Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 18 September 2012.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

·        Item 52, first line: ‘Agenda Item 13’ be changed to ‘Agenda Item 12’.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillors Emma Webster, Dave Goff and Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Item 10, but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Tony Vickers declared an interest in Agenda Item 12, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Items 12 and 14, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

The Commission received an update on actions from the previous meeting and made the following comments:

·        Paragraph 2.4: Councillor Vickers advised the Commission that the Newbury Town Centre Task Group had not met as expected, so the Parkway Development would be discussed at the next Resource Management Working Group.

·        Paragraph 2.12: Councillor Rendel suggested that the response only applied to experienced project managers and asked what guidance was provided for those less experienced in managing projects. Councillor Rendel requested that the guidance be updated to highlight more robust measures be taken when considering the risk of projects being delayed or failing.

The Commission reviewed the proposed Scrutiny Topic Acceptance Criteria and made the following comments:

·        Councillor Rendel requested that auditor recommendations should be a criterion for the acceptance of a scrutiny topic. The Commission agreed that criterion two be amended to read ‘There is evidence of poor performance within this Service Area, or weakness in the Council’s performance or practices (i.e. through performance indicator data, experience of Members, internal or external auditor findings, etc)’

·        Councillor David Rendel expressed concern that the third potential criterion for rejecting topics was too broad and could be used to reject topics subjectively. Councillor Jeff Brooks suggested it be amended to ‘Where the Chairman and Vice Chairman agree that there is restricted scope to influence or change the current practices (e.g. budgetary constraints, control over external agencies, etc)’.

Resolved that:

·        Project Management guidance be amended to highlight more robust measures be taken when considering the risk of projects being delayed or failing.

·        The criteria for scrutiny acceptance, Criterion two, be amended to read ‘There is evidence of poor performance within this Service Area, or weakness in the Council’s performance or practices (i.e. through performance indicator data, experience of Members, internal or external auditor findings, etc)’.

·        The potential criterion for rejecting scrutiny topics, criteria three, be amended to read ‘Where the Chairman and Vice Chairman agree that there is restricted scope to influence or change the current practices (e.g. budgetary constraints, control over external agencies, etc)’.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from October 2012 to January 2013 and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan from October to January 2012.

Councillor Brooks noted that an Individual Decision that was to be considered in November was not shown on the plan and questioned whether the plan was up to date and accurate.

Resolved that the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive, agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission, the Health Scrutiny Panel and the Resource Management Working Group for the remainder of 2011/12.

The Commission considered its work programme and that of the Health Scrutiny Panel and Resource Management Working Group for 2011/12.

The Chairman requested that the work plan be updated to reflect the completion of the scrutiny review into Domestic Abuse.

Resolved that the work programme be updated to reflect the completion of the scrutiny review into Domestic Abuse.

To consider any items called-in by the requisite number of Members following the previous Executive meeting.

No items were called-in following the last Executive meeting.

Purpose: To consider any items proposed for a Councillor Call for Action.

There were no Councillor Call for Action.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose: To understand the current attainment levels in English and Mathematics and the effect of previous measures taken to improve them.

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda item 10 by virtue of the fact that her cousin was a teacher in West Berkshire. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillors Dave Goff and Marcus Franks declared a personal interest in Agenda item 10 by virtue of the fact that they were school governors in West Berkshire. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning the current attainment levels in GCSE English and Mathematics in West Berkshire.

Ian Pearson presented a summary of the report, advising the Commission that the results presented here were not yet validated, and that this would take place in the coming months. Ian Pearson commented that:

·        There were five maintained secondary schools and five academies in West Berkshire;

·        The reported results were lower than those expected, and predicted, for secondary schools in 2012;

·        The issues reported nationally regarding the English GCSE grade boundaries had impacted on results;

·        Three of the ten schools had improved their Mathematics achievement by more than 10%;

·        Responsibility for improving grades in autonomous schools (academies) now fell to teachers, Headteachers and governing bodies.

The Commission expressed their disappointment that West Berkshire schools did not appear to be capitalising on the advantages of the relative affluence of the area, and commented that indications were that West Berkshire’s students would be expected to perform consistently better than the national average. Councillor Rendel was concerned that the performance of schools in the district had been trending downwards over the last three years despite presenting better figures than the national average for two of those years. Councillor Rendel asserted that a better measure of performance was the change over time as this would have revealed the downward trend.

Following an in depth discussion and questioning by the Commission, Ian Pearson was able to provide the following responses:

·        The five academies within West Berkshire were defined in legislation as independent. The Council provided some services to the schools, but had no direct responsibility for their performance. Headteachers were responsible for the general management of the school and for the recruitment of good teachers. Academies’ performance was ultimately overseen by Ofsted and the Secretary of State;

·        The role of the governing body was to review the performance of the school. This required a clear explanation of performance figures to be presented to governors, and for governors to have the skills to set appropriate targets, scrutinise and challenge the school and the Headteacher to ensure the best teaching was being provided to children at all levels of ability. In the case of poor performance, Ofsted would make the final judgement after considering the standards of teaching, leadership and governance;

·        The level of support that the Council was able to provide to schools was dependent on the level  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Purpose: To scrutinise the planning performance data reported for quarter one 2012/13.

Jason Teal introduced a report considering the quarter one key accountable measures and activities for 2012/13. Jason Teal informed the Commission that further contextual information had been included for the 2012/13 reports in order to provide further background and narrative to the Council’s performance figures. The additional information included contextual data for West Berkshire provided by other agencies (such as unemployment levels and crime data), and information relating to the volume of work being undertaken by the Council.

There were 49 measures in total compared to 39 in 2011/12. 11 measures were reported on an annual basis as they were only available at a single point in the year. Of the remaining 38, 28 were reported as green (on track to be achieved by the end of the year); 7 measures were being reported as amber (behind schedule, but still expected to be achieved by the end of the year). None were reported red. Data was unavailable for 3 measures at the time of print. Supporting commentary had been provided for the amber measures in the main report.

Jason Teal confirmed that the targets related to the annual or year end figure and that an amber outturn indicated that the activity was behind schedule but was still anticipated to be completed by the year end.

Jason Teal advised the Commission that the figure presented for the rate of change for the repeat instances of domestic abuse had been reported incorrectly and should read -1.1% against a Thames Valley Police Force average of +1.1%. This measure should therefore be green.

Councillor Rendel requested that the performance information be updated in time for each meeting of the Commission. Jason Teal responded that the purpose of the report was to provide a snapshot of activity for quarter one, and that it was outside the parameters of the report to provide real time updates. The Chairman reminded the Commission that the purpose of bringing the performance report to the Commission was to provide an indication of the level of performance in order that the Commission could judge whether further investigation would be needed in any particular area.

Councillor Goff acknowledged the increase in the number of adult learners, but questioned why the use of libraries had reduced over the last year. Jason Teal advised that the rise in adult learners had come about due to the introduction of a particular programme. The Chairman advised the Commission of national reports that library use had reduced and that this had been partially attributed to the ease of access to information from the internet.

Councillor Franks requested that the information relating to planning appeals be broken down into those being decided by Committee and those not.

Councillor Rendel commented that not all of the amber indicators included a commentary of what action was being taken to address the issue. Jason Teal responded that this information was requested as part of a template in the preparation of the report, but was not always forthcoming. The information presented was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Purpose: To receive a report relating to activity being undertaken in response to domestic abuse in West Berkshire.

(Councillor David Rendel declared a personal interest in Agenda item 12 by virtue of the fact that his wife was a GP in West Berkshire. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda item 12 by virtue of the fact that his wife sometimes worked with victims of domestic abuse. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

Councillor Quentin Webb introduced the final report of the Domestic Abuse Task Group. Councillor Webb thanked all of those who had taken part in and supported the review.

Councillor Webb advised that 16 witnesses had provided evidence and had shown that overall the different agencies were working well together but the task group had concerns over resilience. The recommendations put forward were intended to improve effectiveness and to address the issues that had been identified.

Councillor Brooks acknowledged the volume of work undertaken during the review and that it had been thorough and useful. Councillor Brooks made the following points:

·        Councillor Brooks was not confident in the costs to West Berkshire of domestic abuse as he did not believe it was possible to be so precise given the subjectivity of the costs involved;

·        Councillor Brooks questioned the broad statement regarding the lack of engagement from the health service. Councillor Webb responded that the PCT (Primary Care Trust) had been involved in the review and had provided information to support the view. Councillor Gwen Mason added that the engagement of GPs had been a recommendation from the Pemberton Domestic Homicide Review which had not proven to have been sufficiently implemented;

·        In paragraph 49 Councillor Brooks would have preferred to have seen evidence to support the statements made. Councillor Webster confirmed that these figures were available and could be inserted;

·        Councillor Brooks was concerned that the presence of recommendation 5 provided a let out clause to any incoming Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and suggested it be amended. The Commission agreed to amend the wording to ‘In the event that the desired outcome at recommendation (4) cannot be achieved, the Council would need to review the implications of this decision.’

·        Councillor Brooks requested that recommendation 24 be amended to remove the requirement for training for all staff, but instead to require awareness raising for all staff, with training for those in identified posts.

Councillor Vickers requested that the minutes from the task group meetings be circulated to members of the Commission for information. The Chairman requested that these be treated as confidential. Andy Day advised the Commission that the full set of papers referred to in the final report were available to view in the Strategic Support Unit.

Andy Day suggested that the final report be amended to include a list of witnesses, and a list of the background papers referred to.

Councillor Vickers asked whether there were plans  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Purpose: To consider and agree the proposed terms of reference for reviewing the approach by statutory and other agencies to homelessness in West Berkshire.

The Commission considered the proposed scoping document for a review into homelessness in the district.

Councillor Franks suggested that the South East Region of the National Housing Federation be approached to contribute to the review as they would be able to provide information regarding trends in homelessness and information as to how their members were supporting Councils. Councillor Franks suggested there would then be no need to invite individual Housing Associations.

Andy Day advised the Commission that he had been asked by the Chief Executive to commission a mystery shopper exercise for the Housing Service. This had been undertaken by Shelter through email and face to face meetings. A report of findings had been produced and was currently with the Service Area for consideration. Andy Day had confirmed that the report would form part of the review process, and would be available prior to the review meeting in November.

Councillor Vickers suggested that people who had experienced homelessness and had been through the process, either with the Council, or other agencies, should be invited in order to provide a personal viewpoint.

Councillor Webster asked what contingency had been put in place to account for the possibility that a witness might not be able to attend on the day, and suggested that those invited be asked to provide a summary of how they saw their role.

The Chairman requested that members of the Commission register whether they would be attending the review meeting.

Resolved that:

·        South East Region of the National Housing Federation be invited to contribute to the review;

·        Elaine Walker to circulate the mystery shopper report prior to the review;

·        Invitation be extended to people who had experienced homelessness and had been through the process, either with the Council, or other agencies;

·        Those invited be asked to provide a summary of how they saw their role.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel.

(Councillor David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Item 14, by virtue of the fact that his wife was a GP in West Berkshire. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 14) on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel (HSP).

Councillor Webb advised the Commission that the work programme had been updated and listed those items being brought to the December meeting.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Resource Management Working Group and provide information on the meeting held on *.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 15) on the work of the Resource Management Working Group (RMWG).

Councillor Vickers advised the Commission that the Council Tax benefit changes had also been discussed at the previous meeting and that this was still an area of uncertainty with no clear direction from central Government.

Councillor Vickers also advised that discussion was taking place regarding the reporting of rental income as this was currently combined in a total figure rather than being reported separately.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: to provide the Commission with an update on the progress of recommendations resulting from scrutiny reviews.

The Commission considered a report updating the progress of scrutiny recommendations.

Resolved that the report be noted.