Agenda item

That the report be noted.        

The Chief Executive introduced Karen Lees from the Wales Audit Office (WAO) to the meeting.  He explained that the report had been approved by Cabinet and noted by the Audit Committee at its recent meeting.   

Ms. Lees introduced the report to advise the Committee of the Council’s Improvement Assessment Letter 2013 from the Auditor General for Wales.  She explained that the assessment had been undertaken to establish whether the Council was working effectively and efficiently. 

Ms. Lees provided a detailed presentation on the report and highlighted the following areas:-

• the Council had discharged its improvement planning duties under the Local Government Measure but it should ensure that it acted more in accordance with Welsh Government Guidance. 
• the 10 priorities which represented the Council’s Improvement Objectives complied with at least one of the seven ‘aspects of improvement’ described in the measure. 
• the presentation of the plan could be improved to achieve the delivery of two functions to provide an internal management tool and an external facing document for the public 
• the Council acknowledged that, in any particular year some of its Improvement Objectives would receive greater attention and priority than others so that its focus in a single year was more sharply defined to encourage citizens to engage more fully with the Council’s planning and performance. 
• The Annual Performance Report complied with the measure but it was reported the Council should ensure that it acted more in accordance with Welsh Government Guidance. 
• The report was published on time and included an explanation of how its content contributed to the Council’s statutory duty to ‘make arrangements to secure continuous improvement and account for it’. 
• Flintshire’s performance in 2011-12 was better than the national average in over two-thirds of the statutory and non-statutory national indicators. 
• The report included a clear overall assessment, using a ‘Red, Amber, Green’ (RAG) colour coding, of how well the Council considered that it performed during 2011-12 against each of its 10 Improvement Objectives. 
• it was a long and detailed document and although it was clearly written on the whole, it did not enable the reader to grasp readily a succinct evaluation of what the Council intended to achieve during the year, the resulting benefits to the public and what needed to be improved in the future. 
• Social Services and Education had produced mature service-specific analyses of their performance, but this maturity was not fully replicated in the Council’s Annual Performance Report.
• the Council’s on-going review of its governance arrangements was wide-ranging and well-evidenced and the accuracy of the Council’s performance data had improved but there remained scope to improve the use of data in the Council’s self-evaluation.

In conclusion, Ms. Lees said that there were no formal recommendations in the letter but four proposals for improvement had been suggested. 

Councillor A.P. Shotton, the Leader of the Council, reiterated the comments made at the Cabinet meeting and welcomed the comments made by the WAO in the Assessment Letter.  He emphasised the importance of taking the comments on board and addressing the issues raised when publishing an updated Improvement Plan. 

The Chief Executive welcomed the report and reflected that the letter overall represented a ‘clean bill of health’.  There were no statutory recommendations and a response had been made on the four proposals as good and established local practice.  The first proposal on priorities and resources was significant; the remaining three proposals were more technical.  He commented that the Improvement Plan would be better published for the municipal year not the financial year.  A selection of priorities for the year would be made by the Cabinet within the Plan with an extract summary published on the Council’s website for public interest and engagement.

Councillor P.G. Heesom referred to the governance arrangements and said that in his opinion, the corporate management structure was no longer fit for purpose.  In referring to the Annual Performance Report he felt that the Council had a duty to be fairly critical.  He said that the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) was an essential part of the framework but he believed it was not an adequate tool kit to deal with the economic future and that a Base Budget Review was required.  In referring to the Estyn self-evaluation process, he said that there were issues which needed addressing and he felt that the assessment was worse than the adequate score which had been reported.  The Leader of the Council welcomed some of Councillor Heesom’s comments and concurred that the MTFP was important but said that the objectives for the year could not be done in isolation and that work which was being undertaken would be reported on in due course.  The Chief Executive said that the work on the MTFP would be far-reaching.  On the self evaluation process on education he said that it had been done well as a process and added that the Council was no longer in the ‘adequate’ banding following the Estyn monitoring visit.

In response to the comments made, Ms. Lees said that the Council could be more outcome focused and that the term ‘adequate’ for education was not a negative phrase but was used because the strengths had been outweighed by the need for improvement. 

Councillor A. Woolley welcomed the report but raised concern that ‘plain language’ was not always used in the report. 

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.