Councillors B Brown, M Brown, Caldwell, Grady, Provost Hall, Councillors McEwan, J MacLaren, Perrie and Sharkey.

Councillor J Sharkey, Convener, presided.

D McLavin, Senior Communications Officer (Chief Executive's); K Anderson, Amenity Services Manager (Waste), C Grainger, Planning & Performance Manager, Lead Officer, and D McNab, Transportation Manager (all Community Resources); and  L Belshaw, Democratic Services Manager, A McMahon, Chief Auditor, S Muir, Finance Business Partner and E Shields, Business Services Manager (all Finance & Resources).

ALSO ATTENDING

A McGregor, Audit Scotland.

In terms of Standing Order 16, the Convener intimated that he proposed to alter the order of business to facilitate the conduct of the meeting by considering item 5 of the agenda prior to item 7.

Under reference to item 5 of the Minute of this meeting consideration was resumed of the report by the Director of Finance & Resources and the petition by Mr Haraburda.

It was noted that the Board at its meeting held on 30 November, 2015 having heard from the Head of Amenity Services that this area of Paisley had been redeveloped recently with new housing and roads infrastructure, had agreed that it be recommended to the Director of Community Resources that an un-illuminated driver feedback signal be installed to determine driver behaviour at the location, that a site visit be arranged for those members of the Board who wished to attend, and that the outcome be reported to a future meeting of the Board at which consideration of the petition would be resumed.
 
The report intimated that the Head of Amenity Services had advised that speed detectors had been installed on Shortroods between 7-18 January 2016. Speeds were measured in both directions and the Head of Amenity Services had concluded that the recorded speeds showed that the traffic calming measures on Shortroods Road were effective and that there was no justification for an intervention to change them.
 
The Board then heard from the Transportation Manager and Mr Haraburda.

It was proposed that no action be taken in relation to the petition, but that the Board write to Police Scotland and the Director of Community Resources advising of the petitioner's view that there was reckless driving at the location and in relation to the petitioner's concerns regarding school buses respectively. This was agreed.
 
DECIDED: That no action be taken in relation to the petition, but that the Board write to Police Scotland and the Director of Community Resources advising of the petitioner's view that there was reckless driving at the location and in relation to the petitioner's concerns regarding school buses respectively.

There were no declarations of interest intimated prior to the commencement of the meeting.

There was submitted a report by the Director of Finance & Resources relative to the report by Audit Scotland published in January 2016. The report outlined the key messages from the Audit Scotland report and provided information as to the Renfrewshire Council position with regard to the issues raised.

The report intimated that councils had a legal obligation to administer Housing Benefit on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Councils reclaimed most of this by submitting claims to the DWP which were certified annually by Audit Scotland. The Council had received a letter from Audit Scotland which certified the Council’s subsidy claim with no financial errors.

DECIDED: That the report be noted.

There was submitted a report by the Director of Finance & Resources relative to the Audit Scotland follow-up report entitled ‘major capital investment in councils’ the overall aim of which was to follow up the recommendations contained within their original report issued in March, 2013. The follow-up report assessed to what extent councils had improved performance in managing their capital investment programmes and projects.

The report summarised the key messages of the Audit Scotland report and for each of which a statement on Renfrewshire Council’s current and planned future position was provided.

DECIDED: That the report be noted.

There was submitted a report by the Chief Auditor relative to the 2016/17 risk-based annual internal audit plan which had been developed in line with the requirements of the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards.

The plan took account of the outcomes of the internal corporate and service risk identification and evaluation processes and the current business environment. In addition to undertaking work which would provide assurance on the robustness of key internal controls, the plan sought to reflect the key priorities and challenges for the Council. The report set out the methods that had been employed to facilitate production of the plan and the influencing factors that had been considered in the assessment of priority areas of audit.

DECIDED:

(a) That the risk-based audit plan for 2016/17 be approved; and

(b) That it be noted that progress of the 2016/17 audit plan and summaries of the findings from each audit assignment would be reported to the Board on a quarterly basis.

There was submitted a report by the Chief Auditor relative to the duty placed on the Council and the Health Board to integrate planning for and delivery of certain adult health and social care services. A review was undertaken as part of the 2015/16 annual internal audit plan to provide members with an opinion on the financial governance and financial assurance undertaken in the determination of the Council’s social care budgets to be integrated. The report intimated that the Scottish Government had established the Integrated Resources Advisory Group (IRAG) to develop professional guidance in relation to financial matters including the framework for financial governance and financial assurance. The internal audit report concluded that internal audit was able to provide a reasonable level of assurance over financial governance and financial assurance relating to Renfrewshire Council and its responsibilities to the Renfrewshire Integration Joint Board. It was noted that moving forward there would need to be continued monitoring of the financial risks that had been identified through the due diligence process.

It was noted that in terms of the IRAG guidance adult social care audit reviews would continue to be reported to this Board. The Leadership Board provided oversight of and determined matters concerning Renfrewshire Health and Social Care Partnership. It was proposed that the IRAG guidance be provided to members. This was agreed.

DECIDED:

(a) That the report on health and social care integration financial assurance be noted;

(b) That it be noted that this report would be shared with the Integration Joint Board and the Health Board as requested by the IRAG guidance; and

(c) That the IRAG guidance be provided to members of the Board.

Under reference to item 6 of the Minute of the meeting of the Board held on 15 February, 2016, there was submitted a report by the Director of Finance & Resources relative to continued consideration of the petition by Mr J Haraburda.  There was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Haraburda and it was proposed that consideration of the petition be continued to allow Mr Haraburda a further opportunity to attend.  This was agreed.

DECIDED:    That consideration of the petition be continued to allow Mr Haraburda a further opportunity to attend.

Prior to consideration of the following item, the Convener welcomed Mr Hunter to the meeting.

Under reference to item 3 of the Minute of the meeting of the Board held on 25 January 2016, there was submitted a report by the Director of Finance & Resources relative to continued consideration of the petition by Mr L Hunter in the following terms:

"I would like Renfrew District Council to remove the safety hazard caused by the position of parking bays outside my house at 86a Renfrew Road.  I would like a Health and Safety assessment of the risk and I would like the pavement to be re-instated and metal bollards on the pavement to prevent on pavement parking."

The report intimated that at the meeting of the Board held on 25 January 2016 it was agreed that it be recommended to the Director of Community Resources that further investigation be undertaken relative to the date and time of recent health and safety inspections; evidence of the identified need for parking bays in the area; ownership of the pavement; shortening the overall length of parking bays; and road traffic accident statistics for Renfrew Road, and that the outcome be reported to a future meeting of the Board at which consideration of the petition would be resumed.  The report detailed the outcome of the response of the further investigation.

The Board then heard from the Transportation Manager and from Mr Hamilton.

It was proposed that consideration of the petition be continued to a future meeting in order that the Board could be provided with all information in relation to the matter.  This was agreed.

DECIDED: That consideration of the petition be continued to a future meeting in order that the Board could be provided with all information in relation to the matter.


Prior to consideration of the following item, the Convener welcomed Mr Haraburda to the meeting.

There was submitted a report by the Director of Finance & Resources relative to a petition which had been received which related to the decision to remove staff from recycling centres in Renfrew, Linwood, Johnstone and Erskine.

The report intimated that the Head of Corporate Governance considered that the petition was not valid in terms of paragraph 3(b)(x) of the Council’s procedures in dealing with petitions, namely "petitions about any decisions we have made as a Council, or decisions a board, committee, joint committee or officer has made in the last six months". The report intimated that at its meeting on 2 December 2015 the Leadership Board considered a report entitled “Better Council Change Programme” and agreed, among other things, the proposals outlined in the report in relation to waste and amenity services, including specific reference to the proposal that the four recycling centres mentioned in the petition were converted to ‘bring sites’ supported by a small mobile staff resource operated during opening times.

The report advised that notwithstanding the Head of Corporate Governance’s view, it was for the Board to determine the validity of the petition and whether they wished to hear it.

Councillor Sharkey, seconded by Councillor Grady, moved that the petition was not valid in terms of the Council’s procedures for dealing with petitions and that it not be heard.

Councillor Perrie, seconded by Councillor McEwan, moved, as an amendment, that the petition be heard when the six-month period from the date of the decision of the Leadership Board had expired.

On the roll being called the following members voted for the amendment: Councillors M Brown, J MacLaren, McEwan and Perrie.

The following members voted for the motion: Councillors B Brown, Caldwell, Grady, Provost Hall, and Councillor J Sharkey.

4 members having voted for the amendment and 5 members having voted for the motion, the motion was accordingly declared carried.

DECIDED: That the petition was not valid in terms of the Council’s procedures for dealing with petitions and that it be not heard.

Under reference to item 5 of the Minute of the Meeting of the Board held on 25 January 2016 there was submitted a report by the Lead Officer relative to the Board's review of Ward 15 (Children's Ward) Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley.

The report outlined the progress made by the Lead Officer in terms of taking the review forward including a visit by members to Ward 15 and to the Royal Hospital for Children and discussions with senior managers from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) indicating the range of information that the Board might wish to consider as part of the review.  In light of these discussions a number of changes had been made to the timetable for the review and these were detailed in the appendix to the report.

DECIDED:

(a) That the progress of the review be noted;

(b) That the key areas of information to be requested from NHSGGC be agreed;

(c) That the Lead Officer document all views of interested parties through the proposed electronic form mechanism;

(d) That it be noted that a special meeting of the Board would be convened in May, 2016 which would be attended by representatives from NHSGGC; and

(e) That the revised timescales for the review programme as detailed in the appendix to the report be approved.