Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Mr R Davey and Mr M Moore.

The newly appointed parent governor co-opted representatives were welcomed to the meeting. They were:

·         Mr J Bajina, Secondary School Representative

·         Mr J Bilson, Primary School Representative (not in attendance)

·         Mr P Monk, Special School Representative

Mr Monk had been nominated as a primary school representative but had kindly stepped into the post of special school representative as there had not been any nominations for the special school post.

To declare any personal or prejudicial interest.

Mr Bajina declared the following interests:

·         As Parent Governor at Sir William Ramsay School and at Westfield School

·         As Vice-Chairman of the County Community Consultative Group

·         As an investor in properties in Wendover Street, Green Street and Claremont Court, High Wycombe

·         As a member of the Muslim Parents’ Association

Mr Monk declared the following interests:

·         As a Parent Governor of Iver Village Infant School and of Iver Village Junior School.

·         As the parent of a statemented child.

·         As his son received home to school transport provided by the Authority.

·         Parent Governor at two schools.

·         As his wife was a member of the South Bucks Autistic Society.

Mr P Hardy, Member for the Bulstrode Electoral Division, declared an interest in item 5 as some residents in Hedgerley had expressed concern at the cut to service 459.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2009.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2009 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Members of the public have the opportunity to put their point of view to the committee about matters on its agenda.  Each person will have a maximum of four minutes to put forward their views and comments on those items they wish to address. There will be an overall time limit of sixteen minutes. The Chairman will be expected to respond within 7 working days detailing any course of action resulting from the representation.

There were no public questions.

The Chairman said that Mrs R Vigor-Hedderly (Iver Electoral Division) wished to present an issue to Members as a possible Councillor Call for Action under Section 21A, paragraph (c) of the Local Government Act 2000 as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. The Chairman told Members that Mrs Vigor-Hedderly would have four minutes to present her issue, and that the Cabinet Member for Transportation, who was also in attendance, would then have an equal amount of time to respond.

Mrs Vigor-Hedderly told Members the following:

·         The Council had made cuts of £400 000 to rural bus services across the County.

·         This had affected residents in the Iver and Richings Park area, and many residents had protested strongly against the cuts to Bus Service 459 (Uxbridge - Richings Park - Langley).

·         Residents had found out about the service being cut through a bus driver who had said that his contract was being terminated at the end of October 2009.

·         Mrs Vigor-Hedderly had been contacted by residents and had liaised with the Parish Council and VOSA. Mrs Vigor-Hedderly had also spoken to Jim Stevens, Head of Transport for Buckinghamshire, the Cabinet Member for Transportation and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

·         A bus company had to be given a set notice period. However the Parish Council should have been consulted in February 2009, before the bus company was given notice.

·         The cut to Service 459 had caused a huge amount of public feeling. Two proposals had been put forward by officers at BCC to try and resolve the issue but neither of these had been viable.

Mrs Vigor-Hedderly said that she did not believe that BCC had adopted the correct policy in regard to consultation with residents.

The Chairman then invited the Cabinet Member for Transportation to respond. The Cabinet Member said the following:

·         The proposed cuts to rural bus services had been taken to Overview and Scrutiny in January 2009.

·         The election in June 2009 and the six week purdah period prior to the election had delayed the consultation process.

·         Each bus company had a different notice period in their contract, and this had to be adhered to.

·         A letter had been sent to the Parish Council to tell them about the proposed cuts. The word ‘consultation’ had deliberately not been used as the level of consultation possible when cuts were necessary would be limited. However the letter had invited comments from the Parish Council.

·         A matrix had been used to consider cost, the number of people using each bus service and how each service contributed to the priorities in the Local Transport Plan.

·         A comment received back had been that Iver residents would prefer to shop in Uxbridge than in Slough, so alterations had been made to ensure a bus service to Uxbridge.

The Member for the Bulstrode Electoral Division declared an interest as some residents in Hedgerley had also expressed concern at the cut to service 40. The Member asked how much money would be saved from the cut to bus services 459 and 40. The Cabinet Member said that there would be a saving of approximately £35 000.

A Member asked for the total savings which would be made from cuts to bus services. The Cabinet Member said that there would be an overall saving of £400 000, and that this had been identified in the previous year’s Medium Term Planning process.

A Member commented that as the route of bus service 459 crossed the County boundary, Slough Borough Council should be paying a subsidy to the Council. The Member also said that historically the Iver area had always had a bus link to Uxbridge, and that the community there had evolved around this. This needed to be taken into consideration.

Mrs Vigor-Hedderly said that her main concern was the way in which the Council consulted residents, and asked for a copy of the Consultation Policy. Michael Chard, Policy Officer, said that he would distribute a copy of the Consultation Policy to all Members of the Committee. ACTION: MC

Members then discussed how this issue should be taken forward. It was noted that the Cabinet Member had arranged a meeting with Mrs Vigor-Hedderly for that afternoon (although this had only been arranged the previous day), and that the outcome of the meeting should be awaited before the Committee took any action.  It was agreed that Mrs Vigor-Hedderly would report back on the issue at the meeting on 20 October 2009. The new bus service which would replace service 459 was due to start on 2 November 2009.

However Members also felt that there was a separate, more general issue of how the Council carried out its consultations, which would need to be addressed. It was agreed that the Cabinet Member for Transportation should attend the meeting on 10 November 2009 and supply a written report outlining the policy which was used for carrying out consultations, and how this linked to the Locality Strategy.

Future Direction of Country Parks and Green Spaces

Mr B Allen referred Members to a report which went to Cabinet on 28 September 2009 (attached). The report was regarding the future direction of country parks and green spaces, and recommended that a Programme Board be nominated to investigate how country parks should be managed and financed. Cabinet had agreed the three recommendations in the Report.

Mr Allen told Members that he was a Member of the Country Parks and Green Spaces Liaison Group but that the Group had not been told about the proposals. There had been a lack of consultation, with only one elected Member on the Programme Board.

The Member for the Iver Electoral Division said that Iver Parish Council had previously contacted Legal Services to say that they were happy to take on responsibility for Thorney Park. The Member suggested that other Parish Councils could do the same if they had Quality Status.

A Member said that country parks were a countywide asset and that decisions regarding this should not be taken by an internal Programme Board, but by elected Members. 

Members said that the lack of consultation on this decision was similar to the lack of consultation discussed in Agenda Item 5. Members should be involved at the beginning of a process, when different options were still being discussed, rather than after a decision had been taken.

Members also discussed how far the Committee should look at individual detailed issues, or whether they should look at more general issues. A Member said that the task and finish group structure should be used for more detailed work, and that the main committee should address wider issues.

Members agreed that the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment be asked to attend the meeting on 10 November and to provide a written report on the decision about the Future Direction of Country Parks.

It was also agreed that the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment be requested to delay implementation of the decision until he had attended the Committee. The possibility of a task and finish group on this issue would be added to the Committee’s work programme.

Forward Plan

A Member noted that Members of the Committee had been nominated to take responsibility for different areas on the Forward plan. The Chairman said that a list of these Members would be circulated.

It was also suggested that the Leader take the Committee through the Forward Plan on a regular basis. It was agreed that the Leader would be invited to the Committee to do this in April 2010.

There were no call-ins.

Contributors

All

Purpose

To update Members on the progress of the Statutory, Mandatory and Discretionary Spend Scrutiny Review. The Chairman will also provide feedback from the recent SSG meeting.  

Paper

None

The Chairman updated Members on the following:

Statutory, Mandatory & Discretionary Review Update

Phase 1 of the review into mandatory/discretionary spend at Buckinghamshire County Council was well underway.  This part of the review had involved the formation of four Working Groups who were currently meeting with Heads of Service  to attempt to identify statutory and discretionary spend, and establish what their minimum levels of service delivery were, together with the associated costs. The meetings were going well and the Chairman said that he would like to thank all members of the Working Groups and the Heads of Service for their attendance - particularly as these dates were arranged at such short notice.

The Chairman said that he had called an extra meeting of the full Commissioning Committee to take place on Tuesday 20th October at 10.00am in Mezzanine Room 1. This would be a discussion-based meeting to take stock of progress with the review so far, and to decide how to move ahead with Phase 2.  The second part of the review was likely to involve more detailed work focusing on two specific services. This work would be undertaken between November 2009 and March 2010.

Members were asked to let Claire Street know if they were able to attend on 20 October.

SSG Feedback

On 22 September the Chairman and Mr M Appleyard presented information on overview and scrutiny to managers from across Buckinghamshire County Council. This event included a session where senior managers had an opportunity to feedback their thoughts on overview and scrutiny. The feedback included:

·         Officers did not know enough about what was going on, so how would the public?  Therefore it had to be to asked whether scrutiny was an effective mechanism.

·         Be creative about tapping into challenge functions within the governance arrangements of partner organisations – to use this collective talent and expertise as part of the scrutiny function.

Officers champion the value and potential of scrutiny

·         Not particularly!  ‘Done to’ rather than able to take part in the process.

Scrutiny activity has brought about changes

·         There have been positive changes, for e.g. through the anti-bullying work, young carers, scrutiny of school standards which has led to targeted action

·         Highway maintenance – reviews have led to evolving change and gave the Service a new direction.

·         Felt ‘dragged’ along to meetings!

Scrutiny reflects the voice of the public

·         It should reflect the voice of the public but doesn’t feel like it does

·         How can we involve the LAFs and parishes?

Mr M Edmonds sent his apologies for the meeting on 20 October.

The Chairman referred to an e-mail from BALC, which is attached. The e-mail was in regard to how BALC could help to advertise the public-platform item on the Committee agenda.

Contributors

All

Purpose

To plan the work programme priorities for the coming year

Context

The Committee at its previous meeting put forward suggestions for the future work programme and requested additional detail to be added to each topic area.

Paper

·   Overview & Scrutiny Commissioning Committee- Work Programme Suggestions

This item was taken out of order due to timing at the meeting.

Members were asked for their comments and suggestions for the Committee Work Programme.

The Chairman told Members that the Review into statutory and discretionary spend would last until March 2010.

Scrutiny of the Budget had also been proposed for January 2010.

Members also put forward the following topics for scrutiny:

·         Consultation process (see Agenda Item 5).

·         Home to School Transport (Contract with Amey and whether savings had been realised). This could perhaps be looked at after the Review into statutory and discretionary spend. Also consider the issue of how personal data of children was handled and possible child protection issues, such as forms containing children’s data not requiring signature by parents. There had been issues regarding sub-contracting by taxi firms, and also regarding how Amey dealt with complaints. One of the Key Performance Indicators for Amey was to log complaints.

·         Process of 11+ (not the policy but how the process works). Information would be needed from the Cabinet Member for Achievement, Learning and Skills before looking at this.

·         The Built Environment Project

·         Early Years Single Funding Formula Consultation – the Committee should have briefing on this.

·         Climate Change (NI 185) and Sustainability – The Council Policy should considered and included as part of every Review undertaken, through a standard matrix.

·         CAA/Performance - the latest figures would be available in December 2009, and these could be looked at a special meeting. Partners could also be invited.

·         Inequalities in Buckinghamshire/Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (some overlap with the Public Health OSC). This issue to be referred back to the Public Health OSC first.

·         Village Design Statements re: housing.

·         Locality Working – The Police were reviewing the boundaries for Neighbourhood Action Groups (NAGs), so the Review should wait until this was completed.

·         Country Parks and Green Spaces (see Item 6)

·         Performance Measurement – should be a standing item every few months.

A Member said that the Work Programme needed to include large issues and also more specific service issues.

It was agreed that Michael Chard, Policy Officer, would put together a timetable of work for the meeting on 20 October. This timetable would also include outstanding items from the previous Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

Contributors

Sue Barnes, Interim Director Shared Services

Purpose

To update the Committee on the procurement process

Context

The former Performance and Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee previously provided democratic accountability for the Shared Support Services project. The preferred bidders have now been shortlisted and there is a mid term review point for all Councils in January 2010.   

Paper

·   Shared Services Project Update

This item was taken out of order due to timing at the meeting.

The Chairman welcomed Susan Barnes, Interim Strategic Director for Shared Services.

Susan Barnes referred Members to the Project Update Report in the papers and said the following:

·         One of the original Pathfinder projects had been set to achieve savings through joint working.

·         Rationalisation of services could bring a reduction in Council tax or an increase in budget for frontline services.

·         A business case was put forward in 2007 with six different options for shared services. These were then reduced to four options.

·         In September 2008 Aylesbury Vale District Council, Wycombe District Council, South Bucks District Council, Buckinghamshire County Council and the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority agreed to a joint venture company with a private sector firm.

·         A Joint Committee had been set up which was empowered to take decisions at different points in the process, with the exception of the final contract decision.

·         Some Partners had the option to review the bids during the process.

·         The contract was put to tender in June 2009, and four companies were short-listed. These were BT, Capita, IBM and Mouchel. Work had started the previous week with the four short-listed companies, and a Bidders’ Conference had been held on 2 October 2009.

·         The market had changed since 2008. Companies were now much more cautious in terms of submitting bids, as each bid could cost a company £1m-£2m. Many companies were now more interested in consultancy.

Susan Barnes also told Members that only certain information could be shared with the Committee as they were in public session.

Members then asked questions, and the questions and answers are summarised below.

Will the amount of money saved be altered by the changes to the market?

The extent to which we could lead a deal with a high number of bidders is limited.

Are any joint venture companies in the UK already running?

There are two running. There is a concern that multi-party companies are risky compared to one-authority companies. However the direction of travel is for public services to work together.

You said that some partners have an option to review the bids?

Aylesbury Vale District Council and Wycombe District Council both set requirements to look at the outline business cases before proceeding. This would not put the County Council at risk.

If a number of partners withdraw, the County Council will become a bigger partner, and it will effectively be a form of outsourcing.

The withdrawal of smaller partners would not be detrimental to the County Council, but we would want to avoid this due to the Pathfinder ethos. The primary driver for the Project is to make financial savings, and there has to be flexibility.

How much of the original business case is still robust enough to be valid?

The business case is not predicated on growth. It does make some assumptions regarding the margins that providers will look for, and these may have changed. There are also some issues regarding the interest rate of internal borrowing, but this is not a hugely sensitive issue.

At what point would you decide not to go ahead with the Project?

That would be a decision for elected Members.

Were there more than four bidders in the long list?

A number of other companies made submissions. There were also a number of ‘no-show’ companies, who had expressed interest but did not submit a bid due to the market.

When do you think that Overview and Scrutiny should be involved in the Project?

The Committee could request progress reports in December 2009 and in Spring 2010.

The Chairman thanked Susan Barnes for attending the meeting.

The date for the next meeting is Tuesday 10 November 2009, 10.00am, Mezzanine 3 , County Hall, Aylesbury.

Tuesday 20 October 2009, 10am, Mezzanine Room 1, County Hall, Aylesbury

Tuesday 10 November 2009, 10am, Mezzanine 3, County Hall, Aylesbury.