Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
RESOLVED To note the wording of the PCGs used has been revised to offer improved security to the employer and also to look at using project management accounts (ESCRO) to provide additional security to the Authority. In addition, resources are being recruited into the Capital delivery team which is considered will improve oversight of this matter. Councillor Michael Stoddart; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED 1. To note the wording of the PCGs used has been revised to offer improved security to the employer and also to look at using project management accounts (ESCRO) to provide additional security to the Authority. In addition, resources are being recruited into the Capital delivery team which is considered will improve oversight of this matter. 2. Undertake training of staff around ITTs, PBs and PCGs, to include: development around the scrutiny and assessment, of the necessity of PCG and PB, and widening those assessments and communications to Service Directors and the Director of Resources and Head of Financial Services. 3. Undertake a further circulation of the CPR and Contract Management Internal Audit Report (issued July 2022) to all officers compiling or administering contractors for refreshing awareness and understanding of requirements. 4. To incorporate the proposed actions in Section 4 of the report into the new Contract Procedure Rules
RESOLVED That the committee accepts the draft Annual Governance Statement and accepts the report as tabled.
RESOLVED That the Committee has scrutinised the Budget Monitoring Report 2022-23 – November 22, and sought assurance on any financial management or financial performance matters, and don’t have any recommendations to make at this time. [At this juncture the Meeting was adjourned for a 10 minute comfort break]
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting to consider appendices B and C, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14, Part 4, of Schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972; and that the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Committee then went into private session to consider appendices B and C. Following deliberations the Committee then resumed in open session. The Committee considered a report by the Director of Resources on the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2023-24, Outline Draft Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2023-24 to 2026-27 and the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2023-24. The Cabinet Member with responsibility forCorporate Finance introduced the reports stating that the provisional Welsh Government financial settlement which the Authority received in December 2022 had been as good as could have been expected, and had assisted in reducing the expected funding gap by around £9m, leaving the gap now in excess of £18m. It was noted that this report had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committees who had not provided any recommendations. The Committee debated the contents of the reports and the key points were highlighted as follows: · Councillor Michael Stoddart referred to the allocation of funds from the second home council tax premium and stated that when the Council voted on the matter it was on the understanding that the funding would go towards affordable housing. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance advised that initial advice had been taken by Kings Counsel on this matter, and that it would require a vote by full Council. · In response to a query by Councillor Michael Stoddart on the use of the rate of inflation and the consumer prices index (CPI), the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance stated that he thought the inflation rate for the Authority was usually higher than CPI. He also advised that the budget was dominated by Social Care costs, and that those costs were expected to be much higher than current CPI levels. It was noted that a range of inflationary measures were used in the preparation of the budget, as outlined at page 133 of the report. · Councillor Michael James raised his concerns about the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Grant funding, as coastal communities depended on this grant funding. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance responded that these concerns had been brought up by other Members in Overview and Scrutiny Committees and had been discussed at the Budget Seminar. [At this juncture Councillor Michael James left the Meeting]. · Councillor Alan Dennison asked whether the amount of Council Tax payers would increase over the next four to five years and were there less people paying tax comparative to 3 years ago. In response, the Director of Resources advised that an update on figures was provided at each Budget setting Council Meeting of those who pay full council tax, those who pay partial and those who don't. However, he advised that he did not know the projections for future years. · Dr Norma Barry commented that the Committee needed to look at it strategically and as a whole across Pembrokeshire. She highlighted that Pembrokeshire had the lowest Band D Council Tax in Wales and queried the rationale for that. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance advised that the lowest Council Tax was a historic position and outlined the challenges, with it noted that if Pembrokeshire had the Welsh average Council Tax then it would have an extra £14 million and a budget deficit of £2.5 million. Dr Norma Barry Moved the recommendations as set out in the report, which was seconded by Mr Martin Veale. Councillor Michael Stoddart then Moved an amendment that the Committee declineto advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The Chair referred to the Terms of Reference of the Committee to provide assurance that the governance of the Authority was being handled appropriately; and in that respect he commented that he was pleased by the process and documentation being prepared for the budget assessment. Dr Norma Barry advised that she would not be happy not providing a view from the Committee as had been asked to consider the matter. The Committee then proceeded to a vote on the amendment as proposed by Councillor Michael Stoddart and Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote was undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael James, Councillor Michael Stoddart, Councillor Aled Thomas, Councillor Jacob Williams and Mr Martin Veale [6] Against the Motion: Dr Norma Barry and Mr John Evans [2] No abstentions were received. RESOLVED That the Committee declineto advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27 Councillor Michael Stoddart Moved the substantive Motion which included the amendment; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael James, Councillor Michael Stoddart, Councillor Aled Thomas, Councillor Jacob Williams and Mr Martin Veale [8] Abstentions: Dr Norma Barry [1] No votes against the Motion were received. RESOLVED 1. That the Committee had considered and scrutinised the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2023-24, the Outline Draft MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27 and the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2023-24 with specific focus on the elements which relate to the remit of the Committee. 2. That the Committee decline to advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27
RESOLVED That the progress on the actions within the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan 2022-24 be noted
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Governance and Audit Committee considered that there should be no action and that this Notice of Motion not be adopted. The meeting ended at 3.00p.m.
There were no declarations of interest received.
Moved by Mr John Evans ; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 November 2022 be approved as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager presented the follow up actions report for the consideration of the Committee. Moved by Councillor Michael James; Seconded by Councillor Michael Stoddart The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the updates provided be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED To note the wording of the PCGs used has been revised to offer improved security to the employer and also to look at using project management accounts (ESCRO) to provide additional security to the Authority. In addition, resources are being recruited into the Capital delivery team which is considered will improve oversight of this matter. Councillor Michael Stoddart; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED 1. To note the wording of the PCGs used has been revised to offer improved security to the employer and also to look at using project management accounts (ESCRO) to provide additional security to the Authority. In addition, resources are being recruited into the Capital delivery team which is considered will improve oversight of this matter. 2. Undertake training of staff around ITTs, PBs and PCGs, to include: development around the scrutiny and assessment, of the necessity of PCG and PB, and widening those assessments and communications to Service Directors and the Director of Resources and Head of Financial Services. 3. Undertake a further circulation of the CPR and Contract Management Internal Audit Report (issued July 2022) to all officers compiling or administering contractors for refreshing awareness and understanding of requirements. 4. To incorporate the proposed actions in Section 4 of the report into the new Contract Procedure Rules
The Head of Infrastructure presented the WRW report, which had been requested by Councillor Michael Stoddart at the 27 September 2022 Meeting, on the collapse of the building company working on Council projects. He requested that it specifically outline the details of the collapse; the cost of the collapse on the Council; and the performance bond/parent company guarantee arrangements in place with them at the time and the current arrangements. The Director of Resources responded to a query from the Chair, relating to the new Contract Procedure Rules being delayed due to the anticipation of new legislation. He advised that there was no reason for the actions shown within section 4 of the report not to be implemented, and then incorporated into the revised new Contract Procedure Rules at a later stage. The Chair requested that F3 of the Corporate Governance Plan be updated to reflect that. The Head of Infrastructure advised that he had received a number of questions prior to the meeting from Councillor Michael Stoddart and provided a response to each question as follows: Prior to their collapse, how much had WRW Ltd been paid on the Cranham Park Johnston (CPJ) contract? £3,618, 773.56 Did the administrator make any claim against the council for work in progress at the time of the company's collapse? No, however it was noted that one subcontractor appeared to be making a claim against the administrator for lost equipment or damages that which was not against the Council. What, if any, were the total costs on CPJ in addition to the contract with W B Griffiths (WBG) Ltd (site security, scaffolding etc)? £103,000 for scaffolding, security, plant hire and electricity supply. With respect to the Tiers Cross and Motorworld building contracts were WRW's original tenders for design and construct, or construct only? It was confirmed that for both sites it was for design and construction. What was the value of the replacement contractor's tender for Tiers Cross? The tendered contract sum was £2,870,862.47. What extra costs, if any, have accrued on the Tiers Cross site over and above the present contractor's tender? £98,554 in unconfirmed changes were reported and a third were looking at being rejected, the remainder was due to unforeseen additional works required following final ecology works, changes in specification by the council and changes in standard requirements by suppliers such as Western Power and BT Openreach. Have any estimates/tenders (formal or informal) been received for the Motor World site and what is their value? Tenders were received in July 2022, which were non-compliant and exceeded the budget by more than 33% and were rejected. A new tender would be advertised through the Regional Contractors Framework plan in February 2023. What is the estimated loss of rent resulting from the delays to these projects? £361,248. What costs, if any, have W B Griffiths (WBG) Ltd claimed over and above their tender figure? It was noted that this question had been received by the relevant Officers so exact figures were not able to be provided; however, it was advised that there were similar changes in standard requirements by suppliers similar to the Tiers Cross site. Councillor Michael Stoddart queried the 37% increase in project value figure referenced in the report and commented it was misleading and believed that the actual uplift was actually well over 100%. The Head of Infrastructure clarified that the 37% refers to 37% above the original contract sum of £5.1 million. Councillor Michael Stoddart further queried the calculations and highlighted his concerns that WRW had either been overpaid or left the site in a state that required extra work. He also referred to correspondence he had received on the matter in October 2021 where it was stated there would only be £0.8 million uplift in cost and now it was being show as £1.8 million and highlighted his concerns over increased costs and the contract management. The Head of Infrastructure highlighted there were still discussions relating to bond issues and whether were adequately protected. However, in terms of the contract administration there had been a retender exercises at Tiers Cross and Motorworld but it was subject to the impact of market forces on costs. He also outlined the issues in relation to Cranham Park and the risks in delaying recommencement that were considered. Councillor Michael Stoddart referred to the Cranham Park project and advised that there was a six month period between WRW going into administration and the recommencement on work and that there was enough time to do a proper retender exercise. The Head of Infrastructure advised that although there were concerns about making the building watertight he outlined all the risks and options that were looked at in the awarding of the contract. Councillor Michael Stoddart proposed that the Committee adopt the recommendations in the report with an amendment that project bank accounts be included in the considerations. It was queried by Dr Norma Barry whether the Council were aware that WRW were about to go into administration and been in discussion with them. In response the Head of Infrastructure advised that they were not aware although they were aware of rumours that there were some issues on payment with sub contractors. It was also known about a Court case; however, the implications of a negative decision and the impact that would have were unknown. Dr Norma Barry highlighted that there were lessons to be learnt in terms of early indicators and dialogue with those companies. The Director of Resources provided assurance that there would be an undertaking to carry out additional financial checks and analysis at an early stage. Councillor Michael Stoddart referred to a section in the report, which stated that as part of the new Contract Procedure rules the Director of Resources should be appraised when a decision is made not to enter into a PCG/PB and would apply to all contracts in excess of £5m. He queried whether £5 million should be lowered. As part of the reviewing of the Contract Procedure rules the Head of Financial Services advised he would take those comments on board. Councillor Michael Stoddart Moved that the wording of recommendation 1 of the report be amended to include to look at using project management accounts (ESCRO) to provide additional security to the Authority; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED To note the wording of the PCGs used has been revised to offer improved security to the employer and also to look at using project management accounts (ESCRO) to provide additional security to the Authority. In addition, resources are being recruited into the Capital delivery team which is considered will improve oversight of this matter. Councillor Michael Stoddart; Seconded by Dr Norma Barry The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED 1. To note the wording of the PCGs used has been revised to offer improved security to the employer and also to look at using project management accounts (ESCRO) to provide additional security to the Authority. In addition, resources are being recruited into the Capital delivery team which is considered will improve oversight of this matter. 2. Undertake training of staff around ITTs, PBs and PCGs, to include: development around the scrutiny and assessment, of the necessity of PCG and PB, and widening those assessments and communications to Service Directors and the Director of Resources and Head of Financial Services. 3. Undertake a further circulation of the CPR and Contract Management Internal Audit Report (issued July 2022) to all officers compiling or administering contractors for refreshing awareness and understanding of requirements. 4. To incorporate the proposed actions in Section 4 of the report into the new Contract Procedure Rules
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the committee accepts the draft Annual Governance Statement and accepts the report as tabled.
The Committee considered a report by the Director of Resources on the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2021-22. In considering the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2021-22 the key points were highlighted as follows: · Dr Norma Barry expressed concern over the poor response rate of the statement of internal control. The Director of Resources advised that in termsof the questionnaires, every year a detailed questionnaire was sent out to officers at Senior Leadership Team and Extended leadership Team level, unfortunately, this year the response was not as good as it had been in previous years. · Reference was made to Social Care Commissioning and the development of micro enterprises, with it queried by Dr Norma Barry what the Council would do to stimulate those markets. The Director of Resources advised that he did not have the specific detail on that matter and would look into that and let the committee know. · Dr Norma Barry commented that in relation to workforce development, she was not convinced that the actions listed in the AGS would address the problems of recruitment and retention. The Director of Resources highlighted the challenges in recruitment, which were across the board and highlighted some of the ongoing work, which included looking at recruitment abroad for Social Care. He concluded by advising he could review this and see if could make it more explicit as to what was being done to address these issues in the AGS. · Dr Norma Barry reiterated the importance of the statement of internal control and that she would expect a 100% return from Officers, with the Chair suggesting that job descriptions could include mandatory completion. The Director of Resources advised that he was sure that the Chief Executive would make it mandatory for the relevant Officers going forward. · Councillor Jacob Williams queried the delay in the Statement of Accounts coming to this Committee, as historically it would be on the same agenda as the AGS. The Director of Resources outlined the reasons for the delay, which included the introduction of a new finance system (FIMS); the impact of a large turnover of staff within the finance team; and changes made to the Statement of Accounts in relation to the Code and Audit Wales. It was noted that this was not the only Authority in Wales who had been delayed. The Director of Resources advised he was not happy and would endeavour to get back to the previous timetable, when this Authority was the first to get their Statement of Accounts fully audited and signed off. · Councillor Michael Stoddart referred to the Shrinking Economy Corporate Risk and asked whether the risk should be reduced from 16 to 8 following the announcement today from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the UK economy. The Audit, Risk and Counter Fraud Manager clarified that the risks outlined in the Annual Governance Statement related to the previous financial year, with it noted that this was being monitored and would be considered in further detail at the next Corporate Risk Management Group in March 2023. · In response to a query from Councillor Michael Stoddart, the Director of Resources clarified that the Financial Resilience Risk had gone back up to 16. · Mr Martin Veale referred to the delay in the signing off the Statement of Accounts and highlighted that it was a national issue, with an extension agreed by Welsh Government to the 31 January 2023. He commented that it would have been helpful for a one-page document provided to the Committee on the current position in respect of the delay. The Director of Resources advised he would be happy to do that in the future. He hoped to get the Statement of Accounts to the extraordinary meeting scheduled in February; however, he outlined the challenges, with it noted that there may possibly be a delay to the April meeting and therefore the extraordinary meeting might not go ahead. · The Chair commented that he was comfortable with the level of assurance; however, he highlighted that the improvement of Corporate Governance was critical and hoped the focus continued on those issues to provide the leadership required to move forward and improve. Moved by Councillor Michael James; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the committee accepts the draft Annual Governance Statement and accepts the report as tabled.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee has scrutinised the Budget Monitoring Report 2022-23 – November 22, and sought assurance on any financial management or financial performance matters, and don’t have any recommendations to make at this time. [At this juncture the Meeting was adjourned for a 10 minute comfort break]
The Committee considered a report by the Director of Resources on the County Council Budget - Budget Monitoring Report 2022-23 for November 2022. The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance outlined the main points of the report, stating that due to the current financial uncertainty it was difficult to project the outturn for 2022-23 and whilst the report reflected the latest intelligence at the time of reporting, it should be noted that figures continue to change on a regular basis. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: · In response to a question raised by the Chair on the percentage of the workforce that was currently termed as vacant, the Deputy Chief Finance Officer advised that it was currently 2.4% based on salary value and not the amount of people. · The Chair advised that he would be interested to have that figure on vacancy percentage based on head count. He drew attention to rent arrears, which were 33% higher than the previous year and slippage in reports and queried whether that correlated to vacancy rate. The Head of Financial Services clarified that in terms of the increase in rent arrears it was due to a number of factors. These did include capacity; however, the capacity was due to the delivery of a large amount of Welsh Government grants by that team; and also the impact of Covid-19 on the court action and Housing Officers being able to go out and talk to customers. · In relation to the slippage of the Statement of Accounts the Director of Resources referred to Financial Services and that the scale of the turnover of staff since Covid-19 had been considerable. · The Chair in acknowledging the issues of a high turnover of staff suggested that retention needed to be escalated as part of the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan agenda item to avoid those capacity shortages going forward. In response the Director of Resources advised that retention was something that was looked at on a regular basis and one of the biggest challenges over recent years, and highlighted that Hywel Dda University Health Board and Natural Resources Wales pay better salaries for similar positions. · The Assistant Chief Executive provided an update on the plans for the canteen at County Hall, following a request from Councillor Jacob Williams. He outlined that when it was closed during Covid it had been used as a store area. It had now been cleared with the intention to use it as staff welfare area. · Councillor Aled Thomas referred to the Investment Income and Capital Financing Costs and that it was estimated that it would be £1.6 million under budget. He then referred to the December 2022 Cabinet Meeting where it had been stated that the annual capital financing costs cap would be breached and queried if that was still the case. In response, the Director of Resources advised that there was currently a review of the programme funding and that over the MTFP period it would be at the capping level. · Councillor Aled Thomas asked for clarity over whether the cap had been breached, with it noted that at current projections it would be breached over the MTFP but not in the current financial year. The Director of Resources referred to the Capital Strategy for 2022-23 to 2025-26, which had been agreed by full Council. · Councillor Aled Thomas raised his concerns over the slippage in the capital programme and referred to the Haverfordwest Transport Interchange, highlighting that the increased costs of £10 million were still not shown in the capital programme to enable members to scrutinise. The Director of Resources outlined the capital bid process and advised that in terms of the Haverfordwest Transport Interchange project bids were required on an annual basis. Assurance was provided that going forward on projects and programmes of that nature they would make sure that the total anticipated project or programme cost was clearly stated and the element that was subject to annual approval of grant from Welsh Government. · In relation to recruitment, Dr Norma Barry commented that older, skilled people should be targeted. The Director of Resources responded that he believed that was already happening, and outlined that retired people had been asked back during Covid-19, and highlighted some elements of the Council that have an older workforce. · Councillor Alan Dennison expressed concern over the funding of the Haverfordwest Transport Interchange and that it could be subsidised from car park fees. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance advised that the aim for the project was that grant funding bids would be successful and highlighted the challenges of only receiving funding on an annual basis. He clarified that the project could be financed from car parking revenue from across the County; however, he stipulated that he would rather that it be financed by Welsh Government funding and that this was very much the approach that was being taken. Moved by Dr Norma Barry; Seconded by Councillor Michael Stoddart The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Committee has scrutinised the Budget Monitoring Report 2022-23 – November 22, and sought assurance on any financial management or financial performance matters, and don’t have any recommendations to make at this time. [At this juncture the Meeting was adjourned for a 10 minute comfort break]
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting to consider appendices B and C, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14, Part 4, of Schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972; and that the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Committee then went into private session to consider appendices B and C. Following deliberations the Committee then resumed in open session. The Committee considered a report by the Director of Resources on the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2023-24, Outline Draft Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2023-24 to 2026-27 and the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2023-24. The Cabinet Member with responsibility forCorporate Finance introduced the reports stating that the provisional Welsh Government financial settlement which the Authority received in December 2022 had been as good as could have been expected, and had assisted in reducing the expected funding gap by around £9m, leaving the gap now in excess of £18m. It was noted that this report had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committees who had not provided any recommendations. The Committee debated the contents of the reports and the key points were highlighted as follows: · Councillor Michael Stoddart referred to the allocation of funds from the second home council tax premium and stated that when the Council voted on the matter it was on the understanding that the funding would go towards affordable housing. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance advised that initial advice had been taken by Kings Counsel on this matter, and that it would require a vote by full Council. · In response to a query by Councillor Michael Stoddart on the use of the rate of inflation and the consumer prices index (CPI), the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance stated that he thought the inflation rate for the Authority was usually higher than CPI. He also advised that the budget was dominated by Social Care costs, and that those costs were expected to be much higher than current CPI levels. It was noted that a range of inflationary measures were used in the preparation of the budget, as outlined at page 133 of the report. · Councillor Michael James raised his concerns about the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Grant funding, as coastal communities depended on this grant funding. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance responded that these concerns had been brought up by other Members in Overview and Scrutiny Committees and had been discussed at the Budget Seminar. [At this juncture Councillor Michael James left the Meeting]. · Councillor Alan Dennison asked whether the amount of Council Tax payers would increase over the next four to five years and were there less people paying tax comparative to 3 years ago. In response, the Director of Resources advised that an update on figures was provided at each Budget setting Council Meeting of those who pay full council tax, those who pay partial and those who don't. However, he advised that he did not know the projections for future years. · Dr Norma Barry commented that the Committee needed to look at it strategically and as a whole across Pembrokeshire. She highlighted that Pembrokeshire had the lowest Band D Council Tax in Wales and queried the rationale for that. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance advised that the lowest Council Tax was a historic position and outlined the challenges, with it noted that if Pembrokeshire had the Welsh average Council Tax then it would have an extra £14 million and a budget deficit of £2.5 million. Dr Norma Barry Moved the recommendations as set out in the report, which was seconded by Mr Martin Veale. Councillor Michael Stoddart then Moved an amendment that the Committee declineto advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The Chair referred to the Terms of Reference of the Committee to provide assurance that the governance of the Authority was being handled appropriately; and in that respect he commented that he was pleased by the process and documentation being prepared for the budget assessment. Dr Norma Barry advised that she would not be happy not providing a view from the Committee as had been asked to consider the matter. The Committee then proceeded to a vote on the amendment as proposed by Councillor Michael Stoddart and Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote was undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael James, Councillor Michael Stoddart, Councillor Aled Thomas, Councillor Jacob Williams and Mr Martin Veale [6] Against the Motion: Dr Norma Barry and Mr John Evans [2] No abstentions were received. RESOLVED That the Committee declineto advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27 Councillor Michael Stoddart Moved the substantive Motion which included the amendment; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael James, Councillor Michael Stoddart, Councillor Aled Thomas, Councillor Jacob Williams and Mr Martin Veale [8] Abstentions: Dr Norma Barry [1] No votes against the Motion were received. RESOLVED 1. That the Committee had considered and scrutinised the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2023-24, the Outline Draft MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27 and the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2023-24 with specific focus on the elements which relate to the remit of the Committee. 2. That the Committee decline to advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27
In considering how the Committee dealt with the exempt appendices the Committee resolved to exclude the public from the meeting to consider exempt information contained within the appendices B and C, with a vote undertaken by way of a roll call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Dr Norma Barry, Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael James and Mr Martin Veale [5] Against the Motion: Councillors Michael Stoddart and Jacob Williams [2] Abstentions: Councillor Aled Thomas [1] Moved by Councillor Alan Dennison; Seconded by Councillor Michael James RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting to consider appendices B and C, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14, Part 4, of Schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972; and that the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Committee then went into private session to consider appendices B and C. Following deliberations the Committee then resumed in open session. The Committee considered a report by the Director of Resources on the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2023-24, Outline Draft Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2023-24 to 2026-27 and the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2023-24. The Cabinet Member with responsibility forCorporate Finance introduced the reports stating that the provisional Welsh Government financial settlement which the Authority received in December 2022 had been as good as could have been expected, and had assisted in reducing the expected funding gap by around £9m, leaving the gap now in excess of £18m. It was noted that this report had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committees who had not provided any recommendations. The Committee debated the contents of the reports and the key points were highlighted as follows: · Councillor Michael Stoddart referred to the allocation of funds from the second home council tax premium and stated that when the Council voted on the matter it was on the understanding that the funding would go towards affordable housing. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance advised that initial advice had been taken by Kings Counsel on this matter, and that it would require a vote by full Council. · In response to a query by Councillor Michael Stoddart on the use of the rate of inflation and the consumer prices index (CPI), the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance stated that he thought the inflation rate for the Authority was usually higher than CPI. He also advised that the budget was dominated by Social Care costs, and that those costs were expected to be much higher than current CPI levels. It was noted that a range of inflationary measures were used in the preparation of the budget, as outlined at page 133 of the report. · Councillor Michael James raised his concerns about the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Grant funding, as coastal communities depended on this grant funding. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance responded that these concerns had been brought up by other Members in Overview and Scrutiny Committees and had been discussed at the Budget Seminar. [At this juncture Councillor Michael James left the Meeting]. · Councillor Alan Dennison asked whether the amount of Council Tax payers would increase over the next four to five years and were there less people paying tax comparative to 3 years ago. In response, the Director of Resources advised that an update on figures was provided at each Budget setting Council Meeting of those who pay full council tax, those who pay partial and those who don't. However, he advised that he did not know the projections for future years. · Dr Norma Barry commented that the Committee needed to look at it strategically and as a whole across Pembrokeshire. She highlighted that Pembrokeshire had the lowest Band D Council Tax in Wales and queried the rationale for that. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance advised that the lowest Council Tax was a historic position and outlined the challenges, with it noted that if Pembrokeshire had the Welsh average Council Tax then it would have an extra £14 million and a budget deficit of £2.5 million. Dr Norma Barry Moved the recommendations as set out in the report, which was seconded by Mr Martin Veale. Councillor Michael Stoddart then Moved an amendment that the Committee declineto advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The Chair referred to the Terms of Reference of the Committee to provide assurance that the governance of the Authority was being handled appropriately; and in that respect he commented that he was pleased by the process and documentation being prepared for the budget assessment. Dr Norma Barry advised that she would not be happy not providing a view from the Committee as had been asked to consider the matter. The Committee then proceeded to a vote on the amendment as proposed by Councillor Michael Stoddart and Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote was undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael James, Councillor Michael Stoddart, Councillor Aled Thomas, Councillor Jacob Williams and Mr Martin Veale [6] Against the Motion: Dr Norma Barry and Mr John Evans [2] No abstentions were received. RESOLVED That the Committee declineto advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27 Councillor Michael Stoddart Moved the substantive Motion which included the amendment; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael James, Councillor Michael Stoddart, Councillor Aled Thomas, Councillor Jacob Williams and Mr Martin Veale [8] Abstentions: Dr Norma Barry [1] No votes against the Motion were received. RESOLVED 1. That the Committee had considered and scrutinised the Outline Draft County Council Budget for 2023-24, the Outline Draft MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27 and the Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2023-24 with specific focus on the elements which relate to the remit of the Committee. 2. That the Committee decline to advise Cabinet of its position in respect of the County Council Budget for 2023-24 and the MTFP for 2023-24 to 2026-27
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the progress on the actions within the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan 2022-24 be noted
The Assistant Chief Executive presented the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan, which provided an update on progress on actions to date. The Committee considered the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan, with the key points highlighted as follows: · Dr Norma Barry commented that it was pleasing to note there had been good progress since the plan was last considered by the Committee. · In response to Dr Norma Barry’s query regarding internal communications linked to performance appraisals and staff motivation, the Assistant Chief Executive outlined the number of communication tools used, which included a newsletter and staff engagement survey. He acknowledged that there was room for improvement, with it noted the Chief Executive was leading on this ongoing work. · Dr Norma Barry highlighted the importance of ensuring staff were motivated and suggested that an update on the outcome of the staff survey and any identified themes could be provided at the next Committee. The Director of Resources advised that if the Committee were minded to bring an update back on this matter the Chief HR Officer could be invited to attend. The Chair then requested that a summary report on the staff survey be provided at the next Committee Meeting. · Councillor Jacob Williams made reference to action G4 of the Plan in relation to Senior Staff Committee Terms of Reference being looked at by the Constitutional Review Working Group. The Head of Law and Governance highlighted that currently the Terms of Reference of the Senior Staff Committee were quite narrow and would form part of the review by the Constitutional Review Working Group. · Councillor Jacob Williams referred to the Bowles report and queried whether there was any scope to look at a scheme to call in Officer delegated decisions. The Head of Law and Governance advised that there was no current provision under the Constitution and could discuss with Councillor Jacob Williams outside the Meeting as it was not currently part of the remit of this report. · Councillor Alan Dennison highlighted action D6 action and queried whether the Principal Accountant had been appointed as part of the development of the Medium-Term Financial Plan. The Director of Resources highlighted that as far as he was aware this action had been carried out. · Councillor Alan Dennison commented on the poor response of Members in completing their Learning Needs Analysis (LNA) and queried whether there was any mechanism to encourage Members to complete their LNA. He also asked about mandatory training for Officers. The Director of Resources outlined the process for the monitoring of Officers in the completion of mandatory training. In relation to Members it was noted that there was a report on Member Training being considered by the Democratic Services Committee. · The Chair made reference to action F2 and queried whether the budget managers job descriptions had been updated to make specific reference to financial planning and management responsibilities. The Director of Resources advised that as far as he was aware the job description template had been changed and that any new job descriptions had that included. · The Chair highlighted a Senior Staff Committee whereby it was recommended to Council that the job titles of Heads of Service be re-designated to Service Directors and existing Directors to Corporate Directors. The Assistant Chief Executive advised that the matter had not been progressed to full Council and would be considered again at the next Senior Staff Committee as part of the Operating Model Review. · In response to the Chair querying why F3, F4 and F5 were shown as green, the Director of Resources agreed that those actions should be amber until completed. Moved by Dr Norma Barry; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the progress on the actions within the Corporate Governance Improvement Plan 2022-24 be noted
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Governance and Audit Committee considered that there should be no action and that this Notice of Motion not be adopted. The meeting ended at 3.00p.m.
The following Notice of Motion (NoM) was submitted to Council on 15 December 2022 by Councillor Mark Carter and was referred to the Governance and Audit Committee for consideration and determination: I request that an appropriate committee conducts a thorough examination into the correctness and legality of the practice by Pembrokeshire County Council of collecting 100% surcharge premiums on behalf of Dyfed Powys Police precept applied to the bills of Second and Empty homes. In the year 2022 /2023 this amounted to an extra £1.268 m being handed to DPP. I would also request that the committee investigates how Dyfed Powys Police spends this extra money, how this sum of money mitigates the effects of Second and Empty homes in this county and benefits its residents. Councillor Mark Carter was invited to address the Committee in support of his Notice of Motion, who made reference to additional information he had emailed to the Committee. The Director of Resources presented the report for the consideration of the Committee. He highlighted that he and the Head of Financial Services gave initial consideration of this matter during discussions with Members over recent months. However, following receipt of the NoM, a detailed review had been undertaken, which included consideration of all the relevant legislation, the Dyfed Powys Police (DPP) calculation of their Council Tax base (taking into account the Council Tax bases of the four billing authorities - Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Powys) and calculation of the DPP Band D Council Tax. Councillor Mark Carter highlighted his concerns that it had not been made clear to Councillors in the Council meeting in March 2016 about how the second homes premium would be applied. He also referred to a Facebook Live recording, where the Director of Resources refers to DPP receiving a benefit, and asked for clarity on the meaning of that statement. The Director of Resources advised he could probably have used clearer terminology; however, he was trying to point out aggregate base was used as per the calculations illustrated in the report. Councillor Jacob Williams asked for clarification that DPP were not getting extra money from the second home council premium that they did not request. The Director of Resources clarified that the Council only provide DPP with what they precept. Councillor Jacob Wiiliams commented that the premise of the Notice of Motion was that DPP were being paid additional money not requested and that his understanding from the report was that was not the case. Reference to the Facebook live recording was made again by Councillor Jacob Williams, who highlighted that the Director of Resources had used the words in ‘the do benefit’ when referring to the DPP. The Director of Resources reiterated that the aggregate base was used for the calculations. In terms of information provided to Councillors in 2016 when making the decision on second home council tax premium Councillor Jacob Williams highlighted that, if information had been included about the single property payers having a corresponding decrease then it would have more likely to have received more support than against. He concluded by commenting that he did not see there was further work to be done on the matter. The Chair summarised that it was clear that legislation was being complied with and that DPP had not received any more money than they should have. He highlighted a potential grey area in terms of the funding to the Enhancing Pembrokeshire Scheme and proposed launching an internal audit into the matter. Clarification was provided on the calculations in relation to that funding and the Chair withdrew his proposal. Councillor Michael Stoddart highlighted that he understood why Councillor Carter had brought forward the Notice of Motion as there had been miscommunication in information provided; however, he stated that the substantive point of the Notice of Motion was not valid and supported that the Notice of Motion not be adopted. Councillor Carter thanked the Committee for looking at the matter. Moved by Councillor Alan Dennison; Seconded by Councillor Michael Stoddart. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, which was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Dr Norma Barry, Councillor Alan Dennison, Mr John Evans, Councillor Michael Stoddart, Councillor Aled Thomas and Councillor Jacob Williams [6] There were no votes against or absentions. RESOLVED That it be recommended to Council that the Governance and Audit Committee considered that there should be no action and that this Notice of Motion not be adopted. The meeting ended at 3.00p.m.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.