Committee approve the recommendations.

Councillor Graham, seconded by Councillor Adam, moved as an amendment:-

that the Committee agree recommendations (a) and (b), as contained in the report, and request that officers make arrangements for the Council to present its case for increased funding to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee and report back to the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee; as part of this, the Council should seek to engage with Aberdeen citizens and the local media in an effort to find local champions to help present the City’s case at the Public Petitions Committee, should an audience be granted.

On a division, there voted:-  for the motion (9) – the Convener;  the Vice Convener;  Depute Provost Dunbar; and Councillors Dean, Leslie, Malone, May, Kevin Stewart and Yuill;  for the amendment (5) –Councillors Adam, Collie, Donnelly, Graham, and Ironside.

The Committee resolved:-

to adopt the terms of the motion.

The Committee had before it a joint report by the Directors of Education, Culture and Sport and Social Care and Wellbeing which sought approval for the proposed future planning and governance arrangements to support and strengthen the delivery of integrated children’s services in the City.

The report advised that in 2009, the Children and Young People’s Strategic Planning Group (CYPSPG) reviewed the governance and planning to support the delivery of integrated children’s services in the City.  The review considered the governance and resource management arrangements in place locally to deliver the Integrated Children’s Services Plan (ICSP) “For Aberdeen’s Children”.  One-to-one interviews were held with 20 members of the CYPSPG and Children and Young People’s Services Management Group (CYPSMG) including elected members, the Education, Culture and Sport and Social Care and Wellbeing Directorates, NHS Grampian, Grampian Police, and the Aberdeen Council of Voluntary Organisation (ACVO) who represented the Third Sector.  As a result of this, the following report recommendations had been put forward:

·        Improving outcomes for children and families;

·        Overseeing the effective use of resources;

·        The roles and accountabilities of partners in delivering improvements set out in the Integrated Children’s Services Plan;

·        Effective consultation, engagement and involvement of key stakeholders;

·        Supporting local capacity building and capability development;

·        The governance and principles of the partnership; and

·        Managing risks and exercising controls.

The proposals contained within the report before the Committee for approval had been designed to relate specifically to these recommendations.

The report also advised of the large membership of both the CYPSPG and CYPSMG and noted that the large size of both groups was not conducive to effective strategic planning.  Following a meeting of representatives from key agencies, it had been agreed that governance and membership of the strategic planning structure should be designed around key outcomes, and that membership of the management group should be at a more senior level.  The management group would then remit work programmes to a small number of focused delivery sub-groups.

Finally, the report noted that the proposed strategic planning structure would take forward key message from the “Getting It Right for Every Child” pathfinder model which was being developed in Highland Council in order to drive forward a change in practice.  A series of seminars led by the proposed Integrated Children’s Services Partnership and Management Group was to be arranged to deliver these key messages to staff.  Further to this, events would be organised for teams within localities and associated school groups to ensure the change in practice was embedded at all levels.

Appended to the report were structure diagrams showing the current and proposed governance structures for Integrated Childrens Services, as well as the proposed membership for the governance structure and a diagram detailing the committee reporting arrangements for the CYPSP.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to note that the Education, Culture and Sport and Social Care and Wellbeing Committees had considered and approved the revised structure and its membership; and

(ii)        that the Integrated Children’s Services Partnership replace the Children and Young People’s Strategic Planning Group as a Challenge Forum of The Aberdeen City Alliance to lead and coordinate the delivery of local improvement objectives to improve outcomes for children and young people within the Single Outcome Agreement.

With reference to article 6 of the minute of meeting of the Housing and Environment Committee of 13 April, 2010, at which point the Committee had approved the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy, the Committee had before it, by way of a remit, a report by the Director of Housing and Environment, which sought approval to adopt the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy.

The report advised that the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2010-2025 provided a statement of the key outcomes for all waste management in the city for the next
15 years and provided a framework for the development of the next generation of waste infrastructure and services.  The Strategy had been developed through analysis of the drivers that had affected waste management behaviour and practice, subsequently, a process was followed of identifying key themes, goals, objectives and targets.

The report outlined the key themes of the strategy and advised that the five targets were (1)  municipal waste growth being eliminated by 2015; (2)  source segregated municipal waste recycling and organic waste treatment targets, these being 45% by 2013, 50% by 2020, and 56% by 2025, (3)  the introduction of organic waste collection for all households and development of treatment facilities within the Aberdeen area by 2013; (4)  municipal residual waste treatment capacity (including energy from waste) not exceeding 45% by 2020 and 40% by 2025, and (5)  no more than 5% of municipal waste being land filled by 2025.

Appended to the report was the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2010-2025 document, and an implementation plan for the strategy.

The Committee resolved:-

to adopt the Aberdeen City Waste Strategy as attached at appendix 1 to the report.

With reference to article  6 of the minute of the meeting of the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee of 21 January 2010, the Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which provided an update on the implementation of the action plan dealing with organisational and strategic issues relating to catering services.

The report reminded members that the Best Value Consultancy within the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) was commissioned to undertake a review of all catering carried out within Aberdeen City Council premises; this included school catering, social services catering and civic/other catering services.  The outcomes from the review were reported to Corporate Policy and Performance Committee at its meeting on 21 January 2010, at which time the Committee, amongst other things, requested officers to develop a comprehensive action plan dealing with the organisational and strategic issues relating to catering services.

The report explained that the Action Plan, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, had been modified to show clearer actions to be taken forward in relation to the different aspects of catering across the Council as a whole. Some steps had already been taken to maintain the momentum from the original APSE review and to reflect the decision of the Committee in January.  In summary the headline steps were as follows:

·                    Introduction of a city wide menu for all primary school lunches;

·                    Review of catering service provided within academies across the City;

·                    Implementation of quality management systems within primary school kitchens and work toward extension of BSI 9001:2008 registration;

·                    Agreement to transfer operational management responsibility of catering services within the Town House (staff restaurant, catering supplied for elected members and meeting rooms), at Kittybrewster  (staff canteen and vending service) to Facilities Management.  Other than drinks vending machines there are no staff catering services at either Summerhill or Linksfield premises; and

·                    Development of questionnaire to seek feedback from all staff and elected members regarding all catering services provided within the Town House and at Kittybrewster to aid service improvement.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to approve the proposed actions detailed in the Action Plan; and

(ii)        to request officers to report back to the Committee, in two cycles, with an update on all of the actions contained in the Action Plan.

The Committee had before it a report by the Director of Enterprise, Planning and Infrastructure which sought authority to suspend the operation of The Aberdeen City Council (Drinking in Public Places Byelaw) 2002.  This was to permit the responsible consumption of alcohol to be possible within the Duthie Park during the BP Summer Big Screens event on the evening of Tuesday, 8 June 2010 from 6.00pm to 11.00pm.

The report explained that this was the sixth year the event had taken place, and that there had been no noted incidents related to alcohol at any previous events with pre-event publicity actively discouraging visitors from bringing glass bottles and cans into the park.  In order to allow for consumption of alcohol at the event, new Byelaws to enact a temporary suspension of the existing Aberdeen City Council Byelaw were required which must also then be approved by the Scottish Government.

The Committee resolved:-

to instruct the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to undertake the processes necessary to enact Byelaws suspending the operation of the existing Aberdeen City Council (Drinking in Public Places Byelaw) 2002 within the boundaries of the Duthie Park for the BP Summer Big Screen event on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 from 6.00pm to 11.00pm. 

In accordance with the decision recorded under article 1 of this minute, the following item was considered with the press and public excluded.

With reference to article 15 of the minute of the meeting of the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee of 4 March 2010, the Committee received an oral update regarding the questions detailed at item 5 (Domestic Central Heating Replacements) of the Committee Business Statement from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)     to note the oral update provided by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services;

(ii)    to note that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services had to clarify who the third contractor was before she could advise the Committee whether they had been notified;

(iii)   to request that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services resend the information regarding the procurement process training session to all Councillors; and

(iv)   to request that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services explore the possibility and practicality of holding an evening procurement process training session for Councillors.

- COUNCILLOR JENNIFER STEWART, Convener.