Agenda and minutes

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

There were no late items.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests.

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes.

Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillors C Dobson and R Wood.  Notification had been received that Councillor M Harland was to substitute for Councillor C Dobson.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2016.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2016 be approved as a correct record.

To receive a report from the Head of Service ICT providing the information required to undertake session three of the Board’s Inquiry into ICT capacity.

The Head of Service delivery ICT submitted a report which addressed the areas of focus for the second session of the ICT Inquiry, namely:

·  Review of current ICT service level agreement (hours of cover, availability) and whether this is appropriate given an increasing demand and expectation from services for extended or even 24 hrs x 7 days x 365 days a year services.

·  Review previous investment decisions in relation to system resilience/support and whether further investment may be required to support increased demand for extended or even 24x7x365 services.

·  Review of systems that have to be shut down for overnight processing (or other reasons) and the impact this causes.

·  Review whether business continuity arrangements in service areas (to deal with unexpected or planned system downtime) are sufficient and effective.

The following were in attendance:

-  Dylan Roberts, Chief Information Officer

-  Bev Fisher, Head of Service Delivery

-  David Pearson, Service Development Manager.

Opening the discussion, the Chair invited the Head of Service Delivery to briefly introduce her report.

In summary, the main areas of discussion were:

·  The management of planned maintenance and the need to ensure that such maintenance can be cancelled in the event of an incident.

·  The capital investment made to improve resilience.

·  Actions taken to improve cyber security.

·  Performance against service level agreement.

·  Actions to be taken to address areas of weaker performance, particularly service desk and incident management.

A discussion was also held on ICT resilience during the recent floods and issues around the former Vodafone contract.

Concluding the discussion the Chair and Head of Scrutiny provided a summary of the main recommendations arising from the Board’s Inquiry.  These would be drafted into a statement from the Board.

RESOLVED –

(a)  To receive and note the information provided to address session 3 of the inquiry.

(b)  That the Board be provided with the Chief Digital officer’s report on cyber security.

(c)  That the recommendations and observation arising out the Board’s work in this matter be drafted into a final report.

To receive a report from the Director of Adult Social Services informing Scrutiny Board of the work of an internal review and its findings of the strategic commissioning function that covers adult social care, public health and children’s services.

The Director of Adult Social Services submitted a report detailing the work and findings of an internal review of the strategic commissioning function.

The following were in attendance:

-  Councillor James Lewis, Executive Board Member (Resources and Strategy)

-  Cath Roff, Director of Adult Social Services

-  Bridget Emery, Chief Officer (Strategy and Commissioning)

-  Mick Ward, Chief Officer (Commissioning)

-  Paul Bollom, Head of Service (Commissioning and Market Management).

Opening the discussion the Chair advised that the impetus for this Scrutiny Board to look at how the Council Commissions Services was the level of spend annually in this area.  The Board’s initial focus was on looking at the principles, benefits and practicalities of developing a centralised commissioning hub, the purpose of which would be to ensure services are commissioned consistently across the Council based on the evidence of what works and what is value for money.  Members of the Board were open-minded as to whether this model would work in Leeds but felt that the concept should be explored.

The Director of Adult Social Services outlined the direction of travel proposed by a cross-directorate working party of senior officers and asked the Board to support its recommendation of the establishment of a Corporate Strategic Commissioning Group and for it to be chaired by a Director and also to support that this Corporate Strategic Commissioning Group set up a cross-directorate Operational Group to be chaired by a Head of Commissioning.

The main areas of discussion were;

·  The project mandate given by the Corporate Leadership Team to review of all the functions of the Council that undertake the commissioning of service that provide care and support.

·  The methodology used by the review group.

·  The new approach of place-based systems of care with commissioning being both strategic and integrated, based on long-term contracts tied to the delivery of defined outcomes.

·  Options to include user representation.

·  The absence within the proposal of other directorates involved in commissioning.

·  The need for firm contract management.

·  The anticipated savings generated by the proposed model.

·  The relative merits of the approach recommended and the establishment of a single commissioning unit.

The Board, at this stage, did not give its endorsement to the proposal put

forward by the cross-directorate review group on the grounds that it was not persuaded by the argument put forward that this model would achieve “the best of both worlds: a good strategic overview and opportunity to think about commissioning in a different way without the fragmentation that a structural solution, .i.e. a single commissioning unit would create”.  The Board agreed that the Chair would write to the Chief Executive inviting him to a future meeting of the Board to discuss this further.

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the Board would not endorse the recommendation put forward in the report.

(b)  That the Chair write to the Chief Executive outlining the views of the Board and invite him to a future meeting of the Board.

To consider the Scrutiny Board’s work schedule for 2015/16 municipal year.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report which provided information regarding the Board’s work schedule.

RESOLVED – That the Board’s work schedule be noted.

Monday, 25 April 2016 at 10.00am (pre-meeting for all Board Members at 9.30am)

Monday 25 April 2016 at 10.00am (Pre-meeting for all Board Members at 9.30am)

The meeting concluded at 12.20pm