Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Kit Taylor.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by e-mail indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 16 March 2016).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address below.

None.

(previously circulated)

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 24 February 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board was asked to consider the Vice Chairman's report on scrutiny and quality assurance.  Members were reminded that this item had been deferred from the last meeting.

By way of introduction, the Vice Chairman made the following points:

·       Scrutiny currently did not have a full understanding of quality assurance methods in the County Council.  Worcestershire was not alone in this.  It was an issue for all Councils.

·       Following work last year with CfPS, the original idea had been to set up a separate member group to look at quality assurance.  On further consideration, it was agreed that the people who were best placed to look at quality assurance were members of scrutiny panels.

·       It was important for scrutiny members to know what information was available and what they could ask for.

·       Appendix 1 to the agenda report outlined a starting point for each directorate and should be seen as a first draft of how this work could be taken forward.

The Chairman expressed his thanks to the Vice Chairman for the work she had done on quality assurance and informed members of the Board that he fully supported the recommendations as set out on page 5 of the agenda.  Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were made:

·       It was suggested that quality assurance methods should be embedded in the management of each department of the Council.  The Vice Chairman reminded members that each directorate had quality assurance staff and robust quality assurance methods.  Members were referred to the details given in the appendix to the agenda report.

·       In response to a question about how scrutiny panels will know if they have been successful, it was suggested that this would be different for each panel.  Following initial training, panel chairmen would be able to report back to OSPB whether they felt that the level of quality assurance was effective and whether it made a difference.  All scrutiny reports should include a section on the quality of the service.

·       It was confirmed that the Vice Chairman would continue to be the OSPB member with responsibility for Quality Assurance.

·       Members were reminded that the Children's Services Directorate had set up a Performance Board which looked at outcomes in relation to education, skills and social care.  This focused on quantitative measures, rather than the quality of the service.  Similarly, the Balanced Scorecard did not focus on service quality.

·       It was suggested that it was very difficult to measure quality and there was a danger that measurement could become very mechanistic.

·       It was suggested that. If done well, this would allow scrutiny members to have access to information that they had not seen before, allowing members to see where things were going wrong, the level of risk and the actions being taken to reduce the risks.  Members would be able to see whether there were mechanisms in place to protect the most vulnerable residents.

·       It was suggested that, for this to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 912.

The Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board was asked to:

(a)   Review the progress made in delivering the 2016/17 Overview and Scrutiny work programme consultation exercise;

(b)   Decide if any further action is required in preparing the Overview and Scrutiny work programme report for consideration by OSPB and then full Council.

The Democratic Governance Manager updated members on progress to date in delivering the overview and scrutiny work programme consultation, making the following main points:

·       A consultation website was due to go live on 21 March.  This would facilitate collection of suggestions from members of the public and Council officers.

·       A programme of media work to publicise the website was also planned.

·       As part of the March round of Panel meetings, all O&S Panels and HOSC were being asked for suggestions for scrutiny topics.

·       All County Councillors had also been invited to send in suggestions as individuals, covering any aspect of the Council's work.

·       A further report would be brought to OSPB in April giving the results of all consultations.  The draft work programme would then be considered at the May Council meeting.

·       It was suggested that it might be more effective for each Panel Chairman to ask for suggestions for scrutiny topics from the public.  In response, members were reminded that, to date, there had not been a great deal of public engagement in the Council's scrutiny work, so this should be seen as a starting point.  Planning for next year was already underway and this should be seen as an ongoing process throughout the year.

The Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board was asked to:

(a)   Receive an update on emerging issues and developments within the particular remit of each member of the OSPB, including an update on each Overview and Scrutiny Panel and Task Group;

(b)   Consider the Council's latest Forward Plan in order to identify:

·       Any items it would wish to consider further at a future meeting; and

·       Any items it would wish to refer to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel for further consideration;

(c)   Receive a verbal update from the Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager on the Overview and Scrutiny Budget 2015/16.

Adult Care and Well-Being O&S Panel

The Chairman informed members that the Panel had invited 'Stand up for Care' (a local campaign group) to attend its next meeting.  Members wanted to hear their concerns and question them on their views, seeing themselves as a conduit between services users and providers.  The date for this meeting had yet to be confirmed.  It was confirmed that this organisation represented adults only.

Concern was expressed that there was a danger that the public was becoming 'consultation weary' as public consultations often did not result in real change.  The Board was reminded that the forthcoming Panel meeting should not be seen as consultation, but rather as 'triangulation'.  It would be interesting to see why those attending felt it necessary to set up a campaign group and what they saw as the issues needing attention.

The Panel had also held a useful meeting on the previous day.  Firstly, this had looked at the performance of support services for those with drug and alcohol problems.  The Panel had been concerned to hear that the current rate of success was approximately 4%.  The Panel met representatives of the recently appointed new provider and also 2 former service users.

It was suggested that the briefing on drug and alcohol support services duplicated the work of the proposed scrutiny task group.  In response, members were reminded that, due to staffing issues within the scrutiny team and the fact that the Commissioning: Staff Terms and Conditions scrutiny task group had not yet completed its work, there had been a delay in starting the task group on drug and alcohol services.  The discussion at the Adult Care and Well-Being O&S Panel should be seen as a starting point for the task group's work.  It was confirmed that several members of HOSC had expressed an interest in becoming a member of the task group and it would now be possible to take the work forward.

The Panel had also discussed a consultant's report on the state of the care marketplace in Worcestershire.  The Chairman reported that the original plan had been to hold this discussion in private but he had challenged that.  He expressed concern that the Panel had not been able to see the consultant's report and, as yet, there was no date given as to when the report would be released.  The Panel had also been concerned about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 914.