Pwyllgor ar y Cyd/Joint Committee 18 fed Mai 2015/ 18 th May 2015 Y Llwyfan, Caerfyrddin / Carmarthen 9.30 a.m a.m.

Transcription

1 PRESENT: Councillor Alun Thomas [Chair] Councillor Ellen ap Gwynn Councillor Rob Stewart Councillor Jennifer Raynor Councillor Barry Thomas Mr Mark James Mr Eifion Evans Ms Betsan O Connor Ms B. Morgan Mr J. Patterson Mr I. Eynon Ms J. Hendy Mr Matthew Holder Ms C. Sivers Mr Chris Llewelyn Mr Geraint Rees Mr Kevin Thomas Ceredigion County Council City & County of Swansea City & County of Swansea Powys County Council Lead Chief Executive - ERW Lead Director ERW ERW Managing Director Ceredigion County Council Powys County Council Pembrokeshire County Council (Deputising for ERW Section 151 Officer) Internal Audit - ERW ERW City & County of Swansea W.L.G.A. (Observor) Welsh Government (Observor) Carmarthenshire County Council (Democratic Services) 1

2 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jamie Adams (Pembrokeshire), and Kevin Madge (Carmarthenshire), and from Ian Westley (Pembrokeshire), John Haswell ( Section 151 Officer), Rory Cridland ( Monitoring Officer - ERW) and Sarah Fulthorpe (Welsh Government). 2. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTERESTS There were no declarations of personal interests 3. MINUTES AGREED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 th March 2015 be signed as a correct record subject to it being noted that Ms C Sivers (City and County of Swansea) had tendered her apology for the meeting 4. ERW BUSINESS PLAN The Joint Committee received for consideration ERW s Business Plan for the period The Managing Director reminded the Joint Committe that at its meeting held on the 11 th March, 2015 it had approved ERW s draft Business Plan and its three main priority outcomes of Leading Learning, Teaching and Learning and Support for Learning for progression across the region. She advised that the Plan had now been finalised, subject to minor textual amendments and correction of typographical errors. The Plan had also been accepted by the Welsh Government as an appropriate plan to deliver work across the ERW region in line with national policies. The Managing Director also advised that discussions had been held on the Business Plan with each Education Director of ERW s constituent authorities to ensure it dove-tailed seemlessly into their respective authorities individual plans to ensure no school could slip through the net of the support provided by ERW and those authorities. To support the delivery of the Business Plan, the Welsh Government had now approved the Education Improvement Grant together with the monitoring and reporting therof, which will lead to ERW reporting quarterly to the Joint Committe and the Welsh Government to monitor actions and outcomes when those were available. The Lead Director referred to the monitoring of the Education Improvement Grant and to the significant amount of work the Welsh Government required to be undertaken with regard thereto. He advised that he would be meeting with the Welsh Government in the near future to discuss its requirements, and to ascertain 2

3 whether there could be any scope for streamlining the processes involved with a view to reducing beaurocracy. AGREED that ERW s Business Plan and contents be endorsed. 5. ERW DOCUMENTS The Managing Director referred to the ERW documents agendaed under item no 5 (as itemised below) and advised that they reflected documents which ERW had either been working to or, were required to produce by Internal Audit to ensure the organisation worked efficiently Regional Code of Corporate Governance The Managing Director reported that the Regional Code of Corporate Governance was an operational working document which would be included, and noted as being compliant, within the Annual Governance Statement to be considered by the Joint Committee at the same time it considered the Financial Statement. The Managing Director also advised that, in preparing the document, care had been taken to ensure it did not overlap any governance arrangements within ERW s constituent authorities. AGREED, that the Regional Code of Corporate Governance be adopted 5.2. Complaints Policy The Managing Director referred to ERW s Complaints Policy and reported that it was a working document which had been operational for some time. It was also a stand alone document applicable wholly to ERW, and did not supercede the complaints policies of its constituent authorities. Reference was made to the fact the Policy made no provision for an appeals process, with the only avenue available to a complainant after a Stage 2 consideration was to seek a referral to the Ombudsman. The Lead Chief Executive advised that local authority complaints policies did not normally contain provision for appeals, with their consideration falling under Stage 1 and Stage 2 and, if still unresolved after Stage 2, the complainant could complain to the Local Government Ombudsman for wales. That process followed best practice guidance, and was also in accord with the Ombudsman s recommendation. Other Council s confirmed that they followed the Ombudsman s best practice guide. 3

4 Reference was made to the document being specific to ERW, and to whether it could be possible to incorporate a clarifiying statement to that effect, and to advise compainants that should ERW receive a complaint that was not speficic to its operation, they would need to redirect their complaint to the appropriate Local Authority. The Managing Director confirmed that she would examine the possibility of incorporating such a statement within the document. The Lead Director also confirmed that whilst ERW had formulated its own complaints policy, local accountability was still relevant, and any complaint against one of its constituent authorities should be referred to that authority for consideration under their own complaints policy. AGREED, that the Complaints Policy be adopted Ladder of Support The Managing Director referred to the Ladder of Support document produced by ERW and advised that it was an operational working document that outlined the entitlement for support for schools across the ERW region. The document was subject to continuous refinement with it being anticipated an updated amended version would be produced in September 2015 that would incorporate the new categorisation of schools locally. It was also a key document for schools to understand how they could be supported by ERW The Lead Director referred to the National Categorisation of Schools and advised that as the National Descriptors were currently being reworded, the ladder of support would be amended to reflect national changes made to enable ERW to identify the various school categories and to determine the level of support required for improvement to occur. AGREED, that the Ladder of Support be adopted ERW Language Policy The Managing Director referred to ERW s Language Policy Document and reported that it was an operational working document that had received positive feedback from schools as they knew they could receive services in their language of choice. Reference was made to the need to ensure school governors received training on the policy in order to understand its purpose and operation. The Managing Director confirmed that a series of seminars had been held in 2014 in each of the six constituent local authority areas explaining the operation of the policy. Additionally, the Regional Working Group was currently devising an operational model which, was anticipated to be finalised in September. 4

5 AGREED, that the Language Policy be adopted. 6. DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND SCRUTINY The Joint Commitee considered the proposed Democratic Accountability and Scrutiny arrangements for ERW which aimed to clearly define the expectations for effective joint scrutiny and accountability arrangements to key stakeholders within the democratic accountability processes of each constituent local authority. The Managing Director advised that as part of the need for effective and ERW scrutiny to occur, advice had been sought from the WLGA and the Centre for Public Scrutiny on the way forward. They had advised that the cost and beaurocracy involved with establishing a single scrutiny committee would be significant and risk dulpicating local arrangements with little added value. aas such, it was being proposed that ERW would built on last year s effective practice of a common regional forward work porgramme. This FWP be extended to inlcude cross region and ERW governance and performance aspects and that these be scrutinised by each of its six constituent authorities. The MD would attend each LA once per year which would include scrutiny of the Regional Forward Work Programme and its business as a whole. Additionally, all six of the scrutiny chairs would meet annually and it was proposed to hold an annual seminar to all elected members in the region on ERW s work highlighting the context within each local authority Reference was made to meetings of the Joint Committee being open to the public. and a suggestion made that invitations could be extended to the six scrutiny chairs to attend those meetings as part of the scrutiny process. Reference was made to the scrutiny process and to how recommendations arising from a scrutiny committee could be fed into the system for consideration. The Lead Chief Executive suggested that any such recommendations could be presented as a report and formally agendaed for consideration at a meeting of the Joint Committee. Reference was made to Mr Robert Hill s recommendation for the pairing of local authority scrutiny committees to examine specific areas of ERW s work, and to whether that had received consideration. The Lead Director confirmed that although consideration had been given to the recommendation, potential difficulties had been identified with regard to its implementation in relation to both the large geographical area covered by ERW and the need to ensure consistency of scrutiny. He advised that the Lead Chief Executive, who was responsible for driving the ERW agenda contacted him on an annual basis to ascertain its performance and that was fed through the scrutiny process. 5

6 Various suggestions were made on the issue of scrutiny undertaking specific work on ERW s performance which included the establishment of task and finish groups, for each scrutiny committee to report on a specific area of work to the scrutiny chairs for them to formulate a report and produce a regional overview or, for scrutiny officers to consider whether there were any areas they felt could benefit from scrutiny with a view to ensuring scrutiny supported, not hindered ERW s work. AGREED 6.1. that the Democratic Accountabilty and Scrutiny arrangements be endorsed 6.2. That the Scrutiny Officers consider whether there were any aspects of ERW s operations that could benefit from specific scrutiny. 7. SHARED FUNCTIONS FRAMEWORK The Joint Commitee considered the above report on the Shared Functions Framework that set out the services provided to ERW, in kind, as outlined within the Legal Agreement or, as part of a specific Service Level Agreement to support the design and delivery of services. The Managing Director advised that subsequent to the report s preparation, discussions had been undertaken with the City and County of Swansea on that authority taking a lead on Scrutiny Oversight. AGREED 7.1. That the update report be received That the Executive Board be authorised to use the Shared Functions Framework to make operational amendments, as required, to meet business need and Local Authority capacity 8. FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER The Chair welcomed to the meeting Mr Richard Harries (Engagement Lead Financial Audit) and Ms Lucy Evans (Financial Audit Manager) from the Wales Audit Office who had been invited to the Joint Committee to present the 2015 Audit Plan. The Joint Commitee received for consideration the report of the Chief Finance Officer incorporating the draft 2014/15 revenue outturn, the final grant outturn for 2014/15 and 2015/16 allocations and the updated central revenue team budget for 2015/16. 6

7 The Joint Committee was advised that the Draft ERW financial Statement for 2014/15 would be produced by the 30 th June 2015, in accordance with the prescribed timescales specified within the Accounts and Audit (Wales) Regulations Thereafter, it, together with the Wales Audit Office (ISA260) audit opinion report would need to be considered and approved by the Joint Committee prior to the 30 th September to ensure compliance with the Regulations. Mr Richard Harries presented the 2015 Audit Plan and advised that the Audit Office would audit ERW s accounts in June/July 2015, prior to the presentation of the 2014/15 Financial Statement to the Joint Committee in September. He highlighted various aspects of the Audit Plan including financial audit risks, fees, the Audit team and the audit timetable. Members of the Joint Committee were afforded the opportunity of asking questions on the Audit Plan following which the Chair thanked Mr Harries and Ms Evans for the presentation. The Joint Committee also received the final internal audit report covering ERW s governance, risk management, performance data, management information, financial management and grant funding. The report detailed that a Substantial Assurance could now be given on the adequacy and effectiveness of the arrangements in place for the ERW consortium. AGREED: 8.1. That the 1 st draft 2014/15 revenue outturn be noted; 8.2. That the final grant outturn for 2014/15 and grant allocations for 2015/16 be noted, 8.3. That the amendments to the central team revenue budget for 2015/16 and related staffing issues be approved; 8.4. That the arrangements for the production, inspection, audit and approval of the ERW financial Statements for 2014/15 be noted; 8.5. That the Wales Audit Office s draft 2015/16 Audit Plan for ERW be noted; 8.6. That the Internal Audit Report on the ERW Consortium be noted. 9. RISK REGISTER The Joint Committee received for consideration a report on the establishment of a Risk Register for ERW that identified the process of taking action to mitigate and manage risks between the six constituent authorities and the region as a key area to strengthen and build on the current position with effective management of risk 7

8 enabling ERW to support its objectives, make efficient use of resources and deliver intended outcomes. The Managing Director advised that the operation of the Register would be undertaken by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and would be divided into three sections covering corporate risks, operational school improvement risks and financial risk. The register was an early draft indicating ERW s current position with regard to risk, and that as time progressed it would be strengthened to highlight risks more efficiently to ensure that where risks were identified that could affect ERW and its local authorities, they could be assessed within a set process. An updated version of the register would be submitted to the next meeting. The Lead Director advised that whilst ERW had evolved a more mature risk register, should any identified risks reflect on the six constituent authorities he d expect those risks to be reflected within each of those authorities own risk registers where appropriate. That would ensure any risks were effectively triangulated between ERW and those authorities. Reference was made to what processes, if any, were in place for local authorities, which may identify corporate risks to feed those into the risk register. The Lead Director advised that there was a standing item on risk on the agenda for meetings of both the Joint Committee and the Executive Board, and that it would be the responsibility of each authority to report risks to those forums. In addition, the new role of Neat Port Talbot would be to co-ordinate those formally. Whilst the formulation of the Risk Register was welcomed, reference was made to how issues identified by an individual authority were dealt with, and whether there was a need for an issue log to also be established. The Managing Director advised that as the register was currently in draft form she could liaise with Neath Port Talbot on incorporating references to issues within the document. AGREED 9.1. that the Risk Register be endorsed 9.2. that discussions be held with Neath Port Talbot on how issues could be incorporated within the Risk Management Process 10. ANY OTHER ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS It was noted that there were no items of urgent business 8

9 Signed: CHAIR Date: 9