Agenda Document Pack - Moray Council - 22/10/2024
Moray Council · 22 October 2024
Back to Moray Council — 22 October 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Moray Council Tuesday, 22 October 2024 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Moray Council is to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX on Tuesday, 22 October 2024 at 14:00. BUSINESS 1. Sederunt 2. Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * 3. Resolution Consider, and if so decide, adopt the following resolution: "That under Section 50A (4) and (5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, as amended, the public and media representatives be excluded from the meeting for Items 9 - 15 of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information of the class described in the relevant Paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.” 4. Jo Cox Foundation Report by Interim Chief Executive 7 - 18 5. Best Value Workforce Thematic Draft Outcomes Report by Depute Chief Executive (Economy, Environment and Finance) 19 - 50 6.. Audited Annual Accounts 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 Report by Depute Chief Executive (Economy, Environment and Finance) 51 - 54 Page 1
Page 2
7. Budget Protocol Report by Depute Chief Executive (Economy, Environment and Finance) 55 - 64 8. Operation of a Cap on Capital Expenditure for 2025-26 Report by Depute Chief Executive (Economy, Environment and Finance) 65 - 68 Item(s) which the Council may wish to consider with the Press and Public excluded 9. Short to Medium Term Financial Plan [Para 1] • 1. Information relating to staffing matters; 10. Libraries Learning Centres and Heritage Service Redesign and Savings Delivery [Para 1] • 1. Information relating to staffing matters; 11. Moray Leisure Centre Update [Para 6] • 6. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person(s); 12. Review of Out of Hours Service [Para 1 8 and 9] • 1. Information relating to staffing matters; • 8 & 9. Information on proposed terms and/or expenditure to be incurred by the Authority; 13. Non Domestic Rates Recovery [Para 6] • 6. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person(s); 14. Service Level Agreement with Moray Citizens Advice Bureau [Para 9] • 9. Information on terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the Authority; 15. Cultural Quarter Full Business Case [Para 8 and 9) • 8 & 9. Information on proposed terms and/or expenditure to be incurred by the Authority; Page 2
Page 3
Watching the Meeting You can watch the webcast live by going to: http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_43661.html Webcasts are available to view for 1 year following the meeting. You can also attend the meeting in person, if you wish to do so, please come to the High Street entrance door and a member of staff will be let into the building. Page 3
Page 4
GUIDANCE NOTES * Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests - The Chair of the meeting shall seek declarations from any individual or political group at the beginning of a meeting whether any prior decision has been reached on how the individual or members of the group will vote on any item(s) of business on the Agenda, and if so on which item(s). A prior decision shall be one that the individual or the group deems to be mandatory on the individual or the group members such that the individual or the group members will be subject to sanctions should they not vote in accordance with the prior decision. Any such prior decisions will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting. Page 4
Page 5
MORAY COUNCIL Moray Council SEDERUNT Councillor Kathleen Robertson (Chair) Councillor Donald Gatt (Depute Chair) Councillor James Allan (Member) Councillor Peter Bloomfield (Member) Councillor Neil Cameron (Member) Councillor Tracy Colyer (Member) Councillor Theresa Coull (Member) Councillor John Cowe (Member) Councillor John Divers (Member) Councillor Amber Dunbar (Member) Councillor Jérémie Fernandes (Member) Councillor David Gordon (Member) Councillor Juli Harris (Member) Councillor Sandy Keith (Member) Councillor Scott Lawrence (Member) Councillor Marc Macrae (Member) Councillor Paul McBain (Member) Councillor Neil McLennan (Member) Councillor Shona Morrison (Member) Councillor Bridget Mustard (Member) Councillor Derek Ross (Member) Councillor John Stuart (Member) Councillor Draeyk van der Horn (Member) Councillor Sonya Warren (Member) Councillor Ben Williams (Member) Clerk Name: Tracey Sutherland Clerk Telephone: 07971 879268 Clerk Email: committee.services@moray.gov.uk Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
REPORT TO: SPECIAL MORAY COUNCIL ON 22 OCTOBER 2024 SUBJECT: JO COX FOUNDATION DONATION BY: INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1. To consider a recommendation by COSLA Leaders that Councils consider making a donation to the Jo Cox Civility Commission in support of its work against abuse, intimidation and violence towards politicians. 1.2 The report is submitted to Council in terms of Section (II) (19) for any new policy matter which does not fall within the terms of reference for any Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Council: i) notes the recommendation of COSLA Leaders meeting on the 30 August 2024 for consideration of funding support for the Jo Cox Civility Commission; and ii) agrees to make a donation of £500 in support of the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The Jo Cox Civility Commission campaigns against unacceptable behaviour towards politicians and seeks to defend democracy in the UK. Abuse and intimidation of elected representatives, including violence towards them is considered to be one of the biggest threats to democracy in the UK. The Commission believe there is an increasing risk that more politicians may step down, with fewer people standing as candidates for election, due to abuse and Intimidation. Maltreatment on social media is also now an increasing contextual concern. Item 4. Page 7
Page 8
3.2 COSLA Leaders considered a report at their regular meeting on the 30 August following receipt of a letter from the Jo Cox Civility Commission requesting funding support for its work to improve safety for politicians. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix 1. 3.3 Leaders unanimously agreed at the meeting that COSLA should write to all councils endorsing and highlighting the work of the Commission and recommending that individual Councils consider making a donation, acknowledging the work already undertaken by Councils in this respect. 3.4 The request from the Commission is for funding support of between £500 and £1000 from Councils. Bearing in mind the widely varying sizes of different Councils, it is recommended that the Council should consider making a donation of no more than £500. 4. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS (a) Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) This report is consistent with the Council’s values and behaviours. (b) Policy and Legal There are no specific policy or legal implications arising from this report. (c) Financial implications It is proposed that the Miscellaneous Corporate Budget is used for a donation up to a maximum of £500. (d) Risk Implications There are no risk implications associated with this report. (e) Staffing Implications There are no staffing implications arising from this report. (f) Property There are no property implications arising from this report. (g) Equalities/Socio Economic Impact An Equalities Impact Assessment is not required as there is no change to policy and procedures resulting from this report. (h) Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts There are no climate change or biodiversity implications arising from this report. (i) Consultations Consultation on this report has taken place with the Chief Financial Officer, Legal Service Manager and Democratic Services Manager who agree with the content in relation to their respective areas of responsibility. Page 8
Page 9
5. CONCLUSION 5.1 This report provides details of the request from COSLA for consideration of funding support for the Jo Cox Civility Commission. Author of Report: John W Mundell OBE, Interim Chief Executive Background Papers: COSLA Leaders Report – Jo Cox Civility Commission – funding and recommendations report LD/24/085 Ref: SPMAN-1108985784-1018 / SPMAN-1108985784-1019 Page 9
Page 10
Page 10
Page 11
LD/24/085 Jo Cox Civility Commission – funding and recommendations Summary and Recommendations This paper considers a recent funding request from the Jo Cox Civility Commission to all Scottish councils of between £500-£1000. Leaders and Chief Executives have suggested that a COSLA position would be helpful. This paper provides 2 options for Leaders - either to use a collective funding model like that provided to CHAS, or to agree that this is for local determination. The associated risks of encouraging additional requests from other bodies by supporting collective funding are outlined in the paper. Leaders are also asked to consider a political endorsement of the Jo Cox Civility Commission Recommendations from January this year. These recommendations have already been welcomed by the Barriers to Elected Office Special Interest Group (BEO SIG) and we are aware that several councils have passed motions on the recommendations. The BEO SIG will continue working with the Jo Cox Commission on safety and civility in public life. Any additional support to the Commission in the form of collective funding or endorsement of recommendations will not impact the current working relationship. This paper invites Leaders to: i. Agree whether collective funding of £500-£1000 each should be given to the Jo Cox Civility Commission by all councils, and if so how much, or if this should be for local determination; and ii. Agree that COSLA endorse the recommendations made by the Jo Cox Civility Commission in January 2024. References Previous reports on [topic]: • LSB24067 – Jo Cox Civility Commission request for funding Corporate Policy August 2024 Item 4. Page 11
Page 12
Jo Cox Civility Commission – Request for funding and recommendations Purpose 1. Council Leaders and Chief Executives have recently received a letter from the Jo Cox Foundation asking for funding to support their work to tackle the abuse and intimidation of elected members. Member councils have been in touch with COSLA seeking a national position on how we can collectively respond to the request. 2. Through the work of the Barriers to Elected Office SIG, COSLA officers have a positive working relationship with the foundation, however, were unaware that this request was going to be made. The Foundation has apologised for this and is keen to work in partnership on the matter. Leaders are asked for a position on whether a collective funding decision should be sought. 3. Leaders are also asked if COSLA should endorse the Commission’s January 2024 report with 28 cross – sectoral recommendations on how the growing threat to our democracy can be addressed. Current COSLA Position 4. The Foundation and the findings of its Civility Commission have been reported to and welcomed by the Barriers to Elected Office SIG. Input from the Commission feeds directly into the councillor safety work but is also regularly used by our partners working on disability and gender matters. What is changing? 5. Via the BEO SIG, officers are aware several member councils have endorsed the work of the Commission along with its recommendations. A full list of recommendations can be found in Appendix 1, but Leaders should be aware the report includes three specific recommendations for Local Government action. 6. The Civility Commission Report Jo Cox Civility Commission - The Jo Cox Foundation, has been taken seriously within Whitehall and Westminster, and is informing some of the discussions that are ongoing in this area, including within the Defending Democracy Taskforce. It is likely that, post-riots, the Commission's report might impact the Online Safety Act and other legislation. The recommendations by the Commission around extending Operation Bridger to look at local elected members, has supported a mindset shift in Whitehall and ongoing lobbying efforts by the LGA. 7. The funding for the Jo Cox Civility Commission is due to end in December 2024. Currently this funding covers one member of staff and input from other staff who focus Page 12
Page 13
more specifically on the Jo Cox Foundation. Without additional funding current work on advocacy with stakeholders, and media campaigning will be impacted. With additional funding the Commission are also seeking to explore research opportunities with options including the experience of local government and experiences of staff/ family members. The Commission are keen to explore some of this work in the devolved nations, to date projects have been undertaken in Wales but Scotland and more recently Northern Ireland are key focuses in ongoing work planning. 8. To date the Jo Cox Commission has focused more resources on England rather than Scotland. However, the commission did hold the Scottish Parliament “Great Get Together” sponsored by Paul O’Kane MSP in June 2024, which had speakers from all parties, including the Deputy First Minister. Additionally on the 30th of January 2024 in collaboration with Glasgow University the Commission hosted an event titled “No Place in Politics: Tacking Abuse and Intimidation”. It is also worth noting that most of the Commission's work is transferable across the whole of the UK, and the understanding of devolved issues within the Commission might help influence policy at Westminster. 9. COSLA officers acknowledge that this has not been raised in the manner we would expect, however, there is clear value to the work of the BEO SIG and to COSLA’s priorities overall. In consideration, Leaders should be reflective on the risk of setting a precedent or expectations with much wider impacts than this single request. Proposed COSLA Position 10. Given the impact of this work on local democracy, Leaders are asked to consider the following two options: Option 1: collectively agree that all councils welcome and support the request for funding and that a standard contribution is offered by all. The request has been for between £500-£1000 each and, if Leaders favour this option, then COSLA will also need Leaders’ agreement on what this contribution would be. Option 2: agree that this is a matter to be locally determined based on funding available, acknowledging the work that individual councils are undertaking to already support councillors to undertake their duties in a safe manner. 11. As noted above, officers are aware that several councils have accepted the recommendations by the Jo Cox Civility Commission. Given the precedent it sets and the potential difficulty of agreeing a national position, Leaders may want to favour Option 2. Irrespective, action towards implementation of the recommendations would take place through the BEO SIG and would be consistent with current workplans. Next Steps 12. The BEO SIG will continue working with the Jo Cox Commission on safety and civility in public life. Any additional support to the Commission in the form of collective funding or endorsement of recommendations will be communicated following August Leaders. Page 13
Page 14
Contribution to agreed COSLA Plan and Verity House Agreement: COSLA Plan 22-27 Priority Areas Strengthen Local Democracy √ Secure Sustainable Funding Improve the Wellbeing of Individuals, Families and Communities Enhance Education and Support for our Children and Young People Deliver a Just Transition to a Net Zero Economy Support the Most Vulnerable in our Communities Verity House Agreement Shared Priorities Tackling Poverty Just transition to net zero Sustainable Public Services Date Considered August 2024 Page 14
Page 15
Appendix 1 – Jo Cox Civility Commission Recommendations Coordination and behaviour 1) Government should implement and resource a central unit to address abuse and intimidation of all elected politicians. This would include coordinating existing initiatives, resourcing new solutions, and facilitating information sharing between agencies. This unit should be responsible for better measurements and analysis of the problem and should be expected to produce an annual report on the scale of the problem, actions taken, and impact. 2) All elected representatives, and especially those in leadership roles, should model good behaviour. Political Literacy 1) Government should implement significant awareness campaigns for the general public aimed at increasing understanding of the role of elected representatives and promoting civility. 2) All councillors and parliamentarians should regularly visit education institutions in their constituencies, raising awareness of their roles. 3) Impartial political and media literacy should be made a mandatory part of the school curriculum, including addressing how to deal with information sources and misinformation. Teachers should be adequately trained to deliver this. Social media and media 1) The specific issue of abuse and intimidation of elected politicians must be considered when implementing the Online Safety Act. The regulator Ofcom must actively seek the advice of civil society organisations with expertise in this area, and ensure regular, specific training. 2) Social media companies should acknowledge the democratic significance of local politicians and provide better and faster routes for councillors reporting abuse and misinformation online. This supports the call made by the Local Government Association in their Debate Not Hate publication. Police and Security 1) Update: in progress. Parliamentarians, staff and families must receive clear and specific briefings, including: a. Clear guidelines about what communications received by parliamentarians should be reported to police. b. Clear guidance about which bodies are responsible for which aspects of security and a clear explanation about what security arrangements are available. c. Clear guidance about which laws exist to counter abuse of elected representatives. Page 15
Page 16
2) Guidance should be developed for local councillors about what communications should be reported to the police, and the mechanism for doing this. This should include clear guidance about which laws exist to counter abuse of elected representatives. 3) Update: in progress. Ongoing training must continue for all police about their responsibilities for dealing with threats against elected representatives. This should include training in the following areas: a. Equalities including particular vulnerabilities related to misogyny and other protected characteristics. b. The roles and responsibilities of different levels of government. c. Cross-cutting nature of abuse including hate crime. d. New legislation, including the Election Act 2022 and the Online Safety Act 2023. 4) Update: in progress. Agreed minimum levels of protection measures for elected representatives must be defined. Elected representatives must then adopt the minimum level. 5) Update: in progress. Elected politicians should report all abuse (threshold confirmed by police) so an understanding of the level of threat is built up in police systems. Elected politicians should follow guidance from the police and the Crown Prosecution Service about when to pursue prosecution. 6) Update: Recommendation adopted (February 2024). There must be dedicated resources in each local police force to ensure an appropriate, consistent response to support elected representatives across the country. This would enable: a. Increasing the remit of the Single Point of Contact in each police force to include local elected representatives. b. Streamlining implementation of Operation Bridger and enforcement of the Single Point of Contact system. c. Increased capacity for police forces to provide home and venue (surgeries) risk assessments for both MPs and local government elected representatives and facilitate additional security measures if necessary. 7) Update: in progress. Information sharing must be improved between different forces through the Operation Bridger Network and across nations and regions. Parliaments (Westminster and devolved administrations) 1) Update: in progress. Parliamentarians should be able to claim for the costs associated with addressing abuse and intimidation, including: a. Costs associated with wellbeing measures for staff who process/ experience abuse. b. The swift implementation of security measures advised by Operation Bridger. 2) Update: in progress. Written resources should be developed for the families of elected representatives about dealing with abuse. This should include explanations of escalation procedures and clarification of points of contact. Page 16
Page 17
3) Update: in progress. Mandatory, properly resourced training should be developed for both elected representatives and their staff on preventing and addressing abuse. This should include active bystander training, situational awareness, and training around safe social media use. Local Government 1) Update: in progress. Local authorities should improve risk planning for abuse at council meetings and other events, ensuring high risk events are properly resourced with trained security. a. Police should be involved where appropriate and in particular when there is a risk to democratic engagement. b. The opportunity should exist for council meetings to take place online in instances when there are specific risks of physical abuse to councillors. 2) Update: in progress. Councils should pass motions affirming principles to address abuse and model good behaviour, from the Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate toolkit or the National Association of Local Councils’ (NALC) Civility and Respect Project. 3) Local authorities should ensure security and wellbeing resources are available to councillors. These should be clearly signposted, and there should be a dedicated point of contact for the escalation of any issues. Elections 1) Update: Recommendation adopted (January 2024). Government should make any costs associated with candidate safety an exemption to election spending limits. 2) Update: In progress. The Electoral Commission should expand its guidance for candidates about use of social media during the election period, with a specific focus on upholding public confidence in the democratic process. 3) Update: In progress. Political parties should rigorously screen candidates during the candidate selection process. 4) Political parties should require candidates to sign up to an election code of conduct in line with The Jo Cox Foundation’s Civility Pledge. 5) Social media companies should offer additional support for candidates at election times about how to protect themselves on the platform and report abuse. Advice should also be available to the general public around misinformation that might interfere with the democratic process. Political Parties 1) Political parties must consistently enforce their existing codes of conduct, with relevant sanctions when the code is not adhered to. 2) Mandatory civility and equalities training should be implemented for all candidates. 3) Political parties should review how they offer legal support to candidates or elected officials where civil action is more appropriate than criminal action. Page 17
Page 18
Page 18
Page 19
REPORT TO: SPECIAL MORAY COUNCIL 22 OCTOBER 2024 SUBJECT: BEST VALUE WORKFORCE THEMATIC DRAFT OUTCOMES BY: DEPUTE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (EDUCATION, COMMUNITIES AND ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT) 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To inform the Council of the draft outcomes from the Best Value Workforce Thematic report and invite consideration of the key messages 1.2 This report is submitted to Council in terms of Section II (13) of the Council's Scheme of Administration relating to any new policy matter which does not fall within the terms of reference of any Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Council review and consider the key messages of the best value workforce innovation thematic review and highlight any points to be taken into account in the development of the relevant actions. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 Councils in Scotland have a statutory duty to demonstrate Best Value, introduced in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003. Statutory Guidance defines Best Value as: ensuring that there is good governance and effective management of resources, with a focus on continuous improvement, to deliver the best possible outcomes for the public. 3.2 In March 2020 the Scottish Government published refreshed Best Value guidance requiring councils to demonstrate a focus on continuous improvement in performance around seven themes below. The Council has an agreed Best Value Action Plan that addresses each of these themes set out below and draws together actions to address improvement identified by external auditors and through a council wide self-assessment carried out earlier in 2024. i) Vision and leadership Item 5. Page 19
Page 20
ii) Governance and accountability iii) Effective use of resources iv) Partnerships and collaborative working v) Working with communities vi) Sustainability vii) Fairness and equality 3.3 In 2023 a new thematic element was added to the Best Value audit regime. As part of the annual Best Value audit requirements, in addition to well established financial auditing and a cycle of best value auditing a sample of 32 councils, each year the Accounts Commission now also directs local government external auditors across Scotland to report on how local government is responding in relation to particular theme. This is referred to as a thematic review and the same theme is applied across all 32 councils in a single year. For 2023 the theme was Leadership and for 2024 the theme is Workforce Innovation. 3.4 The Workforce Innovation thematic review is to report on how the council is responding to workforce challenges through building capacity, increasing productivity and innovation. Audit Scotland has posed a set of questions to guide the audit process. The Audit was carried out through a self-assessment process where the council gave written responses to a set of questions from the external auditors Grant Thornton along with evidence documents. A small number of officer interviews also took place. The audit captures the position up to the end of June 2024. 3.5 There are a number of learning points from the audit experience and there have been constructive discussions with Grant Thornton on how to improve joint working on future audits. 3.6 The Appendix within the Audit report sets out 6 improvement actions relating to: key policy interdependencies; workforce analysis reporting; consistency of priority ratings; council wide reporting framework, estates plan and staff survey and the council responses is set against each of these. 3.7 However, there are a number of common themes across the findings of the review and highlights are drawn out below for discussion: i) Recommendation 1: Key policy interdependencies: action completed in 2024-29 corporate plan ii) Recommendation 2: Workforce analysis reporting – use of workforce data. The council has taken steps to improve the availability and currency of workforce data using dashboards and Power BI. Workforce date has been used to identify improvement work such as absence management and skills development to address recruitment. However, there is potential to review the use of workforce data further to improve performance monitoring and reporting and support action to ensure the effective management of the council workforce which will be considered following 12 months of experience of the current system. Page 20
Page 21
iii) Recommendation 3: Consistency of Priority Ratings: action complete to ensure consistency of priority definitions iv) Recommendation 4: Council wide reporting framework - Performance measures and outcomes. There are a number of areas in the report that draw attention to data and performance measures for the delivery of results. In response, the Council has highlighted the information currently in use both in general terms and in relation to specific projects and areas of work. However, it is accepted that this could be improved in future and that greater clarity and transparency of intended outcomes and measures would make progress more evident. It should be noted, however, that in relation to some points the challenge has been that the project did not set out to deliver the outcome the auditors were seeking to evidence (e.g. workforce productivity for smarter working project). v) Recommendation 5: will be incorporated into relevant projects. vi) Recommendation 6 Staff Survey - Employee Voice. The review reports on the biennial employee survey and notes the frequency should be increased. Surveys every 2 years is a long standing practice adopted to take account of resources and time required for change to have effect. However, there is scope for a change in approach. There are various options that could be considered to gather more current information from the workforce., The initial steps are proposed as conducting the next employee survey sooner, using revised questions and, in addition, using targeted short surveys for specific purposes. 4. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS (a) Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP) Ensuring action to address the recommendations contained in the thematic review of workforce innovation will assist the council in the delivery of the priorities in the corporate plan through effective workforce management. (b) Policy and Legal None from this report. The work arising from the actions may lead to the future review of some employment policies. (c) Financial implications None directly from this report. However, effective workforce management and innovation are essential parts of effective use of council finances to deliver services effectively and secure future sustainability. (d) Risk Implications At this point the report is for information and to consider the council response and actions to the findings of the external auditor. There is a risk that if appropriate action is not taken that the suggested Page 21
Page 22
improvements are not made and that the council does not benefit from the most effective management of its workforce. (e) Staffing Implications There are no additional workforce implications in terms of requirements to address the content of this report. However, the points raised and resulting actions will impact on the council workforce and any specific implications will be considered as proposals are developed. (f) Property None (g) Equalities/Socio Economic Impact None arising directly from this report. (h) Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts None (i) Consultations This report was brought to the Joint Consultative Committee as part of consultation on the findings ahead of report to Corporate Committee which has provided councillor, trades union and senior officer input. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The outcome of the Workforce Innovation thematic review is reported for review and consideration. There are actions set out within the council response in the appendix to the review to develop work to respond to the improvement opportunities identified and the JCC is invited to consider the key messages and highlight any points to be taken into account in the development of the relevant actions. Author of Report: Denise Whitworth, Depute Chief Exec ECOD Background Papers: Ref: SPMAN-1108985784-1007 / SPMAN-1108985784-1013 Page 22
Page 23
Item 5. Page 23
Page 24
Commercial in confidence Page 24
Page 25
Commercial in confidence Page 25
Page 26
Commercial in confidence • • • • • • Page 26
Page 27
Commercial in confidence Page 27
Page 28
Commercial in confidence 6 • • • • • • Page 28
Page 29
Commercial in confidence Page 29
Page 30
Commercial in confidence Page 30
Page 31
Commercial in confidence 9 Page 31
Page 32
Commercial in confidence Page 32
Page 33
Commercial in confidence 11 Page 33
Page 34
Commercial in confidence Page 34
Page 35
Commercial in confidence Page 35
Page 36
Commercial in confidence 14 • • • • Page 36
Page 37
Commercial in confidence Page 37
Page 38
Commercial in confidence Page 38
Page 39
Commercial in confidence 17 Page 39
Page 40
Commercial in confidence Page 40
Page 41
Commercial in confidence 19 Page 41
Page 42
Page 42
Page 43
Commercial in confidence Page 43
Page 44
Commercial in confidence Page 44
Page 45
Commercial in confidence Page 45
Page 46
Commercial in confidence Page 46
Page 47
Commercial in confidence Page 47
Page 48
Commercial in confidence Page 48
Page 49
Page 49
Page 50
Page 50
Page 51
REPORT TO: SPECIAL MORAY COUNCIL ON 22 OCTOBER 2024 SUBJECT: MORAY COUNCIL’S AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD 1 APRIL 2023 TO 31 MARCH 2024 BY: DEPUTE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND FINANCE) 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To submit to the Council the Audited Annual Accounts for the Moray Council for the year ended 31 March 2024. 1.2 This report is submitted to the Council for consideration as a suite of reports on the Annual Audit and Accounts for 2023/24. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Council: i) consider and note the Audited Annual Accounts for the financial year 2023/24; and ii) approve that the Annual Accounts are signed, having regard to the Annual Report from the external auditor which is another item on this agenda. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The unaudited Annual Accounts were submitted to a meeting of Moray Council on 26 June 2024 (paragraph 12 of the minute refers). A copy of the Audited Annual Accounts for 2023/24 is available as another meeting document on this agenda. The signed accounts will be posted to the Council’s website following this meeting. 3.2 As a result of the audit process some amendments have been made to the Core Statements and these are described as follows. 3.3 The Council carries out a rolling programme that ensures that all Property, Plant and Equipment required to be measured at current or fair value is revalued at least every five years. The Council adopted a desktop indexation exercise for specific classes of assets during 2023/24 and amendments were required as a result of the audit. Amendments were also identified in regards Item 6.. Page 51
Page 52
of items that were classified as Under Construction in error and a single asset that had been recognised twice. The effect of these amendments was to decrease net assets and unusable reserves by £7.830 million. There was no impact on the Council’s useable reserves. 3.4 The previous financial year saw the Council recognise a pension asset for the first time following the actuarial valuation of the pension fund that year. Accounting guidance, issued by Audit Scotland, on the treatment of the asset was issued on the date the accounts were signed off, which saw an asset ceiling applied to any funded surplus only. This change was reflected in a prior period adjustment for the 2023/24 accounts. Further guidance was issued during the audit and, when the effect of the asset ceiling was applied, this reduced the asset from £2.998m to a net pension liability of £11.819m. There was no impact on the Council’s usable reserves. 3.5 The overall impact of the amendments is to increase liabilities by £22.637m million and reduce the unusable reserves by the same amount. 3.6 There have been no amendments made as a result of the audit to the Council’s usable reserves. 3.7 The External Auditors have given the Council an unqualified opinion in the Independent Auditors’ Report, which can be found on pages 120 – 122 of the Accounts. 4. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS (a) Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) There are no direct links between the audit process and the Council’s Corporate Plan. (b) Policy and Legal According to Paragraph (1) of the Local Authority Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2014, a Local Authority is required to submit its Audited Accounts to the Council each year and state that a local authority must meet to consider the Audited Accounts and aim to approve them no later than 30 September immediately following the financial year to which they relate. Due to the audit not being complete by 30 September 2024 publication of the accounts has been delayed. The review by the External Auditors of the Council’s Accounts is in accordance with the Council’s Code of Corporate Governance and ensures that the Council complies with established policies, procedures, laws and regulations. (c) Financial implications Amendments to the accounts were identified as part of the audit process. There was no impact on usable reserves. Page 52
Page 53
(d) Risk Implications There are no risk issues arising directly from this report. The work undertaken by Audit Scotland provides assurance to the Committee that the Accounts for 2023/24 give a true and fair view of the financial position and expenditure and income of the Council and its group for the year. (e) Staffing Implications Many staff throughout the Council provide information for the inclusion in the Annual Accounts. (f) Property There are no property issues arising directly from this report. (g) Equalities/Socio Economic Impact There are no equalities issues arising directly from this report. (h) Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts There are no climate change and biodiversity issues arising from this report. (i) Consultations None. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The Council’s External Auditor has issued an opinion with no qualifications for the 2023/24 Annual Accounts which means that the audited financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position and expenditure and income of the Council and its group for the year. Author of Report: Jamie Fraser, Senior Accountant Background Papers: Held in Financial Services Ref: SPMAN-1293228629-1139 Page 53
Page 54
Page 54
Page 55
REPORT TO: SPECIAL MORAY COUNCIL ON 22 OCTOBER 2024 SUBJECT: BUDGET PROTOCOL FOR 2025/26 BUDGET SETTING PROCESS BY: DEPUTE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND FINANCE) 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To provide the Council with an updated Budget Protocol reflecting feedback on the version used for the 2024/25 budget setting process and seek endorsement of this as a policy for the budget setting process for 2025/26. 1.2 This report is submitted to Council in terms of Section A (2) of the Council’s Scheme of Administration relating to Capital and Revenue Budgets and long- term financial plans. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Council: (i) consider and agree the updated Budget Protocol (V13.1) produced as Appendix I as a statement of policy to apply to the process leading to setting of the Council budget for 2025/26; and (ii) note that the Budget Protocol will continue to be reviewed at least annually to reflect political and other changes as required, for endorsement by members of the Budget Development Forum, which failing by a further report to Council. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 A Budget Protocol to set out processes and expectations around the period running up to annual budget setting has been in place for almost a decade, having first been introduced when Council Reserves were depleted and so the risk of budget proposals being undeliverable and thus incompetent was heightened. Over that period, compliance has variously been secured by formal council agreement at committee, by informal agreement of a majority of members and by endorsement as a statement of good governance by the Corporate Management Team (CMT). Owing to the passage of time and growing budget pressures in coming years, review and formal endorsement of the Budget Protocol as a Council policy is now considered timely and prudent Item 7. Page 55
Page 56
by CMT. 3.2 Since its inception, the Budget Protocol has been based on a shared purpose and set of principles which officers and members have endorsed as fundamental to achieving best practice in collaborative working and sound governance as the budget approaches. These are focussed on ensuring that information required for sound budget decisions is available and shared across the member body as early as possible, best use is made of member and officer time and that areas of consensus and disagreement are identified and examined early so that the proposed Council budget and any amendments to that are well informed and competent. 3.3 Building on the core purpose and principles, provisions are set out on how members and officers should work together at what is a very busy time for the Council. These include provisions to regulate access to advice from which to frame political budget proposals including amendments, provisions on early sharing of proposals and competence, and also Terms of Reference for a group formed to support collaborative working on budgetary matters known as the Budget Development Forum. 3.4 The version of the Budget Protocol produced with this report – version 13.1 – has been updated based on feedback from members on the Protocol in operation for budget setting for 2024/25 – Version 12.1 – as shared at the August Members Budget Workshop. This was found to have worked well, with minor suggested changes now incorporated into Version 13.1 including updates to reflect creation of the Strategic Leadership Forum, and changes in composition at political group level. 3.5 Council is invited to endorse the updated Budget Protocol as the agreed policy approach to member/officer and member/member working in the approach to setting the budget for 2025/26, and to agree that minor annual updates moving forward may be agreed via the Budget Development Forum. Failing agreement, updates would be reported to Council for consideration and approval. 4. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS (a) Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) The proposals support good governance, a financially sustainable council and effective collaborative working which underpin the Corporate Plan and LOIP and are also key to the Best Value Action Plan. (b) Policy and Legal The proposed Budget Protocol is a statement of policy to provide clarity on working practices moving forward. (c) Financial implications The proposed Budget Protocol supports delivery of a financially sustainable council as it ensures that full information is available to underpin budgetary decisions, collaborative working is supported and the competence of proposals is fully assessed. Page 56
Page 57
(d) Risk Implications The proposed Budget Protocol helps to manage risk by promoting early advice on proposals including advice on risk of relevant proposals both in isolation and in the wider fiscal context. (e) Staffing Implications The proposed Budget Protocol helps to manage officer time in an effective and efficient manner as the budget process progresses. (f) Property There are no property implications from this report. (g) Equalities/Socio Economic Impact There are no equalities implications from this report. (h) Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts There are no climate or biodiversity implications from this report. (i) Consultations All members were consulted on the Budget Protocol at the Members Budget Workshop held in August. CMT has been also been consulted as has Tracey Sutherland, Democratic Services Manager. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 This report seeks agreement of the updated Budget Protocol as a policy statement for the Council to support good governance and efficient and effective collaborative working. Author of Report: Rhona Gunn, Depute Chief Executive (Economy, Environment and Finance) Background Papers: Ref: SPMAN-1108985784-1005 / SPMAN-1108985784-1006 Page 57
Page 58
Page 58
Page 59
Appendix 1 MORAY COUNCIL BUDGET PROTOCOL (v13.1 September 2024) SECTION 1 – ALL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT FORUM (BDF) MEMBERS BACKGROUND In a financial climate of long term ongoing budget reductions and a balance of council reserves that are largely earmarked for specific purposes, reserves should not be consistently relied upon to balance budgets. It is vital not only that that there can be confidence that any budget proposals* and amendments have sufficient political support to ensure that they can be delivered, but also that officer resources required to investigate budget proposals instigated by members (“political proposals”) are used as effectively as possible. In addition, repeated Best Value audits have recognised the need for efficient and effective cross party working to agree difficult decisions, including those to deliver financial sustainability. Collaborative working is key in this respect and a number of groups have been established to support this including the Strategic Leadership Forum (SLF) and Political Sounding Board (SLF without officers). A summary of the various remits is available on request. In order to assist the Council to set its budget effectively in such challenging times, this Protocol aims to establish ground rules for allocation of officer resource and the sharing of financial planning information between political groups and individual and non-aligned councillors during preparations for setting the Council’s budget each year. The groups by which budget preparations are progressed vary over time, but currently Budget Development Forum (BDF) is the body agreed upon for this purpose. Broad terms of reference for BDF are set out in Appendix A. In preparing for the annual budget setting meeting, BDF provides officers with an efficient means of briefing members on officer proposals. As preparations are advanced and political budget proposals emerge, BDF also provides a forum for discussion on areas of possible consensus. * Budget proposals includes spending and saving proposals tabled ahead of the actual setting of the council’s budget, and where savings are referenced in this protocol, this shall include reference to spending proposals where appropriate BUDGET PROTOCOL: PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES Purpose The purpose of sharing financial planning information is to identify: a. areas of possible consensus; b. areas for further debate or for which further information or refinement is required; c. to make the most efficient use of officer time; and d. to ensure the council has the necessary information and advice available to enable informed budget decisions on options that can be delivered to be made at its meetings. Item 7. Page 59
Page 60
Principles 1) Where possible, common areas of work will be identified and supported by CMT through Budget Development Forum discussions. 2) Financial planning information is strictly confidential and this will be respected by all 3) Information will be shared as effectively and timeously as possible in order to assist in the conduct of council business in this extremely uncertain financial climate 4) Information provided will be as comprehensive as possible, including the impact and risks but recognising the stage of development of the proposal(s) may impact on the level of detail that is possible 5) Any working proposals and information developed by individuals or groups will be held confidentially and will not be shared more widely unless authority is given to do so. Such sharing will be on terms specified by the proposer. 6) As proposals are developed, investigations can require considerable officer resource. To ensure that staffing resources are prioritised, where these will require any more than a minimal level of investigation, all political budget proposals must be supplied with email evidence of a seconder who is not aligned to competing proposals. This may be assumed for group proposals but will require evidence of active support for all Individual/ politically non-aligned members. The proposer will be advised when the minimum threshhold will be breached meaning that a seconder is required for further investigations. This will depend on the complexity of the proposal. 7) Different political and policy views and positions will be respected although debate will be helpful to identify and widen areas of consensus EARLY ADVICE ON BUDGET PROPOSALS Officer advice should be sought on any political budget proposals as soon as possible to ensure that they are competent and deliverable if/when presented as part of the Administration’s budget or as formal budget amendments . The more complex the proposal, the more time officers require to give robust advice. Proposals or changes to proposals on which advice is not sought at the earliest opportunity may ultimately be found to be incompetent and as such excluded from consideration on budget day when presented as an amendment. CMT should be kept aware of advice sought on developing political proposals so that they have an opportunity to consider issues and interdependencies which may arise. For efficient use of resources, CMT will consider proposals from Political Groups, and Individual/Politically Non Aligned members will be asked to progress development of any proposals through the S95 Officer who will keep CMT informed. Again, the need for officer time to be prioritised in supporting development of political budget proposals must be recognised. Time constraints and implications will be identified as the dialogue on advice progresses. Page 60
Page 61
BUDGET AMENDMENTS In addition to seeking early advice, to ensure fair notice is given and that all amendments (the formal statement of political proposals) are competent, accurately quantified and deliverable, amendments must be submitted to committee services as soon as possible after the Administration Budget is published. To meet these objectives, amendments must be submitted no less than 2 clear working days in advance of the council budget setting meeting i.e. for a Wednesday meeting, the Administration Budget would be published the previous Wednesday and all amendments would require to be submitted no later than 4pm the previous Friday. Amendments received by committee services will be circulated to all members and to the Corporate Management Team in advance of the Council meeting. Amendments not formally submitted to Committee Services in this way will not be considered as valid in the context of pre budget cross-party discussions. As with political budget proposals, officer review of amendments (including any revision to wording from earlier versions) takes time and any amendments submitted late which cannot be reviewed due to competing officer workload demands may be ruled incompetent. This is particularly the case in the 10 working days before the budget is set when CMT and the s95 Officer are managing multiple demands and often advising on several sets of budget proposals and formal emerging amendments. SECTION 2 – AT THE DISCRETION OF BDF MEMBERS AGREEMENT TO ADVANCE SHARING OF POLITICAL BUDGET PROPOSALS As referenced earlier, budget preparation generally comprises both officer led proposals/ budgetary information which is shared as early as possible with all members, and also politically led budget proposals which are subject to confidentiality as set out in the principles in Section 1 above, and which may become formal amendments. This section of the Protocol regulates early sharing of political budget proposals. These may include positions on officer proposals not yet agreed by Council by budget day, but will more generally comprise budget proposals which have been informed by particular individual or political group views. The Administration Group political budget proposals are set out when the budget papers are published, usually not less than 7 days before the budget meeting itself. Earlier sharing and dialogue between members is encouraged but not required. Political Group Leaders or Individual/Politically Non-Aligned members who agree to advance sharing of their political proposals should agree the terms on which they do so. To support early sharing, it is recommended that the Administration Group share their budget proposals in confidence, at least 5 working days (4 clear working days) prior to these being issued as part of the agenda for the council meeting at which the proposals are to be considered. In return, BDF members with whom sharing has been agreed by the Administration Group will notify the Leader and the Corporate Management Team of any political proposals they intend to Page 61
Page 62
table as amendments within 2 working days (1 clear working day) of receiving the proposals from the Administration Group. All information is shared on a confidential basis. Page 62
Page 63
A timeline is shown below: Day -14 Day -13 Day -12 Day -11 Day -10 Day -9 Day -8 Day -7 Day -6 Day -5 Day -4 Day -3 Day -2 Day -1 Budget Day Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Mon Tues Wed Admin early shrg Amndmt early sharing Budget Papers Published Amndmts published (Note: timescales have been indicated to provide as much advance notice as possible. These have been set to ensure that officers can have an opportunity to ensure that advice will be available to the council) Page 63
Page 64
APPENDIX A BUDGET DEVELOPMENT FORUM Budget Development Forum (BDF) is a group convened on the invitation of CMT and the Council Leader acts as its Chair. In preparing for the annual budget, BDF provides officers with an efficient means of briefing all members on officer proposals and providing advice on financial matters, whether via the relevant Group Leader or directly in the case of Individual/Non Aligned members. All members will be able to directly access BDF papers. As preparations are advanced and political (as opposed to officer led) budget proposals emerge, BDF also provides a forum for discussion on areas of possible consensus. Remit forum where officers provide financial information and brief members on a confidential basis and canvass political views in a setting where sensitive matters can be openly discussed Promote and support constructive cross party working relative to the budget Receive and review overview reports to ensure councillors have an up to date view of the council’s financial position Identify commonly held budget priorities and actions, explore where could be consensus, and areas requiring further clarification and review. Identify areas to request financial information or investigation to assist Members in making informed decisions about financial planning and the impact on future budget setting Aim to identifying areas of agreement and consensus that could form a core of future financial plans and proposals where there is no agreement In terms of this version of the Budget Protocol, BDF shall comprise: Administration Group: Leader and Depute Leader (2) SNP Group: Leader and Depute (2) Labour Group: Leader (1) Council Civic Leader: Entitled to attend ex officio to support effective discharge of the civic role (1) Other Individual/Non-Aligned Members: currently Cllrs Ross, Allan, Van Der Horne, Stuart and McLennan. Substitutions within groups are permissible. For these purposes “Political Group” refers to nationally recognised political parties/groups of 3 or more with a leader, stated collective purpose and constitution. . Page 64
Page 65
REPORT TO: SPECIAL MORAY COUNCIL ON 22 OCTOBER 2024 SUBJECT: OPERATION OF A CAP ON CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FROM 2025/26 BY: DEPUTE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND FINANCE) 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 To recommend a methodology for keeping the Council’s capital expenditure within affordable limits, having in regard the life of the indicative ten year capital plan. 1.2 This report is submitted to Council in terms of Section III (B) (9) of the Council’s Scheme of Administration relating to the formulation, implementation and review of asset management policies and practices, and to the maintenance of an overview of the Council’s property disposal programme. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Council approves the methodology for application of a cap to capital expenditure as set out in this report and summarised in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The Council approved a Performance Indicator (PI) for measuring the impact of its capital expenditure: cost of borrowing as a percentage of revenue income, defined as Scottish Government revenue support (including Non Domestic Rates Income) plus Council Tax. The Council’s Capital Strategy, the latest version of which was approved by Council on 24 January 2024 (paragraph 10 of the Minute refers) includes using this PI as a measure of affordability, with a ceiling of 10% set. 3.2 The indicative ten year plan approved at that meeting of Council (paragraph 11 of the Minute refers) indicated that the ten year plan was unaffordable, even with significant level of capping. A report will be brought back with a revised ten year plan. As the first stage of the review of the capital plan this report recommends a methodology for applying a cap to capital expenditure. 3.3 It is recommended that the Capital Plan is divided into the following categories of expenditure: Item 8. Page 65
Page 66
Core Programme – based on Asset Management principles as set out in the Council’s Corporate Asset Management Plan (which follows the CIPFA Guide to Asset Management and Capital Planning) and recurring year on year Named Projects – a discrete, non-recurring spend which creates a new asset (given the significant costs both extensive refurbishment and new build for schools are included in this category Funded projects – fully funded / partially funded by specific grant or contribution Spend to Save – delivers revenue savings immediately or within a three year time frame 3.4 Fully funded projects should be excluded from the capping process. Although full consideration requires to be given to the inclusion of fully funded projects in the capital plan, to ensure that staff time is not diverted from delivering Council priorities to non-priority areas, once included these projects cannot be capped. The Council contribution to partially funded projects should be included as Named Projects. 3.5 The Council’s Capital Strategy recognises that Spend to Save initiatives (again having been appropriately assessed prior to inclusion) should automatically be given a high priority. Consideration requires to be given as to whether the PI should be modified to allow for this, but these should be excluded from the capping methodology. 3.6 When the capital plan for the year ahead is approved, a cap should be set for that year and also for the two following years, to facilitate forward planning. The cap should then be split into a cap on the Core Programme and a cap on Named Projects, pro rata to the total pre-capped proposed spend on the Core Programme and on Named Projects. 3.7 It is proposed that all asset classes are given equal weighting within the Core Programme and that therefore the Core Programme cap should be spread evenly across the Core Programme. To facilitate management of this and allow flexibility it is proposed that some asset classes where these are within the overall budget responsibility of one Head of Service are grouped together, with the cap applied at the aggregate level. The services to be grouped are set out below: Asset Class Group Bridges Roads, bridges, street lighting Car parks Roads, bridges, street lighting Corporate Buildings (equipment and furniture) Property Estate Management Corporate Buildings (properties) Property Estate Management Depots Property Estate Management Fleet and plant Fleet and plant Flood risk management and coastal protection Flood Risk Management and Coastal Protection Harbours Harbours ICT ICT Page 66
Page 67
Asset Class Group Industrial Portfolio Property Estate Management Learning Estate Learning Estate Libraries and Leisure Libraries and Leisure Parks and Open Spaces Open Spaces Roads Improvements Roads, bridges, street lighting Street lighting Roads, bridges, street lighting Traffic and road safety Roads, bridges, street lighting Waste Management Waste Management 3.8 This method of capping capital spend is not suitable for Named Projects – projects are either carried out in full or not at all. It is therefore proposed that a prioritised list of projects is brought forward for consideration as part of the capital planning process, with projects scored against the following criteria: Contributes towards achieving a corporate priority in the Corporate Plan Fulfils a legislative requirement eg health and safety requirement following inspection Impact on connectivity between communities and facilities Community priority 3.9 Once prioritisation is agreed the Named Projects are included from the highest ranked downwards until the cap ceiling is reached. 3.10 Where Named Projects span more than one year if agreed for the first year then those projects are automatically carried forward into the next year until the project is complete. 4. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS (a) Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) The prioritisation process recommended for Named Projects ensures a link to the priorities identified in the Corporate Plan. (b) Policy and Legal The prioritisation process recommended for Named Projects includes prioritisation on legal grounds. Statutory requirements are recognised in the Council’s Capital Plan as a driver for capital expenditure. (c) Financial implications The capping process is designed to ensure on-going affordability of the Council’s capital plan. (d) Risk Implications There are no risk issues arising directly from this report. (e) Staffing Implications There are no staffing implications arising directly from this report. Page 67
Page 68
(f) Property There are no property issues arising directly from this report. (g) Equalities/Socio Economic Impact There are no equalities issues arising directly from this report. (h) Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts There are no climate change and biodiversity issues arising from this report. (i) Consultations CMT and members of the Asset Management Working group have been consulted in the preparation of this report. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The capital plan should be categorised into four categories – Core Programme, Named Projects, Funded Projects and Spend to Save – with the cap divided pro rata between the Core Programme and Named Projects. This should be done on a rolling three year basis. 5.2 The Core Programme should have the cap on Core divided pro rata across the Core Programme, based on groupings of asset classes with one Head of Service responsible for all asset classes with the grouping. 5.3 Named Projects should be prioritised and the Projects from the highest rank downwards included until the cap is reached. Author of Report: Lorraine Paisey, Chief Financial Officer Background Papers: Ref: SPMAN-1293228629-1158 Page 68