Agenda item

Report of Mayor Andy Burnham, Portfolio Holder for Reform. Meeting attendance by Andrew Lightfoot, Deputy Chief Executive, GMCA

Andrew Lightfoot, Deputy Chief Executive, GMCA introduced a report which provided an overview of the White Paper on Unified Public Services for the people of Greater Manchester which had been agreed by the GMCA in July 2019.

Jane Forrest, Assistant Director Reform, added that the White Paper sat alongside a number of key strategies for Greater Manchester including; the Local Industrial Strategy (LIS), the Health and Social Care (HSC) Prospectus, and the Standing Together Plan. It represents a significant step forward in our reform ambitions, setting out a 21st century vision for public services and putting forward Greater Manchester (GM) as an international leader in this field.  Principally, it aimed to improve outcomes for people across Greater Manchester, but it also sought to provide a platform to influence the future direction of central government policy and spending.

It was acknowledged that the White Paper was not prescriptive in its nature, and did not define how services should be delivered, but asked that localities pay attention to delivering change inline with six key features, and did these things relentlessly to achieve greater change.

The detail of the GM Model was based on learning from work in neighbourhoods in each of the ten localities within GM, reform work in thematic areas (e.g. Troubled Families Programme, Working Well etc.) and a series of self-assessment processes conducted by the 10 localities of GM themselves.

Members received a presentation (at Appendix 1) from Mark Widdup, Executive Director, Rochdale Council, which provided an overview of the ‘Reform and Transformation in the Rochdale Borough so far’, outlining how Rochdale were implementing the principles, and what areas they were paying particular attention to.

The following key points were highlighted:

·         The focus was not on policy but on citizens

·         Rochdale have opted to split the borough into five townships (of 30,000-50,000) to enable connectivity to communities.

·         Governance structures had been reviewed with the development of a Strategic Place Board (an amalgamation of PSR and the Health and Wellbeing Board).

·         The focus was centred on the role of citizens.

·         The workforce was being developed to ensure that leaders, and future leaders, can instill confidence in staff to work in the way outlined. 

Members raised the following questions and comments:

·         Members welcomed the proposal but highlighted that not all localities would be able to split their areas as suggested (into populations of 30,000-50,000 residents) due to urban areas. Would these areas be able to achieve the same outcomes?  Jane Forest advised that the White Paper did not prescribe default population levels, but suggested that it made sense in terms of the administrative arrangements, to allow services to integrate, and provides the framework and opportunities to focus on smaller communities where there is need. This suggestion draws on the work which had taken place on the HSC integration agenda, which found that GP surgeries and schools were central to engaging with citizens.

·         How will the GMCA encourage localities to review their governance arrangements, in particularly, to strengthen their scrutiny arrangements? It was acknowledged that many district scrutiny committees did not consider GMCA issues. It was advised that the White Paper recognised the need for strong scrutiny and oversight from localities, and set out what learning they might want to take forward together.

·         Members expressed concern that the White Paper was ‘reinventing the wheel’, given localities had previously adopted a neighbourhood approach. It was felt that the challenge was persuading services to align along the same boundaries. Mark Widdup, acknowledged that localities had previously tried to adopt a similar approach. However, he felt a genuine willingness across localities to have a discussion with citizens, actively listen, and value their contribution, which had not been the case previously. Through implementing the approach Rochdale could now evidence its impact; which included a fiscal value of £4.05 for every £1 invested (Cost benefit analysis as validated by MHCLG 2019).

·         Members welcomed the personable approach, which involved services ‘wrapping around a person in order to meet their needs’, but questioned whether this could affect the way budgets were allocated? It was reported that in Rochdale, the budget had been reviewed at a strategic level, to ensure that funding was allocated appropriately. Mark Widdup, added that citizens actively helping others (through volunteering) helped to make the budget go further.

·         A Member referenced Lee’s story (case study on page 4), and the ‘sharing of Lee’s full situation with all partners’.  Whilst this was encouraging, concerns were expressed over data protection challenges.  Mark Widdup, reported that in Rochdale good relationships with colleagues had been developed, and data sharing agreements were in place across adult and children’s services, and GMP. It was acknowledged that data protection continued to be a challenge, which officers were actively trying to overcome.

·         A Member reported issues when reporting anti-social behaviour (ASB) incidents with the Police and ASB team, with regards to where the responsibility lay. Members sought assurances that citizens would not be faced with similar issues when trying to access support. It was acknowledged that the White Paper recognised that all services played a joint role.

·         Members sought clarification in relation to how social housing providers were being engaged in the process. It was confirmed that this was an iterative process, and the dialogue was ongoing between social housing partners. The aim was to identify how we can work collaboratively on this journey.  From a citizens point of view, along with from an operational service delivery perspective it was imperative to incorporate all partners.

·         A Member expressed the need for longer term commissioning arrangements to be developed, which were focussed on outcomes, as opposed to commissioning led.  It was felt that services addressing complex needs such as the ‘Social Impact Bond’ required stability. It was confirmed that principally, the White Paper aimed to improve outcomes for people across GM, but also sought to provide a platform to influence the future direction of central government policy and spending. Members were informed that the GM Commissioning Hub, were exploring where the opportunities might be to commission for outcomes, rather than efficiency. Health was provided as an example of how through the partnership arrangements, the other determinants of health issues could be addressed differently.

·         Members welcomed the reference to their ‘community leadership role’ but requested clarity as to how this role could be performed at neighbourhood level. It was confirmed that elected members played a key role in leading delivery in a place, and representing the voice of the community. Members can help ensure that services, resources and finances, were organised in the best interests of residents they represented.

RESOLVED:

1.      That the content of the White Paper on Unified Public Services for the people of Greater Manchester, and its significance as part of our strategic ambition be noted.

2.      That the points made by stakeholders and localities during the extended period of local engagement and consultation that ran from March 2019 to June 2019 be noted.

3.      That it be noted that implementing the GM Model as described in the White Paper did not require, and was not intended for, any transfer of statutory responsibilities from public bodies up to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

4.      That a further update be arranged in the next municipal year.