Agenda item

To consider a report that outlines lessons learnt from other Local Authorities and how they have been applied at Buckinghamshire Council.

Contributors:

Councillor John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Accessible Housing and Resources

Sarah-Murphy-Brookman, Corporate Director – Resources

Matthew Strevens, Head of Finance – Corporate

Mark Preston, Head of Projects & Pensions

Nick Graham, Service Director – Legal & Democratic Services

Papers:

Lessons learnt from other Local Authorities

Appendix 1: Consolidated Action Plan for Improvements

The Chairman welcomed Councillor John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Accessible Housing and Resources, and the officers to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member introduced the report and highlighted the following key points:

·       The report was a six-month update on lessons learnt from other local authorities. The last report had been presented to the Audit and Governance Committee on 25 January 2022.

·       Over the past two years, several declarations of insolvency and public interest and best value reports had been issued to a number of authorities. Buckinghamshire Council had taken the approach of reviewing recommendations from these reports and assess best practice to avoid similar issues. Two external reports covering finance and governance in relation to Slough Borough Council and an independent governance report in relation to Northumberland County Council had also been considered.

·       The Select Committee report examined recommendations made in these reports and related them to Buckinghamshire Council. It further provided an update on the consolidated action plan which identified areas for improvement. Buckinghamshire Council did not experience any significant issues in these areas but reports on other authorities’ issues were constantly being monitored to identify best practice to improve financial processes and governance arrangements.

The following points were noted during the Committee’s discussion:

·       A Member noted that a peer review had been undertaken for Slough Borough Council and asked whether such a process could also be considered for Buckinghamshire Council, for example by the Local Government Association (LGA). Members were advised that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) had examined the financial systems and processes as part of Buckinghamshire Council’s service review and shared recommendations with the Council which had been considered.

·       A Member raised concerns about the transparency of the Buckinghamshire Shareholder Committee Meetings. Whilst the Member understood why a large portion of these meetings were confidential, they maintained that public records of the work undertaken by the committee were necessary to ensure effective public scrutiny. The Cabinet Member explained that this new committee had been set up following a recommendation of a recent report on local authority governance with respect to control of subsidiary companies. Previously, such reports had gone to the Cabinet with an open discussion being held prior to entering a confidential session. This open discussion would continue in future Cabinet Meetings. However, the purpose of the Shareholder Committee was for a subcommittee of the Cabinet to focus on governance procedures and to ensure there was no conflict of interest between Members and subsidiary companies. As the Committee also reviewed whether the companies were fit for purpose or required governance changes and discussed confidential property and financial matters, confidential sessions would be necessary. Additionally, statutory provisions were in place to ensure that commercially sensitive information remained confidential.  For future Shareholder meetings, consideration would be given on extracting information from confidential reports, such as business plans, so that part of the discussion could be held in the public domain.

·       Although there were some significant differences between Buckinghamshire Council and Slough Borough Council, valuable lessons could still be learnt, for example in terms of developing a local code for corporate governance and developing the Shareholder Committee. One of the key challenges faced by Slough Borough Council had been the large investment into property of around £800m. This contrasted with Buckinghamshire Council’s commercial investments, totalling around £200m. Buckinghamshire Council also had a strong property team with diverse knowledge of different properties and tenants, as well as professional property management advisors. Another significant difference was the transformation programme which presented a challenge to Slough Borough Council. Buckinghamshire Council’s ‘Better Buckinghamshire’ service review was on track to deliver annual savings of £20m.

·       Slough Borough Council’s reliance on agency staff presented an issue and this was highlighted in Buckinghamshire Council’s budget. It was suggested that this should be monitored more closely, and potentially added to the KPIs. The Cabinet Member explained that a certain amount of agency staff was necessary to meet demands, for example in the customer service centre or for specialist projects. However, the number of agency staff was under regular review, particularly in the long-term, and expenses were also monitored. Long-term agency staff were encouraged to convert to become permanent employees. Slough Borough Council’s concerns related to agency staff in more senior positions, whereas the number of senior positions filled by agency staff at Buckinghamshire Council was very low. Buckinghamshire Council aimed to create opportunities for upskilling and promotions within the existing workforce. In general, Buckinghamshire Councils’ use of agency staff was well-balanced between flexibility and resilience and remained reasonably consistent over time. Although there was no dedicated budget for agency staff, the corporate management team reviewed the number of agency staff on a monthly basis to monitor costs, develop exit plans where necessary and retain visibility of available funds.

·       It was suggested that the report would benefit with the inclusion of a timeframe for the development of the local code for corporate government and officers agreed that more detail about anticipated deadlines should be provided. The local code operated on a similar timeframe as the annual governance statement, which was expected to reach the Audit and Governance Committee in September, with completion estimated by mid-October.

·       The Cabinet Member assured the Committee that procurement was covered by a strong team, and a contract and supply management group met regularly with representatives from all service areas to monitor contracts. Issues could be raised with the Audit and Governance Committee, especially for contract waivers and breaches.

·       When asked about a timeframe and progress on the harmonisation programmes, the Cabinet Member advised that these were part of both the ‘Better Buckinghamshire’ review and the ongoing transformation programme. Currently, there were a number of legacy systems which were being harmonised into a single system. One of the biggest systems to be harmonised was the revenue and benefits system, which was expected to be completed by the end of the year. Different systems had different timeframes and satisfactory progress was being made across systems selected for consolidation. 

·       The five legacy authorities had different practices around Section 106 funding, but the consolidation of systems would allow the Council to better monitor these funds. More detailed information around the recovery of Section 106 funds could be provided to the Committee in future. It was expected that a consolidated system to monitor Section 106 funding would be in place by the end of the year.

·       A Member requested an update on the progress of raising the profile on corporate governance issues which had aimed for completion in March 2022. The Committee was advised that profile-raising was an ongoing process, thus providing a timeline for completion was difficult. The completed work included mandatory staff training on data protection and governance issues.

·       Improving recovery rates and managing outstanding debts was an ongoing process, and more definitive timeframes might be able to be established in future. 

·       KPIs were identified and developed collaboratively across the Council, with input from Cabinet Members, senior managers, and the business intelligence team. In addition to the Corporate Performance Report, the Council also had performance frameworks within each area to cover KPIs on an operational level in more detail.

·       It was noted that the Audit and Governance Committee also examined and monitored governance issues faced by other local authorities.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for the report.