Minutes:
The Chief Executive attended the meeting to update the Sub-Committee concerning commissioning and changing organisational structure.
The Chief Executive stated that he was very encouraged by the update provided by the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Education, Care and Health around joint commissioning with the CCG. He was also very pleased with the excellent work that had taken place regarding the development of the Contracts Database. He was confident that this work would continue to successfully evolve and this would help the organisation to develop a strong control discipline. It was important that attitudes and behaviours were adaptable and flexible. He referenced changes that had taken place with respect to ECHS, and expressed the view that these were significant.
The Chief Executive was encouraged to see that LBB were harnessing new talent when required, and this would bring in new skills, knowledge, competence and experience to the organisation. He was also pleased to see a positive change in culture evolving and developing, and was confident that LBB possessed the right people with the right disciplines. The Chief Executive said that he was looking for rigour in operational and strategic management and for corporate discipline.
The Chief Executive remarked that he was comfortable with the current position of the organisation, and its ability to deliver corporately. The problems that had been faced by the organisation with respect to Children’s Services had been difficult, but in the longer term the organisation had benefited from the hard learning that had taken place.
With respect to being a ‘commissioning authority’, the Chief Executive stressed that he tended not to focus on the concept of outsourcing, but more on the issue of getting value for money. Because VFM was crucial, it was important that efficient systems for contract monitoring were in place.
The Chairman asked if it was possible to provide an accurate definition of the term ‘Commissioning Authority’. The Chief Executive stated that core principles of being a commissioning authority would include working out who was best placed to provide a particular service, and how the organisation could achieve VFM in all that it did.
The Chairman was pleased to note that training for Contract Managers was now mandatory. He asked the Chief Executive that given the changes that had taken place in ECHS, did he now feel that LBB had the required skill sets to address the issues that had previously been identified. The Chief Executive responded that he was confident that ECHS did now possess the requisite skill sets, but there would naturally be a period of embedding. More use of Section 75 agreements may be required, but he was confident that LBB now possessed greater flexibility in teams and in corporate rigour generally.
The Chairman raised the issue of how Members could ensure democratic oversight of the newly emerging organisation, as this was their responsibility.
A Member commented that LBB had always been a commissioning authority to some extent. He noted that mention had been made of a small cohort that had not accepted the commissioning agenda, and asked how this could be addressed. The Chief Executive answered that if there were staff that could not accept the positive ways that the organisation was evolving and developing, they may like to consider leaving the organisation. If training was required, then it would be provided.
The matter of inviting organisations and contractors to attend scrutiny committees was discussed. It was noted that LBB could call upon the CCG or the PRUH to give an account at any time. The general consensus of the Sub-Committee was that it was good and necessary to ask contractors to attend PDS scrutiny meetings so that the services provided by the contractors could be scrutinised. A Member stated that the Contracts Sub-Committee looked at contract management, whilst PDS Committees looked at contract performance. He expressed the view that LBB should incorporate a clause in its contracts to ensure that the Chief Executives of contractor organisations were accountable to LBB, and were liable to be called to give account to PDS Committees when required. The Chief Executive agreed with this.
The Director of Commissioning clarified that all LBB contracts had a clause written in to them stating that either a Director or a responsible officer for the organisation may need to attend a Council meeting if required.
A Member raised the issue of statutory and legal obligations where services had been commissioned out. He cited a hypothetical scenario where a contractor organisation had taken over the running of the library service, (which was a statutory Council service). He stated that if the contractor organisation went into administration, then that would mean that LBB would be in default of its statutory obligation to provide a library service. The Chief Executive clarified that statutory obligations in these circumstances remained with the Council, and that the Client Team would manage the contract. Options would be available to the Council—Business Continuity contingency plans would normally be incorporated into contracts as a matter of course.
A Member cited the real example of a situation that had developed previously with respect to Children’s Services, and a company called ‘Connexions’. In this case the service was brought back in to the Council.
Similarly, the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Education, Care and Health explained that if a Care Home was closing, then the Council would step in. The law was clear that LBB could deploy staff and take charge.
A Member asked the Chief Executive if he was still concerned about the duplication of work by committees. The Chief Executive responded that he still had some concerns, and was still looking for streamlining. The Member suggested that discussions should take place with the Chief Executive to ensure that work was not duplicated.
A Member expressed the view that PDS Committees were not scrutinising properly with the exception of Audit. It was pointed out that Audit scrutinised ‘after the event’. A Member disagreed with the statement that PDS Committees were not scrutinising properly. The Chairman commented that there was a need for more existing Members (and any new Members that were elected in the next round of local council elections) to receive contract monitoring training.
A Member suggested that in the next Induction Programme for Members, it should include training on contracts, corporate parenting and procurement. It was noted that the Director of Corporate Services was working on a new Induction Training Programme for new councillors.
RESOLVED that the update from the Chief Executive on Commissioning and Changing Organisational Culture be noted.