CARDIFF PARTNERSHIP BOARD SCRUTINY PANEL

Wednesday, 21 March, 2012

WhitchurchHospital. 11.30am – 2.00pm

Present:

Scrutiny Panel Members:

Mark Brace, Performance Manager, South Wales PoliceAuthority

Nick Corrigan Director of Media Academy Cardiff – Representing Cardiff Third Sector Council (C3SC) in his role as Vice Chair of C3SC

Eirian Evans Interim head of Practice Transformation, Wales Probation Trust

Cllr Bill KellowayChair of Cardiff Council Children and Young Peoples Scrutiny Committee

Cllr Dianne ReesChair of CardiffCouncil Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee

Paul Warren Director of Policy and Planning, Diverse Cymru – Representing Cardiff and Vale Equality and Human Rights Network

CPB Board Members:

Jacqueline BellChief Executive C3SC

Peter GreenhillAssistant Chief Officer Wales Probation Trust

Sharon HopkinsExecutive Director of Public Health Cardiff and Vale UHB

Sarah McGill Corporate Chief Officer (Communities)

June MilliganDirector General, Local Government and Communities Welsh Government

AlunThomas Chief Superintendant, South Wales Police

Cardiff Council Officers:

Mike DaviesHead of Scrutiny, Performance and Improvement

Val DaviesCommittee Administrator

Rachel JonesOperational Manager, Partnerships and Citizen Focus

Paul KeepingOperational Manager(Scrutiny Services)

Sheena LawsonPartnership and Policy Team Manager

Emma RobinsonPartnership & Policy Support Officer

Emyr WilliamsPrincipal Scrutiny Officer

Apologies:

Cllr Ralph CookChair of CardiffCouncil Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee

Jon House Chief Executive of Cardiff Council and Chair of the CPB

Cllr Mohammed Sarul IslamChair of Cardiff council Economy and Culture Scrutiny Committee

Lesley Jones, Cardiff and Vale Community Health Council

John LittlechildSouth Wales Police Authority

CllrSimon WakefieldChair of CardiffCouncil Environmental Scrutiny Committee

  1. PRESENTATION ON THE CARDIFF PARTNERSHIP BOARD

Rachel Jones (Operational Manager Partnerships and Citizen Focus, Cardiff Council) gave a detailed presentation and responded to questions. The presentation was circulated to Members for information.

RJ recapped on the Partnership arrangements in 2010 and demonstrated the complexity of the previous arrangements.

Reference was made to the ‘What Matters’ Strategy which is based on delivering 7 outcomes, and which shapes Cardiff over the next 10 years.

Business Intelligence shows that:

  • Spatial variation not changed in 15 years;
  • More than ever Cardiff is a city of two halves;
  • The very poorest have rapidly increased in number over recent years and
  • continue to do so;
  • Almost one in five (18%) Cardiff residents live in the most income deprived
  • communities in Wales;
  • Income deprivation is the main determinant in most outcomes across thecity.

An outline was given of the Cardiff Neighbourhood Management Model and a copy showing all the partnership arrangements was circulated.

A summary was given of the Cardiff Partnership Board including its membership and details of the eight agreed programmes and associate workstreams. Examples of Programme Highlight Reports, Activity Report Cards and Action Plans were provided for information. The Cardiff Partnership Board held its first meeting in November 2011.

Strategic leadership in the form of the Proud Capital Leadership Group takes an overarching long term view of the direction of travel for the city. The Group had met on two occasions – 13 January 2012 to consider the challenges facing young people not in education, employment and training, and 15 March 2012 to consider Sustainable Transport in the city region.

In conclusion an outline was given of the issues for consideration including:-

  • New Programmes (arrangements still becoming established);
  • Some workstreams/activities more advanced than others;
  • Buy-in required from Senior Responsible Officers (SROs) and WorkstreamLeads;
  • Culture change;
  • Mainstreaming & alignment with other performance reporting (IHSC)
  • Programme/ESTYN/Core Business;
  • Expectations (including Welsh Government)
  1. INTRODUCTIONS

Mike Davies, Head of Scrutiny, Performance and Improvementat Cardiff Council opened the meeting and invited CPB Members and CPB Scrutiny Panel Members to introduce themselves and briefly outline how they considered the CPB Scrutiny Panel could add value to the work of the CPB.

Following the introductions, the CPB Board Members left the meeting prior to the formal part of the CPB Scrutiny Panel Meeting.

  1. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR

Paul Warren was proposed by Councillor Bill Kelloway and seconded by Councillor Dianne Rees as Chairperson.

RESOLVED:

(A)That Paul Warren be elected as Chairperson of the Cardiff Partnership Board Scrutiny Panel.

(B)That election of a Vice-Chairperson be deferred to the next Panel meeting.

  1. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Panel discussed the draft Terms of Reference that had been considered at the meeting of the CPB on 18 January 2012. Concern was expressed that there was no specific mechanism in the terms of reference with regard to public accessibility of reports. It was suggested that the Panel make arrangements for an Annual Report to the Board with a copy to Council. Reference was made to the penultimate bullet point “to submit reports, via an appropriate Scrutiny Committee of Cardiff Council, to the Board and make recommendations on measures which may enhance the impact of the Board”.

It was noted that the previous LSB Scrutiny Panel reported through Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee, but as the structure of the Council’s Scrutiny Committees would not be known until after the May 2012 Council elections discussions as to the most appropriate Scrutiny Committee would not take place until the next meeting.

RESOLVED – That subject to the above, the Terms of Reference be approved.

  1. CONTEXT SETTING

In March 2007, Cardiff was identified as one of the six development areas for Local Service Boards (LSBs) to improve partnership and collaboration amongst statutory and third sector services in Cardiff.

The LSB ran a pilot multi-agency LSB Scrutiny Panel project from September 2008 to March 2010, facilitated by Cardiff Council Scrutiny Services. The Council provided project management support and seconded an existing scrutiny officer to act as the LSB Scrutiny Officer, resourced via WAG Scrutiny Development Fund and in-house match funding. The LSB Scrutiny pilot was considered a success and won a scrutiny award from the Centre for Public Scrutiny in recognition of its work.

An outline was given of the highlights from evaluations of the previous LSB Scrutiny including (i) What was felt to be effective from the previous LSB scrutiny and (ii) What lessons can be learnt.

Key factors impacting the work of the new CPBScrutiny Panel includethe reduction in resources to support the Panel. Although this would not have a direct impact on the support to Panel Members it will impact on the number of items that can be effectively scrutinised at each meeting. Other factors include:-

  • The number of CPB work stream activities and the new performance management systems;
  • Other avenues for scrutiny;
  • The wider partnership agenda;
  • The current status of CPB work stream activities.

In conclusion an outline was given of the potential impact of the above factors on the CPB Scrutiny Panel and the benefits the CPB Scrutiny Panel could bring by focusing on the work of the CPB itself rather than the detail of individual work stream activities. Bearing in mind the reduction in the resources supporting the Panel it was suggested that the most effective scrutiny would be to take an holistic approach particularly looking at how the organisations and partnerships are working together, the effectiveness of the reporting structures, the progress of work at the programme level and how learning and development is shared across the different work streams and programmes.

The Panel were invited to consider the information presented and to agree a way forward for the future scrutiny of the CPB.

The following observations were made by the Panel on the information presented together with a way forward:-

  • With regard to the issue of reduced resources particularly in terms of Officer support, the Chairperson highlighted that it was crucial that Panel members,where possible, attend full meetings and pre-planning meetings. The Panel were advised that although the Officer support was part time there would be flexibility within this. They were advised that there was a possibility of support from the UHB, but to date appropriate support had not been identified. It is important to note that the support must be from someone with appropriate training and skills.
  • It was suggested first and foremost that time should be set aside for the scoping of a work programme, and it would be beneficial for the Panel to have comparisons of how other Scrutiny Panels are working elsewhere across the UK.
  • The Panel were advised that Cardiff Council Scrutiny Officers had been invited to Swansea City Council as they had established a Task and Finish Inquiry to look at the arrangements of their own Scrutiny Panel. It was confirmed that benchmarking and comparing is something that Cardiff would wish to do to find out what is working and the challenges faced in establishing effective arrangements elsewhere.
  • Reference was made to paragraph 17 of the report and concern was expressed that there might be a danger of giving a view without finding out the detail of how things work. With only 4 meetings there would not be sufficient time for a Task and Finish Group to search and inquire, so the Panel must aim at adding value in its scrutiny of the CPB and avoid duplication.
  • Reference was made to the presentation given by Rachel Jones in the first part of the meeting which went some way to support an ‘holistic’ approach, but it is important to ensure that the work impacts on the finer points. The view was expressed that business intelligence is a crucial part of partnership arrangements to identify strengths and weaknesses. With regard to score cards it is important to look at the usability of the scorecards and the outcomes.
  • With regard to added value, the Panel were advised that one of the benefits of Results Based Accountability (RBA) is that you measure how things change and the benefits coming forward. The traffic light system highlights problems without drilling down too much and therefore would allow the Scrutiny Panel to focus on areas of concern (red light).
  • The Panel discussed the timing and format of meetings. It was the general consensus that this would be governed by the volume of business and the capacity of people to spend time at meetings. It was agreed that lengthy meetings over a whole day would not be beneficial as it would be difficult to retain concentration for that length of time. It was suggested that feedback on meetings could be provided on-line which would save time.
  • Reference was made to the work streams of the CPB. Panel members enquired about the type of topics that might be suitable for scrutiny. The fact that the CPB would be meeting on a monthly basis and the Panel on a quarterly basis would have a bearing on the topics the Panel could centre on for scrutiny, and it was suggested that a context report be prepared for the next meeting.
  • With regard to CPB minutes, the Panel were advised that as a matter of course the Panel should receive copies of the highlight reports and minutes because this would give the context into the work being undertaken.
  • It was suggested that a further planning meeting would be required post May 2012 elections in addition to the quarterly meetings.

RESOLVED – That Officers prepare a scoping report for discussion at the next planning meeting on a date to be agreed.

6. POTENTIAL TRAINING AVENUES FOR CPBSCRUTINY PANEL MEMBERS

The Panel were advised that this item had been placed on the agenda for discussion because members on the Panel had different levels of experience. The views of the Panel on training opportunities and development were invited.

The Panel were advised that with regard to RBA a one day bespoke training package was available.

Reference was made to training and development that would be provided post May to newly elected and returning Members some of which might be useful to the Panel.

RESOLVED – That the Principal Scrutiny Officer discuss with Panel Members their individual training needs and investigate how Elected Member Development training might fit in, and to report back to the next meeting of the Panel.

7. FUTURE MEETINGS

RESOLVED – That the Principal Scrutiny Officer in consultation with Panel Members, diarise times and dates of future meetings of the Panel.

The meeting closed at 2pm.

8. Action Points:

Action / Person / Persons Responsible
A scoping paper of potential areas to scrutinise to be produced for the work programme meeting to be held after the May elections. This should be considered alongside the context setting paper to help target a work programme which can add most value to the work of the CPB. / EW
Vice chair to be elected in the next formal meeting of the Panel once the full membership is clear. / CPB Panel
Distribute highlight reports to Panel members as soon as they are available. / EW
Liaise with Panel members to discuss potential training avenues for panel member development / EW
Arrange date of future meetings once membership has been finalised post May elections / EW
Distribute Terms of reference including procedures and rules / EW

1