To submit the
report of the Council Leader (attached).
Minutes:
The following officers from the Wales Audit Office
were welcomed to the meeting to give a brief presentation and then answer
members' questions.
·
Alan Hughes (Local
Government Performance Audit Leader)
·
Jeremy Evans (Local
Government Performance Audit Manager)
Following the presentation, members were given an
opportunity to ask questions on the report.
In response to the Well-being of Future Generations
(Wales) Act 2015 Examinations (page 27 of the agenda), that detailed to which
extent the Council had acted in accordance with the sustainable development
principle when establishing the new Youth Service, concern was raised by a
number of members about the Audit Office's conclusion that more work was needed
by the Council to fully establish the five ways of working. The Auditors' observations that the service
provision had been mostly driven by financial constraints rather than an
understanding of long-term service demand, was questioned.
The former Cabinet member who had been responsible
for instigating the process of re-organising the Youth Service emphasised that
the purpose of the re-modelling was to establish a longer-term view, to
consider how to modernise the service, making it sustainable and more suited to
the needs of young people today and in future. She was also of the opinion that
consideration had been given to the five ways of working and the well-being
objectives, and she referred to the consultation with young people and
collaboration with other local organisations involved with young people as
examples of this.
The former Cabinet member and others' observations
were echoed by the Leader, who emphasised the strong feeling among members that
the Audit Office's conclusions were totally wrong. He argued that it could be stated that all
the changes made by the Council over recent years had been motivated by
financial cuts. In spite of this, the Council had found new ways of working
that addressed the requirements of the Well-being Act, and the Youth Service
was a classic example of this, and had been praised as being effective and
innovative, and an example to be followed by other councils. He added that what the members had heard
undermined their trust in the Audit Office's ability to reach correct
conclusions, and he called for a dialogue between the Council and the Audit
Office on this specific point in order to move forward in future.
In response, the Local Government Performance Audit
Manager noted that the Audit Office's viewpoint differed to the Council's
opinion on this specific matter. He
explained that discussions had been held with various officers within the
Council as part of the process, and that the Audit Office's evidence was based
on these interviews. He was also satisfied with the thoroughness of the work
delivered during the year. However, he acknowledged that revisiting the
situation could lead to a different opinion, and that consideration could be
given to conducting a follow-up review on this issue in future. This work could
include fuller discussions with officers, service users and the former Cabinet
member.
Reference
was made to the review of Local Government Services to Rural Communities:
Community Assets Transfer (page 45 of the agenda). A question was asked about
the rationale for transferring community assets to the community for next to
nothing, which reduced the potential to generate an income for the County
Council to enable it maintain existing services. In response, the Local Government Performance
Audit Manager noted that he would take the question back to the project team
that had been responsible for producing and developing the report's conclusions
in the appendices to the Annual Improvement Report, and he would provide the
member with a written response.
RESOLVED to
accept the Annual Improvement Report 2018/19, subject to further discussions on
some of the items within the report.
Supporting documents: