Agenda item

a)    To receive and endorse the following Scoping Document:-

 

Capturing the Performance of Leicester’s Heritage and Culture (Heritage, Culture, Leisure and Sport Scrutiny Commission) (Appendix D1);

 

b)    To receive and endorse the following reports of reviews carried out by Scrutiny Commissions:-

 

i)             The Historical Context of Ofsted Inspection of Services for Children in Need of Care and Protection – January 2015  (Children, Young People and Schools Scrutiny Commission) (Appendix D2)

 

Please note that the legal implications to the report contain exempt information and are attached for Members only. The paper is marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”. The information in this paper will be exempt as defined in paragraphs 5 of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended and it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The information therefore must not be disclosed or discussed at the meeting. Should Members wish to refer to any of these details it is recommended that the meeting move to exclude the Press and Public during its consideration.

 

Paragraph 5: Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

 

ii)            Adult Social Care Community Screening and Assessment (Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission) (Appendix D3)

 

iii)           Primary Care Workforce Draft Report (Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission) ( Appendix D4)

The Committee were asked to receive and endorse the following scoping document and reports of reviews from scrutiny commissions as follows:

 

Capturing the performance of Leicester’s heritage and culture: The Heritage, Culture, Leisure and Sport Scrutiny Commission – Scoping Document

 

Councillor Dr Barton, Chair of the commission presented the scoping document and explained that at a time when many local authorities were making cuts, they believed that Leicester’s heritage and culture encouraged growth and investment in the city. For the next stage they hoped to focus on the social benefits and the impact on health and well-being.

 

AGREED:

                        that the scoping document be endorsed.

 

Historical Context of Ofsted Inspection of Services for Children in Need of Care and Protection – January 2015: Report of the Children, Young People and Schools’ Scrutiny Commission

 

The Head of Law provided advice to the committee and reminded members that the report was anonymised and that comments needed to be directed towards processes. Members were subject to the law of defamation and they needed to ensure that they were not addressing individuals. 

 

Councillor Dr Moore, Chair of the commission introduced the report and with the sanction of the Chair of the Overview Select Committee invited the Vice Chair of the commission to participate in the discussion.  Councillor Dr Moore stated that the Task Group conclusions largely echoed those of Ofsted and there were some issues that she was exploring with the Strategic Director of Children’s Services. She was having meetings with the Strategic Director and together they had developed a good relationship. The Task Group had also found it useful to familiarise themselves with the service.

 

Councillor Senior commented that the report contained a series of statements which were not evidenced and because of the way it was written she was not able to endorse the report. Councillor Willmott expressed concern relating to the credibility of the report and stated that Councillor Dr Moore had acknowledged a bias towards those people that the Task Group had spoken to. He added that in his view the report was disappointing in that it did not demonstrate anything that was not already known.

 

Councillor Porter sought clarification as to how the report would help children in the future. He added that before the election, queries were raised as to whether the review was driven by the need to make savings. This was denied at the time, but this report stated that the review was undertaken because of the need to make savings.

 

Councillor Patel commented that it was important that people who wanted to give evidence to the Task Group were able to do so; not everybody wished to avail themselves of this opportunity. She felt that the recommendations were workable and she congratulated Councillor Dr Moore on developing a constructive relationship with the Strategic Director.

 

Councillor Dempster thanked the Task Group for their hard work in producing the report and stated that she had found it helpful to have the opportunity to talk to the Task Group.  In terms of the Safeguarding Board, she said that this was a multi-agency Board and safeguarding was everyone’s responsibility. A piece of work had not yet been carried out on the Safeguarding Board and the Councillor Dempster suggested that the Children, Young People and Schools’ Scrutiny Commission might wish to ask for interim reports from the Board in future rather than one annual report.

 

Councillor Dempster referred to Risk Management and stated that it would be useful to have more details in the Risk Management reports; with clarity on how change could be managed. She commented that the council needed to manage change better. In respect of Liquid Logic; this new system could now produce increasingly detailed data and the interpretation of that data was extremely important. Councillor Dempster suggested that this might also be something that the Children, Young People and Schools Commission might wish to scrutinise.

 

Councillor Dempster also suggested that the Chair of the Children’s Scrutiny should be a member of the Children’s Improvement Board. Previously councillors had been members of the Education Improvement Board and she felt that this had been proven to be effective.

 

Councillor Dempster then referred to the recruitment and retention of social workers. Social Workers who worked in child protection had a very challenging job and often received negative press and abuse. She asked members to recognise the very difficult job that they had.

 

Councillor Cole, Vice Chair of Children, Young People and Schools’ Scrutiny Commission referred to the report and stated that he had been a member of the commission at the time of the Ofsted inspection and he had not been aware of the problems then. The review had identified that changes had been taking place but the system at the time did not deliver and had presented problems for the social workers who subsequently resigned. At the time, changes were not managed as well as they should have been, but situation had since improved. 

 

Councillor Chaplin, referred to bullet point 5 of the recommendations which said that Scrutiny Chairs should take responsibility for checking that minutes taken of each scrutiny meeting were full and accurate. Councillor Chaplin asked Councillor Dr Moore to amend this to read that all members should check the minutes for accuracy, as this was the committee’s collective responsibility.  Councillor Chaplin also queried whether staff had found the report helpful and one which would make a difference.

 

Councillor Dr Moore was invited to respond to the comments and queries raised. She thanked the Head of Law and everyone who had helped with the Task Group review and made a number of points including the following:

 

·         When the review was started, the Task Group did not know what people would say. At the advice of the Head of Law, some information had to be redacted and appendices had to be excluded. The appendices had contained evidence which could therefore not be provided.

 

·         Concerns had been expressed that the trade unions and elected Members had not had an opportunity to respond. Councillor Dr Moore confirmed that they had been invited to respond, and their response and her replies to them were available for people to see.

 

·         In relation to how the report would help in the future; change was happening but the pace of that change was slow. In respect of this, Councillor Dr Moore was having one-to-one meetings with the Strategic Director.

 

·         There had been an unplanned inevitable bias because some people chose not to talk to the Task Group and therefore there was no evidence from them for the Task Group to consider.

 

·         The Task Group fully supported the social workers in what was a very difficult job. The review was not a criticism of them.

 

·         In respect of Councillor Chaplin’s comments relating to checking of the minutes being a collective responsibility of the committee; she would be happy to amend the recommendation accordingly.

 

The Task Group were thanked for their work on the report. Councillor Dr Moore added that she hoped that the report would add value and she believed that the council were now in a better informed position.

 

The Chair concluded the discussion. Councillor Willmott moved that the Task Group review be rejected. Councillor Senior seconded the proposal and commented that in her view, the review was not evidenced. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was not carried. Councillor Chaplin abstained from the vote. 

 

Members then voted to endorse the Task Group review and upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

 

AGREED:

1)    That bullet point five of the Task Group report into The Historical Context of Ofsted Inspection of services for Children in Need of Care and Protection  - January 2015 be amended to read that all Members of the commissions should take responsibility for checking that minutes of each scrutiny meeting are full and accurate; and

 

2)    Subject to the above amendment, the report be endorsed and forwarded to the Executive for a response.

 

Adult Social Care Community Screening and Assessment – A review report of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission.

 

Councillor Cleaver, Chair of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission presented the report. She explained that the adult social care services had suffered from extensive cuts in the last few years and the commission wanted to look at practical ways in which the impact on the service could be reduced without additional costs being incurred.  The commission considered how the council could better work with services in the community to prevent people from unnecessarily accessing the adult social care statutory services, when there might be something more suitable for them elsewhere. 

 

The Chair thanked all who had been involved in the review with particular thanks to B-Inspired for their contribution to the study.

 

AGREED:

that the review report on Adult Social Care Screening and Assessment be forwarded to the Executive for a response.

 

Primary Care Workforce – A draft review report of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission

 

Councillor Chaplin, Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission presented the draft report and explained that it was not yet finalised due to the ongoing crisis with GP services in the south of the city. The crisis there had highlighted issues with workforce planning and showed the impact the current crisis was having in terms of patient experience. The Deputy City Mayor had called a Primary Care Summit later in the year and the commission had prioritised the review in preparation for that summit to help inform the partners and agencies attending.  Within the key recommendations there were some for the Health and Wellbeing Board, and the Deputy City Mayor had asked for the Board to take up these issues more strategically with the summit.

 

Councillor Chaplin stated that much had been said about the need to make Leicester known as a place to work and while initiatives were ongoing in this regard, more needed to be done to promote Leicester both nationally and internationally.

 

The Deputy City Mayor welcomed the review stating that it was a good piece of scrutiny which responded to a real issue. He added that the summit was needed to get people together to manage the challenge. It was important to recognise that people were leaving the country and working elsewhere in order to obtain a better work life balance. The Deputy City Mayor added that he was grateful for the report.

AGREED:

that the report be endorsed and forwarded to the Executive for a response once finalised.

 

The committee heard that there were two further review reports had been completed and were due to go to their relevant commission meetings shortly.

 

These reports were as follows:

 

1)    The Impact of gambling on vulnerable communities – Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission; and

 

2)    The use of bus lanes in the city – Economic Development, Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission.

 

As this was the last meeting of the Overview Select Committee (OSC) for the municipal year, Members agreed that to avoid delaying the reports, they would go, following formal approval by the Chair of OSC, to the Executive for a response and then come back to the OSC for endorsement in the new municipal year. It was further agreed that any additional finalised scrutiny commission review reports that had not yet been endorsed by the committee, would be treated in the same way.

 

AGREED:

1)    that the review reports into the impact of gambling on vulnerable communities and the use of bus lanes in the city be forwarded to the Executive for a response; and

 

2)      that any other finalised reports that had not yet been endorsed by the OSC, subject to formal approval by the committee’s Chair, be forwarded to the Executive for a response and brought back to the OSC for endorsement in the new municipal year.