Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially to those attending the group for the first time.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Gary Hall (Chief Executive, Chorley Council), Councillor Hasina Khan (Chorley Council), County Councillor Tony Martin (Lancashire County Council), Sakthi Karunanithi (Lancashire County Council), Stephanie Tuft (Age Well Champion), Chief Inspector Tracie O’Gara (Lancashire Constabulary), John Buck (Lancashire Fire and Rescue), Sue Moore (Lancashire Care NHS Trust), Janet Hodgson (Runshaw College), Gill Dalton (Department for Work and Pensions), Allan Jones (Business Representative), and Chris Sinnott (Project Director).

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Chorley Public Service Reform Board held on 21^st April 2015 to be confirmed as a correct record.

There were no matters arising.

3.Purpose of report

3.1 This report sets out the progress made on the refresh of the Chorley Public Service Reform Board, and sets out recommendations for the Board to take decisions on.   Since the last meeting on April 21, activity has been undertaken to review progress with partners and to develop solutions to some of the issues that have prevented progress in the first year of this partnership.  These solutions are presented in this report as recommendations, and the Board are asked to work through this report and make decisions on the recommendations as set out.  Some of the recommendations require a fundamental shift in thinking and commitment to change working in partnership - it is an opportunity to start a step change in the way we work together across public services for the people of Chorley.

Sarah James advised that the agenda set out progress made on the refresh of the Chorley Public Service Reform Board, and proposed recommendations for the Board to take decisions on. Since the last meeting on April 21^st activity has been undertaken to review progress with partners and to develop solutions to some of the issues that have prevented progress in the first year of this partnership.

These solutions are presented in as recommendations, and the board were asked to work through these and make decisions on the recommendations set out, giving consideration to how the Board operates, bringing together principles and proposals, and how partners engage with the programme of activity. Some of the recommendations require a fundamental shift in thinking and commitment to change working in partnership.

4.1 The ‘Review and Proposals for the Future Report’ was presented at the Public Service Reform Board meeting on 21st April, and is provided to remind partners of the context and background for change.  The overview of the report states that;

‘The purpose of this report is to enable the Chorley Public Service Reform Board to reflect on their current performance within the context of recommendations for change from both the Board itself and from the outcome of the independent Commission on the Future of Public Services in Chorley.

The report includes a discussion on options for change that could be made to improve the performance and productivity of the Board.

It is requested that the Board consider this report and the options to start a discussion about their future governance, aims and work programme’

4.2  The report is attached at Appendix A, for information only

The ‘Review and Proposals for the Future Report’ was presented at the Public Service Reform Board meeting on 21st April, and was provided to remind partners of the context and background for change. The report was presented for information purposes only.

5.1 Following the presentation of the Report above on April 21, a process was undertaken to engage with partners on the future of the Reform Board.  This paper summarises the discussions that have taken place with partner organisations, and how changes have been developed as a result.

5.2 The report is attached at Appendix B, for information only.

Sarah James advised that further to the board on 21^st April, a process was undertaken to engage with partners on the future of the Reform Board.  A paper to summarise the discussions that have taken place with partner organisations, and how the changes have been developed as a result was presented for information purposes only.

The discussions covered three key areas:

1.    Function - Clarity and shared understanding of what we are trying to change – what do we want to achieve? This has included the vision of the Board and work priorities.

2.    Form - Structures to enable change – how do we need to be organised to achieve that change? This has included the governance of the board.

3.    Commitment – what do we all need to commit to in order to make that change. This has included an understanding of the resources available in terms of staff and budgets.

The outcomes of the discussions were reflected in the Terms of Reference presented.

6.1 Through this process, we have sought to update the structure and process through which we do our business.  These refreshed terms of reference are presented for consideration of the Board.

6.2 They are attached at Appendix C.  In particular, decisions are required on the following;

Decision Point 1 – Do Partners agree to approve the new Terms of Reference?  With particular consideration given to;

a.    Purpose of partnership

b.    Structure

c.    Governance and Accountability

d.    Operating Arrangements

Sarah James presented the Terms of Reference with a proposed refreshed structure, and new purpose which states “We will work together to integrate and reconfigure public services in Chorley to provide the best outcomes for residents.”

The Public Service Reform Board, will look to become an Executive Board who will implement the strategic vision and direct work of the partnership, as well as ensuring measurable outputs are being delivered. The leader of the District Council will act as Chair.

There will be a new group established to pick up lessons learned from task and finish groups last year, with the aim to have consistent membership and commitment from partner organisations. The Public Service Reform Implementation Group will deliver the aims of the vision, assume a portfolio, and manage performance, reporting to the Executive.

Both groups will meet on a monthly basis.

To increase governance and scrutiny, a Public Service Reform Board will be in place, meeting bi-annually, which will hold the Executive to account. The Public Service Reform Board Executive would also be held to account by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in Chorley Council. This would also ensure that the activity from the Executive was subject to public scrutiny.

Commitment from partners was discussed, including proposals of two levels of partnerships, Full and Affiliated. It was recognised that organisations are in different places in terms of commitment to resources, funding, and organisational structures, and that not all partners are able to give full partnership commitment. Input and support from all partners was welcomed and valued.

It was agreed that as part of the Terms of Reference and additional element to link the Chorley Public Service Reform Board programme with governing bodies of partner organisations should be reflected.

It was also agreed that the practical delivery of the programme will give a significant contribution to partner organisational objectives, and that a link across annual plans would be essential to ensure alignment of strategies, and impact on commissioning reviews.

Clarification on the proposal of having an Independent Chair for the Executive was given, as this was proposed in the Review and Proposals for the Future Report, but following discussions with partners, the Terms of Reference only proposed an Independent Chair for the Public Service Reform Board.

DECISION: Partners agreed to approve the new Terms of Reference, including the wording of the purpose of the partnership; proposed structure; governance and accountability arrangements and operating Arrangements.

7.1 As part of the proposed terms of reference, the new structure contains within it two levels of membership – full and affiliated partner status. These are presented within the terms of reference at table 2.

7.2 In order to make progress, we need to understand which level of partnership each organisation is able to commit to.  It is worth noting at this stage that a step change in the delivery of public services will be very difficult without full partner commitments from the main public sector stakeholders, as recognised in the Commission proceedings and the Away Day report (Appendix B).

7.3 A sample Statement of Commitment is attached at Appendix D.

7.4 Decisions are required from each partner organisation on the following;

Decision Point 2 – Which level of membership will each partner organisation be signing up to – full or affiliated partner?

Sarah James defined the Full and Affiliated partner roles. Partners were asked to confirm their level of commitment.

Full Partners being able to:

·         Commit to fundamentally changing the way they deliver services or operate their organisation to provide the best outcomes for residents of Chorley

·         To commit their organisation to deliver the work programme as agreed – through

o   enabling autonomy of decision making to the designated chief officer representation at the Executive

o   providing a lead officer for the Implementation Group who can be responsible for delivering the work programme on behalf of their organisation and escalate any issues or decisions as necessary within their organisation to ensure progress is made

·         Commit to providing an annual financial contribution of between £10k - £20k towards the programme office costs

·         In engaging in the partnership, they must demonstrate;

o   Collective honesty up front about what is and isn’t deliverable in partnership

o   Openness and transparency about other changes to services or organisational changes that may impact upon public services as a whole

o   Willingness to overcome barriers or challenges

·         Ensure that they are able to engage their wider workforce in changes to public services were necessary

DECISION: Full Partners agreed as:

o   Chorley Borough Council

o   Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service                                                                      

o   Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

o   Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust                                                                           

o   Chorley and South Ribble Clinical Commissioning Group

Affiliated Partners being able to:

·         Commit to giving due consideration to changing the way they deliver services or operate their organisation to provide the best outcomes for residents of Chorley

·         To commit their organisation to support the delivery of the work programme as agreed – through

o   enabling autonomy of decision making to the designated chief officer representation at the Executive

o   providing a lead officer for the Implementation Group who can be responsible for supporting the delivery of the work programme on behalf of their organisation and escalate any issues or decisions as necessary within their organisation to ensure progress is made

·         In engaging in the partnership, they must demonstrate;

o   Collective honesty up front about what is and isn’t deliverable in partnership

o   Openness and transparency about other changes to services or organisational changes that may impact upon public services as a whole

o   Willingness to overcome barriers or challenges

·         Ensure that they are able to engage their wider workforce in changes to public services where necessary

DECISION: Affiliated partners agreed as:

o   Lancashire County Council (to be reviewed in September)

o   Chorley VCFS Network

o   Lancashire Constabulary

o   Department for Work and Pensions                           

Runshaw College to be confirmed at next meeting.                

ACTION: Partners to provide written confirmation of commitment, with representative details and full signatures.

All partners thanked for making the commitments agreed.                                                                                                                                                         

8.1 The proposed terms of reference includes three new advocate roles, the purpose of which is ‘to provide the partnership with a willingness to question and challenge the direction and progress, as well as championing the needs and issues of their particular cohort’.

8.2 These roles will include; Business Advocate, Third Sector Advocate and Community Advocate. They will have a place on the Executive and will work to the following principles;

·         To provide a balance between support and challenge

·         To ask provocative and challenging questions of the partnership

·         To draw on their skills, knowledge and experience to provide a differing perspective and champion the needs and issues of a particular cohort

8.3 The Board are asked to appoint individuals to fill these roles.

Decision Point 3 – To make appointments to the new advocate roles - Business Advocate, Third Sector Advocate and Community Advocate

Sarah James advised that historically these roles have been champion roles.

Three new advocate roles, whose purpose is ‘to provide the partnership with a willingness to question and challenge the direction and progress, as well as championing the needs and issues of their particular cohort’ were proposed.

These roles included; Business Advocate, Third Sector Advocate and Community Advocate. The roles will work to the following principles;

·         To provide a balance between support and challenge

·         To ask provocative and challenging questions of the partnership

·         To draw on their skills, knowledge and experience to provide a differing perspective and champion the needs and issues of a particular cohort

The Board were asked to appoint individuals to fill these roles following nominations.

DECISION: The Community Advocate was agreed as Reverend Martin Cox and the Business Advocate was agreed as Allan Jones. The Third Sector role was agreed to be resolved outside the meeting, ensuring clarity on how this links to the VCFS Partnership Role.

It was agreed to review the structure in 12 months time.

9.1 The proposed terms of reference set out the role of the programme office as; ‘ The programme office will be responsible for ensuring that the partnership is structured and organised to deliver the strategy.  The programme office will be responsible for;

·         Administering the meetings of the Board, Executive, and Implementation Group

·         Providing a central project and performance management function to drive the delivery of the strategy

·         Providing an intelligence and analysis function to develop a robust evidence base to support the strategy

·         Maintaining a risk register and where appropriate escalating risks to delivery

9.2  The requirements in terms of resources that will be required for the programme office, and how it will be spent, cannot be determined until the decisions in this paper are made. There will need to be collective capacity to deliver the work programme. Therefore the Board is asked that work is undertaken following this meeting to develop a model for how this will be organised and resourced and is brought back to their next meeting for approval.

The terms of reference set out the role of the programme office as; ‘ The programme office will be responsible for ensuring that the partnership is structured and organised to deliver the strategy.  The programme office will be responsible for;

·         Administering the meetings of the Board, Executive, and Implementation Group

·         Providing a central project and performance management function to drive the delivery of the strategy

·         Providing an intelligence and analysis function to develop a robust evidence base to support the strategy

·         Maintaining a risk register and where appropriate escalating risks to delivery

The Board agreed that work is undertaken following this meeting to develop a model for how this will be organised and resourced and is brought back to the board, to approve by e-mail, in four weeks time. Any suggestions from the board to develop this function were welcomed.

10.1Through the development of the refreshed terms of reference, discussions have also taken place with partners regarding the focus of public service reform in Chorley and what it will deliver.

10.2A refreshed Chorley Public Service Reform Strategy has been developed, attached at Appendix E. This builds on the foundation workstreams that we have completed in this year, 2014/15, and takes its lead from the discussions at the last away day.

10.3It sets out our purpose, vision and principles, as well as strategic aims for the next three years.  Although the strategy and vision is set to run for five years to give us some more mid – long term sustainability, the focus has been set for the next three years so that it fits with three yearly budget planning and forecasting.

10.4The Board are asked to discuss and approve the draft Strategy

Decision Point 4 – To approve the draft Chorley Public Service Reform Strategy 2015-2020

Sarah James advised that this agenda item covered what we are going to achieve, giving a purpose of the strategy, which will be part of a five year vision.

The three year work plan enables longer term goals, and fit to the principles set out, as well as budget cycles and planning process across partnerships. This would be updated and refreshed on an annual basis.

·         Year One sets out plans to cover Integrated Locality Working, looking at design processes, workforce and including a “perfect locality” element. This will also recognise other reform programme activity at a locality level.

·         Year Two covers integrated provider partnerships, looking at governance and organisational arrangements.

·         Year Three covers Integrated Commissioning, picking up the “Chorley Pound” and how this is spent.

In addition to this, there will be three projects that run across the timeframe:

·         System leadership – how do you become leaders of public services

·         Culture and Workforce – commonality of development programmes and values

·         Data intelligence and sharing – sharing of information and knowledge

Partners were then asked for views on the plan

LCFT fully support the operational plan.

LTHTR advised to link up with Healthier Lancashire and ensure operational plan in terms of health model is aligned, as well as Health and Well Being Board.

CCG advised to consider linking to commissioning functions, and also to consider Personal Health budgets and how these impact in terms of funding. This is a potential risk in terms of integrated commissioning, although some trials have been completed.

Cllr Perks advised about ensuring the activity in the Public Service Reform Programme links with other partnership groups, including Community Safety, Children’s Partnership[, and raising awareness with members on activity.

ACTION: It was agreed that Programme Office would bring a proposal on how links with other partnership bodies could be reported and communicated.

A request to include Primary Care representation at the Executive was discussed, and Louise Giles suggested inviting Dr Richard Kelsall (GP Director) to become a member of the Executive board.

ACTION: Programme Office to arrange an invite to Dr Richard Kelsall to be on the Executive Board, and offer an induction.

Reverend Martin Cox asked how the commissioning work completed in the last year would feed into the proposed workplans. It was agreed that this would be factored into trials established in Year One.

DECISION: The Chorley Public Service Reform Strategy 2015-2020 was approved.

11.1Based on the decisions made at the Board meeting, the programme office will need to move quickly to start to put in place the new arrangements that have been agreed.

11.2A draft 30 day workplan is attached at Appendix F, which outlines the immediate actions that need to be taken in the next 30 days.

11.3The Board are asked to discuss, approve and add in any additional actions following the decisions that have been made today. 

Decision Point 5 – To approve the 30 day workplan and authorise the programme office to begin delivery

Sarah James presented the 30 day workplan, in preparation for starting meetings in earnest from September.

Confirm full and affiliated partners;

Confirm organisational representatives for;

·         Board

·         Executive

·         Implementation

Meeting arrangements;

·         Set up monthly meetings for 2015/16 for the Executive and Implementation Group

Programme Office;

·         Develop proposal for the requirements of the programme office and how this will be resourced

Year One Workplan

·         Develop Outline Business Case and action plan

·         Develop summary of overarching projects

It was agreed to report on progress in July, by e-mail.

Meeting cycles were proposed as:

Executive to meet 3^rd Tuesday of every month at 16.00pm

Implementation Group to meet 1^st Tuesday of every month at 16.00pm

LTHTR asked that all organisations have some information which is clear on terms of partnership agreements, strategy and workplans, which could be shared with governing bodies, e.g. Clinical Senate.

ACTION: Programme Office to draft a presentation covering the key elements of the Chorley Public Service Reform Programme, and include an offer to present at relevant boards in partner organisations. 

DECISION: The board approved the 30 day workplan.

Hayley Hughes provided an update on the Well North Programme, and the opportunity to submit an Expressions of Interest to the Well North Board. Members would be kept up to date with progress on this submission.

Councillor Alistair Bradley expressed his thanks to Sarah James for all the work completed on behalf of the board, and wished her success in her future role with Lancashire Teaching Hospitals.

Due to the re-structure of the board, dates of future meetings would be confirmed outside the meeting.