Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 September 2014.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 September 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Leader.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillors Pamela Bale and Irene Neill declared an interest in Agenda Item 7, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillors Royce Longton, Alan Macro and Jeff Brooks declared an interest in Agenda Item 7, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate.

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules contained in the Council’s Constitution.

“Can the Council please provide residents of West Berkshire District with assurances that the systems, training and guidance in place in West Berkshire for Council Officers and elected Councillors are sufficiently robust that we could not have an abuse scandal of the type seen in Rotherham, happening here?”

A question standing in the name of Ms Judith Bunting which sought an assurance that the safeguarding systems, training and guidance in place at West Berkshire Council for Council Officers and elected Councillors were sufficiently robust to prevent an abuse scandal in West Berkshire of the type seen in Rotherham was answered by the Leader of the Council.

Councillors or Members of the public may present any petition which they have received. These will normally be referred to the appropriate Committee without discussion.

There were no petitions presented to the Executive.

(CSP:  6 & 8)

Purpose: To inform Members of the treasury management activity and performance of the Council’s investments for the financial year 2013/14.

Resolved that the previous year’s treasury management activities and performance of the fund be noted.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which informed Members of the treasury management activity and performance of the Council’s investments for the financial year 2013/14.

Councillor Alan Law explained that the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in Public Services, revised in 2009, required the Section 151 Officer to provide an annual report to the Executive after the year end which reviewed the treasury management activity and performance for the previous year.

The net return on the Council’s investments for 2013/14 (i.e. the amount of interest earned less the cost of short term borrowing) was £97,000 which represented a rate of return of 0.71% on the average sum invested. This compared with the Bank of England base rate, which remained at 0.5% throughout the financial year. In addition, a further £317,000 investment income had been achieved by early payment of pension contributions into the Berkshire Pension fund, in exchange for a discount of 3.25% on the contributions required to be paid. Total net investment income for the year was £414,000.

Councillor Law took the opportunity to thank both Officers and the Treasury Management Group for their excellent work in this area. Councillor Pamela Bale added to this point by commenting that the net investment income achieved was excellent, particularly when considering the financial constraints being experienced.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that the net amount of interest earned from the Council’s investment and short term borrowing activities in 2013/14 was £97,000 compared with £154,000 in 2012/13 and questioned this reduction. Councillor Law stated that this figure fluctuated from year to year, but reiterated the point that the figure of £97,000 combined with the £317,000 investment income achieved by early payment of pension contributions achieved a total net investment income for the Council of £414,000 for 2013/14.

Andy Walker agreed that the average value of the fund did fluctuate. However, it was reducing year on year and this impacted on the potential interest that could be earned.

RESOLVED that the previous year’s treasury management activities and performance of the fund be noted.

Reason for the decision: To ensure compliance with the updated CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in Public Services 2009 and in accordance with best practice.

Other options considered: n/a.

(CSP:  3 & 6)

Purpose: To set out the recommended formula for allocating funding to schools in 2015/16.

Resolved that the West Berkshire Schools’ Funding Formula for 2015/16 be approved.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      a delay in implementing the decision could compromise the Council's position.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that she was a Governor of Pangbourne Primary School. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Irene Neill declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that she was a Member of the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) Management Committee. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Royce Longton declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that he was a Governor of The Willink School. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate).

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that he was a Governor of Theale Primary School. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate).

(Councillor Jeff Brooks declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7 by virtue of the fact that he was a Governor of Kennet School. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate).

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which set out the recommended formula for allocating funding to schools in 2015/16.

Local authorities were required to review the current formula and guidelines, and agree the funding formula for 2015/16 following consultation with the Schools’ Forum and all schools (including Academies) in West Berkshire. The consultation with schools closed on 11^th September 2014 and the Schools’ Forum considered and agreed the final proposals at its meeting on 29 September 2014.

The report set out the proposed formula for 2015/16 with very little change from the current year, but with an addition to give an exceptional premises factor to schools where their share of the cost of the joint use of leisure centres exceeded 1% of their delegated funding. It was noted that this factor applied to only one school. The funding factors were mainly dictated by the Department for Education with a limited amount of headroom for local formula variation.

A further small change was in relation to the removing of the ‘cap’ on school gains which was put in place to cover the costs of funding protection for losers under the new formula introduced a couple of years ago and this only affected a very small number of schools.

Councillor Neill confirmed that she, along with Officers and the local MP, continued to push for a change in the ruling around the sparsity factor allocation for small schools. At present this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

(CSP: 1 & 8)

Purpose: The report outlines a proposal for establishing a Berkshire Shared Adoption Service (West Berkshire, Bracknell Forest, Wokingham and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead). This is being suggested as a cost neutral way of improving services and responding to new legislative requirements.  

Resolved that the transfer of the Council’s Adoption Service into a Berkshire Shared Service (West Berkshire, Bracknell Forest, Wokingham, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) hosted by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead be approved, with the new arrangement commencing from 1 November 2014. It was also agreed that a Management Board be established by representatives from all four local authorities which would provide direction and monitoring for the new shared service.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 16 October 2014, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) which outlined a proposal for establishing a Berkshire Shared Adoption Service (West Berkshire, Bracknell Forest, Wokingham and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead). This was being suggested as a cost neutral way of improving services and responding to new legislative requirements.

Councillor Irene Neill explained that this paper had been produced following several months of discussion and negotiation with colleagues in Bracknell Forest, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and Wokingham on the formation of a Berkshire Shared Adoption Service.

The paper set out the rationale for developing a shared service which would offer an opportunity to improve the service, provide greater resilience and widen the pool of potential adopters.

A pan-Berkshire arrangement, the Berkshire Adoption Advisory Service, was already in place and this was hosted by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. It was therefore proposed that the Royal Borough would also host the enhanced service, if approved, with commencement scheduled for 1 November 2014.

While the new arrangement would not necessarily secure any financial savings, it would reinforce the resources of the four participating authorities, thus benefitting the quality and scale of this very important work.

It was also proposed that a Management Board would be established with representatives from all four Councils to provide direction and monitoring for the new shared service. The representative from West Berkshire was proposed to be the Head of Children’s Services.

The drivers for making these proposed changes were the need to speed up the adoption process and suggestions from Government that there should be fewer organisations involved in adoption recruitment.

Alternative options had been considered which included joining with another local authority partner, joining with a voluntary adoption agency partner or making no change at all. For various reasons, these were rejected in favour of the proposal outlined in the report. Costs, draft budget, objectives and the agreement were all detailed within the report.

Councillor Graham Pask gave his full support to the proposals, a key benefit of which would be the availability of a wider pool of adopters. It would also serve to enhance the excellent role already undertaken by adopters and foster carers.

Councillor Gwen Mason added her support to the proposals which she hoped would enable the Council’s Adoption Service to improve further. She did however query why Slough and Reading Borough Councils had not participated in these discussions. Councillor Gordon Lundie explained that a Berkshire wide arrangement would have been preferable, however Slough and Reading opted not to be included and he believed this to be due to the different requirements of an adoption service for these two local authorities.

Councillor David Allen stated that he too was pleased with the proposals. He did however note from the report that ‘hot desking’ arrangements would be in place at the central base for the service located at Riverdale in Wokingham and he was concerned at the impact this could have on undertaking work of such a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

(CSP: 1, 5 & 8)

Purpose: To establish a policy for managing requests from Looked After Children who wish to remain in their foster care placement past the age of 18.

Resolved that a policy for managing requests from Looked After Children who wished to remain in their foster care placement past the age of 18 be adopted. The financial risk, should the new funding from the Government not prove sufficient to meet the expected costs, was noted.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 16 October 2014, then it will be implemented.

Resolved that the report and the actions that were being taken to address the recommendations be noted.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 16 October 2014, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 10) which served to publish the results of the Local Government Association (LGA) Peer Challenge for West Berkshire Council undertaken in early July 2014.

Councillor Gordon Lundie introduced the item by stating that it was important as part of good governance arrangements to undertake regular peer reviews and it was a useful process to enable Executive Members and senior Officers to assess how well the Council was functioning and performing.

The peer review team spent four days in West Berkshire and included the Chief Executive of Bath and North East Somerset Council, a Cabinet Member from Herefordshire Council and the Head of Policy and Performance at Luton Borough Council. The process included a number of interviews with Members, Officers and the Council’s partners.

The findings of the peer review team were contained in a detailed letter which had been appended to the report and this highlighted the current strengths of the Council’s current leadership, which was reported as being solid and well respected; the Council’s governance arrangements were felt to be strong; the Council’s track record of sound financial planning arrangements was also highlighted; as was the Council’s close working arrangements with partner organisations.

Recommendations for improvement were also outlined in the report and these included:

·        the need for a consistent, shared narrative across the Member and Officer leadership;

·        considering opportunities for joint ‘top team’ development for the political and managerial leadership of the Council and to achieve a common understanding of the roles of Members and Officers; Councillor Lundie pointed out that leadership training was being arranged for the Council’s senior Officers and Members would be involved in this process;

·        considering the creation of a single programme board to direct all major transformational activity across the Council;

·        a review of overview and scrutiny arrangements with a potential need for a more strategic approach;

·        a need to strengthen relationships with health; progress had been made in this area, but more work was needed to integrate health and social care more effectively.

Councillor Lundie explained that work had already begun on addressing some of the recommendations, all of which would be built into the new Council Plan 2015-2018.

Councillor Keith Woodhams referred to a section of the letter which related to the potential to do more to establish shared services. It was suggested in the letter that the Council might need to be more willing to relinquish direct control if West Berkshire was to reap more of the benefits that could be achieved from sharing services, rather than only looking to share services where West Berkshire continued to provide the service. Councillor Woodhams therefore questioned whether efforts would be undertaken to identify further shared service opportunities where the Council was not necessarily the lead local authority.

Councillor Lundie responded that he felt this to be a fair criticism by the peer review team. Efforts had been made to progress shared services further and these would continue, but there were concerns in relation to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.