Agenda and minutes

None.

Attendees:

-      James Harris (Strategic Director – Place)

-      Sarah Morgan (Chief Education Officer)

-      Andrew Powles (Deputy Chief Education Officer)

-      Geraint Willington (Director – Resources, Business and Governance, EAS)

-      Hayley Davies-Edwards (Education Achievement Service)

-      Ed Price (Assistant Director Policy and Strategy, EAS)

The EAS Director presented a brief overview to the Committee and highlighted the key areas for consideration. The report to the Committee assessing the performance of the EAS concluded that the EAS is providing good value for money in terms of those aspects that are within its control, notably: economy; efficiency; equity and; sustainability. However, collective action involving EAS, its constituent local authorities and school leaders was required to address concerns over educational outcomes across the region and those schools that are underperforming.

Members asked the following:

·      A Member welcomed the report and with regard to Learning Networks asked whether the EAS were confident that when a school is asked to support another school, it does not have an adverse impact on learning at the school assisting.

Members were advised that the Local Authority was asked for a view, which takes account of previous performance, sickness, etc., and sometimes the view was that it should not go ahead.  The EAS views applications and is able to scrutinise whether schools have considered the offer of their own support. There had been times where offers have been mutually agreed and looked good on paper but it was thought that the offer should not go ahead. The EAS Assistant Director advised Members that the EAS also had the flexibility to invite other schools to become involved.

The Principal Challenge Advisor advised Members that the EAS had more schools wanting to be learning schools than needed, so they had been placed on a waiting list.

·      Members enquired whether the Value for Money report could be undertaken in-house by EAS officers rather than externally, and if so how much money could be saved.

Members were advised that the Consortium worked across 5 Local Authority areas with the different authorities working independently, it was felt it was important that this was done externally otherwise the EAS would be scrutinising themselves. It was explained that the EAS had learnt a lot from the report author from his previous experience in Wales Audit Office and his skills evaluating value for money.

·      A Member referred to the tools that schools could use on page 33, and asked what the working relationship between the EAS and the Local Authority was like.

Members were advised that the partnership work between Newport and the EAS was held in high regard and that statutory powers were taken seriously and acted upon swiftly.  It was clarified that as the EAS works regionally, the Local Authority would need to take the lead sometimes and it was important for the EAS not to lead every protocol.  The benefits of shared intelligence were explained and examples given of schools in different areas that were similar. The EAS were confident that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Attendees:

-              James Harris (Strategic Director - People)

-              Phil Diamond (Regional Partnership Board Regional Team)

The Regional Partnership Board Team Representative presented a brief overview to the Committee and highlighted they key areas for consideration.

Members asked the following:

·      A Member referred to the Core Themes listed on page 42 of the report, which were similar issues faced across the region and asked did the Partners engage and is there balance found between each Authority. 

Members were advised that for the partners to succeed they needed to see value in working together and engage. The priorities highlighted on page 43 were nationwide and were key areas for partners. The Strategic Director advised that it was surprising how common these issues were in Gwent.  The activities identified for the most part were all common issues. If a map was provided for those in need, such as Young Carers and Dementia, there would be hot spots across the region, but Newport is getting a fair share, and had the same profile broadly speaking.

·      A Member praised the service provided and acknowledged it was a challenging providing support in 28 days, but asked could the time be improved upon.

Members were advised that the 28 days was a timescale set by Welsh Government, however, this region is above the Welsh average for responding. Members then asked if there was scope in the service should someone’s issues get worse then the team could react faster. It was advised that there is a Mental Health practitioner in the Police Centre so if there was a serious case then they could take the necessary steps.

·      A Member asked what lessons had been learned from various panels over the year.

The Regional Officer advised that there is a regional citizens’ panel which feeds back and scrutinises the Regional Partnership Board at each meeting. There were also meetings in the 50+ and Youth Forums. In terms of every report highlighting progress, the board needed to make sure that the citizens’ voice is there from each forum.

·      A Member referred to the positive outcomes listed in the progress section, but felt there was a lack of objectiveness and asked how the Partnership was evaluating progress.

Members were advised that in terms of progress, the Partnership Board had set out equal challenges and there was a reporting mechanism to the Regional Partnership Board, with action plans evaluated at each meeting. There would be progress against each priority but also challenges highlighted in each report.
 

The Strategic Director advised that priorities were largely funded through the Integrated Care Fund projects, which required there to be detailed evaluation, rigorously evaluated from the Strategic Partnership Group. This took up an enormous amount of time. Each year there was an evaluation whether the project proceeds or not. Some had fallen by the wayside. 

The Scrutiny Adviser reminded the Committee that this would be the subject of a future report included on the Committee’s Forward Work Programme in October.

·      A Member asked what were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

a)      Forward Work Programme Update (Appendix 1)

Attendee:

-      Meryl Lawrence (Scrutiny Adviser)

a)           Forward Work Programme Update

The Scrutiny Adviser presented the Forward Work Programme, and advised the Committee of the topics scheduled for the next two Committee meetings, as follows:

Wednesday 9 October 2019:

·                             Regional Transformation Grant

·                             Integrated Care Fund Capital and Revenue Projects

·                             Shared Resource Services Updated Action Plan

Wednesday 4 December 2019:

·                             National and Regional Adoption Service

·                             Update upon Developing Regional Fostering Arrangements

She also advised upon the list of Briefings the Committee had requested, including Overviews of partnership arrangements of Newport LIVE, Norse and Wastesavers, including a site visit to Wastesavers. 

The Committee requested that a potential date be explored during the weeks beginning 16^th and 23^rd September at Wastesavers.

b)          Action Sheet

The Scrutiny Adviser advised the Committee that as the previous Committee meeting was only held on 26 June 2019, the Minutes and Action Sheet would be reported to the next Committee Meeting.

c)           Information Reports

The Scrutiny Adviser informed the Committee that there were no Information reports to bring to the Committee’s attention.

d)          Scrutiny Letters

The Scrutiny Adviser informed the Committee that there were no Scrutiny letters to report to the Committee.