Transcript

meeting is being webcast. I assume we are now live. Thank you. And a recording will be available. In the case of a fire panic, no, sorry, exit the room using the door through which you came. If you wish to speak, indicate to me and hopefully one of us will notice that and we'll call everybody. Please mute your microphones if you're not speaking. Of course I'm happy for anyone attending to use social media, providing it doesn't disturb our business. Just if you could note the change of the order of the agenda, this was so that some of our witnesses could attend online and in person. Are there any apologies? Apologies have been received from Councillor Leslie Steads, Chair. Say that again, sorry. We've received apologies from Councillor Steads, Chair. Oh yes, and also John O'Reilly. John O'Reilly has given us apologies as well. Okay, thank you. Jim, can you say apologies? I'm not there in person, but I am online. Thank you very much, Edward. Minutes of the previous meeting. Are there any comments anyone wishes to make about their factual accuracy? No, thank you very much. And can we approve those as an accurate record of the proceedings? Thank you very much. I'll sign those at the end of the meeting. Declarations of interest. Members are required to declare at this point or as soon as possible thereafter any disclosable pecuniary interests or other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any items of business being considered at this meeting. Thank you very much. I believe there are no questions or petitions. No, none received. Thank you very much. Item 5, update on the final report of the Digital Business and Insights Task Group, which is a verbal update, which I'll turn to the chairman of that task group, Councillor Stephen McCormack. Thank you, Chair. The very, very comprehensive and extensive piece of work doing a review of the SAP to Unit 4 programme started in October last year, and we finally got there. I do acknowledge that the report ironically is late. So we looked at a programme of works to evaluate and to determine some tangible reasons and benefits so we could feed back into this organisation. I think it's a very, very balanced report. Hopefully members and officers have had a chance to read it. It comes to Cabinet shortly, and I believe all of the recommendations have been accepted in principle by Cabinet, which is very, very pleasing, and happy to take any questions from members or officers. Thank you. This report has already been agreed by the committee, of course, at the session we had online. Are there any questions for Steve or me or for Jake? No, thank you very much. Can I simply say that I think this has been really superbly led by Steve McCormack, and I think when people get to reading the report, which is going to Cabinet next week, they will understand that this is a wider report than simply what might have gone wrong with the introduction of the Unit 4 My Surrey system, but actually to give people an idea what they should be doing in future purchases of IT systems. Fortunately, one of this complexity is generational and we won't be doing that, but there are lessons to be learned and they are clearly set out in the report, so I'd like us to record our thanks to Steve for leading this so well. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. We now move to what is now Item 6, Digital Inclusion, and if I can welcome the guests we have. We have the Deputy Leader, Denise Turner-Stewart; Louise Holloway, who is the Digital and Customer Experience Manager; and Ione Sullivan, who is the Programme Manager, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; Liz Mills, who is the Interim Executive Director, Customer Digital and Change; and Michael Smith, who is the Director of Design and Transformation. Also with us in person, we have Nicki Roberts, who is Chief Executive of the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People; and Claire Burgess, who is Chief Executive of Site for Surrey. Online, we have, I think, if I'm correct, Catherine Hodgson, Chief Executive of Age UK, Surrey, who is most welcome; and we don't yet have Sabah Khan, who is the Chief Executive of Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum, but you're all very welcome. We have a number of questions, and I suggest we get on with the questions and then come to recommendations, where we have a number of issues we want to raise with the report. We will do that after the questions. So, if I could proceed with Question 1, which is, how does Surrey's rate of digital inclusion compare to other counties of similar size, such as Hampshire? Is 5.7% of adults being offline a high or low rate? And how does it compare to the regional average? Who's going to take that? I'll take that one. Thank you, Ione. So, yes, so the regional average for the south-east is 5.8%, so I'm very much in line with Surrey's figure. Hampshire is 5.9%, so I think it's fair to say that we're in or around an average for a county of our size and our location. Some other counties, for example, Essex is 6.3%, and Buckinghamshire is 6.6%. There are others that are slightly higher than ours, but I think we're roughly around average. If we also look at something which is the digital exclusion risk index, which looks at a variety of issues, such as age, broadband access deprivation and so on, we have a slightly lower score than some other areas at just over 2.5%, 2.47%, whereas the national average is 3%. So on some measures, we're slightly below a national average, but we're about in line with a regional average. Okay, thank you very much. Raz, do you want to ask supplementary on this or come to your question? I'll come to my question after. Okay, thank you. Question 2. Just on the paragraph 10 references, work already being undertaken to improve the accessibility of digital services and resources. What is this, and how will the partners be worked with to improve this? Now, the reason I actually asked particularly on this one is because I've actually been working with the ethnic minority group in Voking, which we actually tried to get into the digitalization with the more over 50-plus ages, which they're not familiar with, and we were only able to get about five or six laptops to do the training, and that was thanks to the ethnic minority group that they actually loaned us that. So I feel there's a big gap there as well, so I'll just sort of add that on to my question. So how are you going to tackle that? Okay, so I can take some of that. So the work that's already been undertaken in Surrey specifically around digital accessibility is underpinned by the public sector bodies' legislation, which prescribes what we should do and some of the recommendations and requirements that we're asked to follow. We've made quite a lot of work in this area with thanks to Site for Surrey because we do work with them and with Surrey Coalition and with Dennis. So we have bought up the level of our website content and documents. We've done a lot of work around ensuring that staff across Surrey are well versed with digital accessibility and actually think about the 20 per cent of people that have some form of impairment or disability that may impact their use. So we do a lot of ensuring that what we are presenting to people from a digital front door is working well. We test that. We've got programmes of work and we're working with procurement because one of the big challenges is around additional applications and different private organisations that provide to us and that we buy their services, and there are real challenges sometimes around private sector not yet been fully digitally accessible. I think that's going to change because there's legislation that's coming into the private sector. The only digital accessibility legislation currently affects our sector. So when I think the private sectors are also under that, that will help considerably. We do a lot of testing, a lot of work in this area. We've engaged, as I said, with procurement to try and ensure that when we do buy products, they are compliant and have roadmaps for those. Thank you very much for that. If I go on to the next one, how will the Council maintain

• Sorry, can we stay on question two for a moment? Because I think there are other supplementaries including from me, and we'll come to question three in a minute. I understand and applaud the work being done inside the Council, and I would reiterate - I'll come back to this later - that Surrey County Council and certainly your unit does very well in trying to make sure that documents are accessible, that the Council is accessible to people who are digitally excluded, and I understand all of that. But I'm not sure - I do have some concerns about this paper, about the strategy, which I understand was circulated to the VCFS sector very recently. But I would like to hear from those people. Who would like to go first? I'll come to Katherine Hodgson in a minute online, but I'll come to Nicky and Claire, whoever wants to go first. Just before you do, could I welcome David Lewis, who I see is online. I hadn't spotted that. But very welcome, David. Thank you. Who would like to go first?
• Thank you. So I just wanted to let you know we run a digital inclusion service in Surrey. Unfortunately, though, we couldn't get funding in north-west Surrey, so that's probably why you struggled with the laptops and accessing those in that area. So actually part of that scheme is to give devices free of charge on loan to people across Surrey, and to run digital skills training for people on a one-to-one basis in their homes for those that need it, and they get five to six sessions. So we've struggled with north-west Surrey to get the funding, but have very recently managed to get funding in Runnymede Borough Council, so we're running it there now. But that might explain kind of why you had those struggles. Thank you.
• Thanks. So my name's Claire Burgess, and I'm from Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey. We run a digital service, so we help people with access technology. And these are generally people who are blind, partially sighted, hard-of-hearing, deaf, and deafblind, and help those people to get online. We do that both through an employed specialist, an apprentice, an AI apprentice, and then a great big group of wonderful tech volunteers who go out and help people at home or in the community. And our specialist workers have been in touch with the Tech Angels project as well, which is doing a fantastic job across Surrey. But as you've just heard, there's real examples of geographical inequality across the county, and a real struggle for us to fund that work every year in, year out. And there is real risks that people are going to be left behind and not digitally included if organisations like ours are not able to afford to keep running support to help people. So I've read the strategy, and thank you very much for that, for sending it round to the VCSF. I guess my biggest question that came from it was that a lot of what's talked about, including what came out of the research, is the things that voluntary sector organisations like ours are delivering already, is part of the strategy then to commission organisations like ours so that we can remove that geographical inequality across the county and have a better standard of service rather than setting up something new, which would seem a shame because we've already got the links into the communities that are indeed the people who are digitally excluded. Thank you. Catherine, would you like to come in on this? Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. Just to update you on the current work that AGK Surrey is undertaking, we provide a range of digital and tech support from two locations at the present time. One from Central Guildford, which is an appointment-only face-to-face one-to-one support service, and we also provide telephone support around digital and providing digital and tech advice and tuition by telephone. And we also provide one-to-one face-to-face tuition and support from our clockhouse centre in Milford in Godalming. I'm very aware at the moment that those services are quite geographically narrow, if you like, that we aren't at the current time providing that very essential advice and tuition in other locations across the county, but we are providing telephone support, as I said. We have a team of ten very dedicated and committed volunteers at the moment. However, our client numbers seeking our support, our tech support, are still relatively low. We assisted 54 clients during the 23 to 24 year and are very, very keen to grow that. But of course, as my colleagues have stated quite fluently just now, we're very dependent on funding to be able to deepen and widen these services because we feel there is a real need right across our local communities. Thank you. Thank you very much, Catherine. What I think I'm hearing here is what I expected, which is that these organisations have the contacts and particularly have the expertise for something that is not an easy job, yet they don't appear to have been part of the development of the strategy, but I know they weren't part of the development of the strategy and they don't seem to be part of the strategy to address the issue. Liz, do you want me to come in initially? I'm happy to come in. I think it's a fair reflection back to us that this strategy was intended initially to draw together the work for the county council and to be able to try and move more quickly at pace to do the things that the county council is responsible for in terms of this agenda linked to our really core ambition of no one left behind. But as you rightly point out, there is work to do in partnership and I think our next steps must be, and I know that contacts have been made, appointments I think are in the diary to be able to take some of those conversations forward. As it stands, there is no resource, separate resource within the council to undertake commissioning, for example to deliver this, nor is there an explicit duty on us to do so other than the public sector quality duty, which of course we have firmly in our minds. And so what we would intend to do, I think, through those meetings that we have is to be able to deepen and to think about what the next situation of our strategic approach might be, what our partnership arrangements need to be to further the ambitions that we all hold in this really important agenda. But you know, you don't see that explicitly set out and nor have we tried to cast this in the light of something which has been co-produced. It's been intended to drive forward an agenda more quickly than I think we have been able to in the past. It's a first step. I'm grateful for that. But wouldn't it have been better rather than, I don't know what the report by Citizens Online cost, but wouldn't it have been better to have asked the VCF sector what they thought, what expertise they could bring? Because the fact is, is that they're the only people who will know who the people are who need this help. And I mean, under the umbrella, for instance, of Age UK, some very local age concerns run silver threads or what other names they give it, where they do teach people. And it's complicated and difficult, whether you're talking about people with various disabilities, whether you're talking people whose English may not be as good, often from ethnic minorities, or indeed people through age not used to using this. So what I'm looking at is a situation where we need to talk to the people who can provide this, rather than trying to measure all the time what the problem is. Because I don't expect anyone actually knows what the size of it is. We just know, or rather they know, of people who do need this help. So in respect of the report itself, of course, we're talking about a report that was commissioned quite some time ago now. And that was really my sense of urgency about getting on with something. And I know that that's an ambition that's held by our cabinet members and something that they very much wanted us to move forward. So unraveling why we did what we did is a tricky thing to do. But I do agree with you that the organizations that you've described and many others, voluntary sector organizations, will have very deep understanding of what's happening in local communities and in particular sections of our community. And so it's really important to work together. I know that I only will have a bit more detail, Louise, perhaps about how they were involved in the report. But I'm not sure how helpful that is to go into now. It is the past. I think what we're offering here is a step forward. And I'm hearing very clearly that we need to work together in partnerships with those voluntary organizations in order to be able to make the maximum impact that we can. Thank you, Liz. That's very helpful. Denise, then Steve. Thank you, Chairman. It is clearly stated in the report that there are a number of partners we need to work with in order to tackle digital exclusion in Surrey. And there's activity underway with the voluntary sector and faith sector and district and borough council. So that is a clear statement of intent. And I know certainly within the library service, there's a huge amount of activity in this space at the moment. So I think this is all coming together very nicely, just to give you that assurance. Okay. Thank you. Steve. Thanks, Chair. I just -- it's interesting to hear the discussion and the debate on this particular item. But it is slightly disappointing to hear that the engagement with these voluntary partners and groups hasn't been done sooner. And the last paragraph or last section on paragraph 10, it will ensure we do not reinvent the wheel. I think that's exactly what's being done. And we're able to maximize opportunities for partnership working. We just heard from one of our speakers that they don't have enough funding to be able to do certain works. So again, that's a quick win, an easy win with one of our partnerships. And leaving no one left behind, absolutely. But I think there is some pragmatic points that we can actually take forward to make sure that we don't reinvent the wheel and that we do maximize resource, get best value, and support the existing groups that are already there to further the goals and the desires of this Council in this particular area. So it certainly would have been helpful, in my view, to have had greater engagement with those groups in the creation of the strategy that we see in front of us now. Thank you, Chair. Louise. Hello. Just to kind of add, the strategy that we put together was very much to focus what we at Surrey needed to do. There is absolutely a strand of that which is that partnership work. And we knew that the partnership group that had originally been set up had a number of different groups in there. And what we're trying now to do is actually, and we've got some, as Liz said, some dates in the diary, to meet with a number of those to look at how we take that forward and how we understand that piece. And definitely not looking to reinvent the wheel. And a lot of the work that we do around digital accessibility we do with other Councils as well. We do with CIPESURRY and the coalition so that we're understanding some of their expertise. So I think that this strategy was to show that there are wider parts that we need to get right in Surrey as well. But that partnership working, absolutely, we've got some good roots in now, I think, and it's just building on those over the coming months. Thank you. Tim. >> Thank you. I'm sitting here asking myself a more generic question. Everybody here is committed to digital inclusion. It all sounds lovely. I am quizzical whether we as an organization and it's true of our partners, particularly with the NHS, I'll tell you, I've been through it as a carer. How much are we actually standing back and looking at it from a user point of view and actually saying, you know, I've had a discussion with somebody yesterday. Oh, you should have looked at the interactive map to know what was going on about a closure of a road in the middle of Leatherhead which mucked up the bus company. Well, I'm sorry, I'm standing on the middle of a bus full of pensioners. This isn't really -- how much are we actually looking at it the other way round rather than actually looking at it not just those who are completely excluded but actually how user friendly is what we're putting out. >> Hi, I can come in on some of that. So in terms of how user friendly is what we're putting out, we do a lot of work across the website to try and make sure that where things are online, they work for people. We do user testing and we look at the stats and analytics as well as hearing the customer voice. We've just recently put some customer satisfaction instant results for people to say whether things are working or not. We're starting to really try and bring that into the plans and the work. And we also ensure that our contact center are still there and it's part of the customer operating model. You know, the website we absolutely know is not the only way forward for people but it is our biggest front door with most people choosing to use that route. But we are always of the awareness that that is not the model that everybody wants to use and so we do support by mediated access to the contact center. >> Okay, David. >> Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I can't speak for the urban areas because I represent an extremely rural zone. But it does occur to me that I perhaps ought to be doing much more finding out where the gaps are. And I've made myself a couple of notes already to things that I will go out and to do, which are direct triggers from specific points that have been made by you ladies this morning. But the real problem that I would like to raise potentially -- well, first of all, that the people don't understand the question. Most of the people you're talking about don't know what the words mean. And that's a serious problem. Probably more easily dealt with by local members quite a lot, actually, because some of them don't know what the words mean either. But at least they understand why the people don't understand, if you see what I mean. So I think there's quite a bit that we as members could do to assist in working out where there are pockets of disadvantage, if I could put it like that, that we might be able to trigger. The question then is, how would you best prefer that we input information along those lines? >> So we are working with a number of offices that are working in the community in other areas, and they will be starting to take some of the lead on this as well, because there is a lot of work and a lot of information that we have got across Surrey, and we're working quite closely with the libraries. So I think we could give a lead name of somebody that that could be fed directly into, and we could meet with you if appropriate to understand that, because understanding that alongside the voluntary sector and the information that we have across the services that we already have working in those areas would build that really helpful picture. So we could get a lead name to help take some of that forward. >> I have to say that the sort of people I'm talking about, because, you know, they think I'm quite young, so that gives you an idea. They don't drive anymore, and the public transport to get to libraries is not perhaps -- well, it depends where you live, but about four of my villagers say, what do you mean, what's a bus? We can't remember. And so we do need to sort of think about, you know, the situation that those people are in, and then, in fact, that makes them even more digitally excluded, if you will, because they don't have those accesses. But that's just a comment. So thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you, David. Sorry, Liz, did you want to come in? Sorry. >> I was just thinking in those terms, I think it would be really important for us to think very broadly around all of those that might be digitally excluded, and, of course, we may want to think about different engagement mechanisms and ways of identifying those different sectors of our population and community, and so, I mean, direct experience of helping elderly parents into this domain. I know that my father participated in a silver surface digital course at the local library and those sorts of things, so it is really important. But the diversity, I think, of the group that we are talking about here, so this might range from lack of access through disadvantage, through poverty, right through to all of those different groups that we've been describing along the way, older people, those with, you know, English as a second language, and disabled people of all ages. So this is also about children and adults, too. >> Thank you very much. If we could -- oh, yes, Nick. Microphone Nick. >> Thank you. Could you turn it off as well when I'm finished? Thank you for that. I hope this is the right moment to raise it, but as far as digitally excluded is concerned, it's all very well to say online or telephone, but if, like me, you can't read and can't, therefore, or see sufficiently to make a telephone call, I'm automatically excluded, independent on others. When I was first effectively registered as severely sight impaired, the service I received actually from Kingston Hospital, the eye unit there, was absolutely fantastic. I was put in touch with sight for Surrey who need to be applauded from the rooftops who were instantly in touch with me and have remained so, and also the Royal National Institute for the Blind, very similarly, who provide services, including digital books, free. And so my wife is able to assist me hugely. So I think we need to consider very carefully how people who are in difficulty are signposted to the right organisations who do an absolutely fantastic service. I hope that will be miniteed. And then we get to a situation where it's people with lived experience, and I'll quote me, but this could just as easily be anywhere else. We've actually here at Woodhatch had some very decent work, and one of the vice chairs has since pointed some of it out to me when we arrived this morning. We've had some decent work done, but it would have been great, and I give this as an example maybe for other people. If I had at some stage been asked to come around, share my lived experience to make sure that everything had been covered, it may well have been. I would encourage people who are still here when we have a break at the end of this session to go down to the canteen and think for themselves how easy or difficult it is for someone who cannot see to make use of that canteen. I'll make no further comment on that. I hope that what I've said now is relevant and that it can be considered as part of our strategy. Thank you. >> Thank you. I think that's been noted by people, and I think it is important. The automatic cafeteria is not easy even if you can see it, and impossible if you can't. Liz? >> I'm very happy to take that one forward, and I will go and visit the canteen with that fresh perspective and certainly take that through in the context of our wider work, that lived experience. >> Thanks very much. Denise? >> Thank you, Chairman. I mean, I have already raised several times with democratic services the quite considerable needs of a number of our members, but obviously users, staff, I mean, we do have quite a broad range of dependencies and needs that we really need to be catering for, but that obviously permeates way beyond what we have internally here. That goes out into our communities, and obviously thinking again about our public buildings and how they are adapted. We've already had people asking about children being able to reach, you know, buttons to release doors, et cetera, and raising that as a concern. So there are a number of representations that unless you've got a lived experience from somebody who is experiencing life on a day‑to‑day basis with the challenges that presents, we're not able to address those. But thank you for your contribution. >> Thanks very much. I think it's a very important point to note. I mean, substantial work's being done here. It doesn't mean that more isn't necessary, but certainly a party from Surrey Coalition of Disabled People went round, looked at what was needed, what the problems were, and I think they were definitely absorbed by the team. And I know that there is a significant budget available for the adaptations that will be needed at Victoria Gate, the new hub being put together in Woking. And I know that the people with disabilities are involved in that. Can we move to questions three and four? Three from Raizat and four from Steve. We'll take those two together. >> Thank you, Chair. I think some parts have been already answered in some ways, but I'll just carry on with the question. How will the Council maintain best practices in cooperating with other organisations assisting in delivering digital inclusion work? Now, the bit that surprised me a few days ago is when we were discussing that one of the key groups, the ethnic minority, SMEF, was not actually in our discussions and people were not aware of it, so I requested the Chair to actually invite them today to be part of this discussion, because it's a key thing for me, particularly in my area, where they do a lot of work and that could be part of the organisation helping and supporting moving this forward. So the other thing was how will this be measured and assessed and evaluated, and how will any action taken forward in these actions? >> And Steve, question four. >> Thanks, Chair. I mean, this is a bullet pointed item on paragraph 10. The bullet point is how to embed the governance of this work so that it becomes part of business as usual, the SCC. So we've got a very large piece of work being strategised in the strategy, and there's a lot of change and change management that needs to be done, and again, I'd just be curious on how that's going to be managed and how that governance is going to be structured so that it does actually fall part of BAU within this Council. Thank you. >> I'm happy to take this in two parts, if that's useful. In relation to the governance, I can speak to that. So governance internal to the Council, accepting that there will also be coordination activity that we'll want to undertake with our partners will happen in two ways. The first way will be through usual line management arrangements, making sure that, of course, the work is on track. If we're forming this as business as usual activity, then we need to position this clearly. It does sit with our customer services team, and that directly reports into myself through the Assistant Director. But secondly, through bringing this under the auspices of the Customer Transformation Programme, we're also able to broaden out the governance outside of just sort of directorate silos. That has governance arrangements which span the whole Council, and so we are able to there think about those arrangements and indeed onwards into the arrangements to the Stairport, which is chaired by the Leader and has representatives from the League Cabinet members as well. So we will be looking at this in two ways. >> Thank you very much. Before we come to answers to the rest of the question, I wonder if it would be convenient, Hazel, for you to ask question 8, because that really relates to the same thing. >> Yes, thank you, Chairman. My question is, can the Digital Inclusion Action Plan objectives be revised so as to be more specific, measurable, actionable and timely? Smart action plan. Is that something that could be improved on? I mean, for example, there are no time scales for these actions, and so we've got no idea how long it's going to take to actually implement these actions. When do you think that could be done? Thank you. >> Yes, absolutely, we will be doing that. We are moving, I think at the moment we have moved at pace, particularly considering the period of time that had elapsed from the report, so we are starting to gather momentum and absolutely we are making sure that those objectives are smart, timely, we're very aware of the three to six month commitment that we've given and we will make sure that is reflected. So thank you. >> So in terms of actually completing a smart action plan, you think it will be ready in three to six months from now? >> No, no, much before that. So the objectives, so we will be making sure that those objectives are smart so that we are really clear that within the three to six months delivery what we've got to do, so that work is progressing as we speak. >> Thank you. >> Thanks very much. Yes, Liz. >> I'm just conscious, there was a first part of the question, which is about how we work together with our colleagues in SPEF. We absolutely will need to do that, we need to build relationships that we have there already, and we'll be extending the work out to make sure that we're forging forward on that basis. >> Yes, Nikki. >> Just to say that the work we do with our tech angels does cover ethnic minority groups as well, so we do organise for translators, we work with refugee groups, we arrange group training or one-to-one training, so that is covered across Surrey apart from that, northwest Surrey. >> Thank you very much. Louise, you look like you want to go in here. >> I was just going to say, we've also had some of the libraries working in that space, so one of the libraries has worked with one of the mosques in Woking and done some support and some work around that as well. >> Thank you for that very important point. If we can move to my question 5, which is relatively brief, it's about the long-term intention for non-digital means of service provision, such as landline phones, and I don't pretend to understand the difficulties, but there are difficulties with the structural changes, in particular digital voice switchover, which I suspect Claire, for one, knows more about than I do, but who would like to answer that? >> Yes, I mean, again, it's not something I claim to be an expert in, and I would defer to anyone else in the room who knows more about this than I do, but as we understand that Ofcom are looking at that very carefully in terms of looking at the vulnerable groups who may be affected by the switch to I think its voiceover internet protocol that will be taking over from landlines, my understanding is that that will then technically mean that even what looks like a landline will actually be a digital service rather than a copper wire that goes into your house, so essentially then even if we retain a phone into our contact centre, that will technically be a digital service, but the scrutiny of that and ensuring that that doesn't exclude vulnerable people as being undertaken by Ofcoms, I think we need to make sure that we're just keeping aware and alive to what the issues are that they're raising, and that if there are any particular circumstances in Surrey that we need them to be aware of, that that's raised through that route, but that's where the responsibility for that programme lies. >> Claire. >> Yeah, and various voluntary sector groups have been given an opportunity to raise concerns around that switchover, and I think that will continue to do that, so from site for Surrey's point of view, the big concern really is for people with alarms in the home, and a real concern from people about the reliability of those alarms, also some people who are using technology-enabled homes, but through wired means at the moment, so they don't work over the internet, there's a big concern there as well, particularly when the technology that is being enabled, so for example, someone who is in an electric wheelchair, who's using at the moment a system where they can use their voice to open the curtains, and other things like that, if the internet went down and they weren't able to conduct those functions, and it would have a big impact on their independence, so there are those various concerns from different groups, thanks. >> Thank you very much, David. >> Yes, I also have some concerns, but first of all, I'd like to just comment, and this is me coming from the telecoms industry some time ago now, but certainly during the interchange, the issue, there are two separate issues, one is whether you're getting stuff delivered down your line from BT or whoever it is, digitally or the old analog copper wire, now the old analog copper wire actually can be made to operate digitally, and we were doing that 20 years ago, actually, so it's a quite separate issue as to whether it's analog or digital delivery, yes, it should all be digital delivery by not very long in the future from now, it's almost there, the separate issue is what's the medium for delivering it, and so, and that's where I have the great worries, because when you have, when everything's on fiber, the thing that's missing then, the way they're delivering fiber, everybody, as far as I know at the moment, is just to provide the fiber connections. Now, historically, when there's an emergency, and the power's out, as happened in April 1987, I think it was then, the great storm, certainly my whole, the village in which I lived was out for a month, when that happened, there was no, it wasn't a problem then, but if that happened today, on those fiber-only links, you can't deliver electricity on the same wire as the fibers, inside the same cable as the fibers, unless you've built it in a particular way, and we know it can be done, because when we put in the first private transatlantic cables, they were fiber, but they were, because we had to have repeaters every 150 kilometers, I suppose they were, we had to deliver power to those repeaters, and so the cable was constructed in two parts, quite physically separated from one another, one for the fibers, and one to provide the electricity where it was needed, but that's not what's gonna happen, that isn't what's happening locally, we just get the fibers put in, and that gives us a very nice service, and it'll go, for internet purposes, much faster than the previous arrangements, where it's capable of doing so, and it depends on how fast the people who are sending it send it, but what the real problem is, that if there's an emergency, you won't have that link back to the telephone exchange, it won't be there anymore, because if the power's out, I think that's quite a serious risk, so that's what worries me, I'm picking up from where you were discussing that, so that's what we ought to be worrying about, and deciding, you know, should we be talking to the telephone companies, and saying, how's it gonna work when the power's out?
• Okay, no, thank you David, can we take Tim's question before anyone responds to that?
• Can I flag, in my own division, we have had interesting issues with sheltered housing schemes, one of the sheltered housing schemes, which is not that old, which is what would alarm me most, had the most terrific bill quotes for updating their system, which included the fire alarm, and entrance things, and everything else, plus the community alarm, they I suspect will end up having to pay it as residents, but I do think there is a serious issue with converting of sheltered housing schemes, and it does a bit, it's a bit technically variable, but there are obviously issues seriously, and these were quoted several thousand pounds a resident to a scheme of just under 40 households, so that gives you a clue to the sort of cost factors, not all in would afford it, and I worry that some of our more vulnerable pensioners may come off community alarm and other such schemes, because of the cost of actually installing everything, whereas I have to say, having done it at home, with a major provider, they were really, really good, and it was not a problem at all, so there does appear to be a degree of confusion in places, and difficulty, but this was a whole sheltered housing scheme, and a relatively modern one, where they were coming to convert everything, and I do think we should flag that as an issue, because there must be other schemes which are visibly older where this will be a problem as well. Who would like to come back on that? I think we need to telephone engineer, Liz. I'm happy to do so. I think it's probably, this is national infrastructure which is changing, and of course, this is not directly, it's connected to, it's an important point, we absolutely know some of our most vulnerable residents will be relying on this technology, but it's not directly in the scope of this digital inclusion work, so I think we ought to, but if it's helpful, and of course, I'm quite sure our adults' wellbeing and health partnership colleagues are focused on this issue, I can raise that connected issue with them, just to make sure that they are working in a way, and with districts and boroughs, which are often also providing these services to make sure that there's surety as we go forward. Thank you, Liz. I think that's genuinely reassuring, thank you very much. If we could take question six, but also take in, because they follow on questions nine and ten from Steve, so David, question six. Yes, so this is picking up from paragraph 12 of the report, which refers to, I'm going to quote now, the digital inclusion lead will have access to resources allocated by the transformation program and the medium-term financial strategy, and improve the reach of the program without duplication, of course, you've all got that, absolutely in mind. But let me go on, this implies that the digital inclusion work is dependent on the agreement of the customer transformation budget, and will draw down from that program's budget amounts in each subsequent year. If this is not endorsed in any given year, or more, how will the digital inclusion program be able to continue? So the way that the digital inclusion work has been progressing to date is with a reliance on our two officer colleagues here, and connecting with others across the council and outwardly. So that would persist, and there may be a limiting factor then in terms of what those officers are able to progress, because obviously this role, this part of the role sits within a wide range of other responsibilities that these important colleagues hold, so it will be really about the ability to focus, there's no dedicated role within the council for this specific work, and so that would be the way that we would go forward, we would need to have a conversation about how to balance those responsibilities, and of course this is an important priority area, so we would need to think those things through. The importance, I think, or the opportunity of connecting with a customer program, should it be approved and go forward and funded on that basis, is to be able to, as it's set out in the report, extend the reach, really start to embed fully through the benefit of that program as well, into every customer journey, into all of the ways in which we interface with our customers, and that just seems like a sort of a sensible step if it can be made in order to be able to, again, maximise the impact, but without that support, what will be is the status quo, which is the work being undertaken in the way it is today. To re-incorporate Steve's two questions in that, just say there's anything else to add. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. So, question nine and ten, again, talks around the – question nine talks about the digital inclusion work plan, and I think it links in or follows on from Hazel's question about small objectives, and we've heard that they're being developed as it is to make them specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. And it's not clear through what's being presented about how all of this is going to line up. And again, the deliverables, the achievables, the action plans, it's – from my point, it feels a bit woolly, if I'm honest, to be a little bit blunt, but the paragraph 11 piece of report, again, talks to the customer operating model, and again, my previous existence looking at operating models, it always gets a little bit concerning where we're looking at operating models, looking at what we had before, looking at where we want to get to, any gap analysis in the middle of that, where we want to get to again, and the strategy, the digital inclusion strategy, again, I don't think talks to that or provides that level of information. And again, from a select committee point of view, and possibly from a cabinet point of view, being clear on what this piece of work, especially when it's folded in with the customer transformation program, is seeking to deliver, how it's going to do it, what we're going to get, et cetera, et cetera, is, in my view, it's not clear. So the first point, how does the digital inclusion work? How is that going to be embedded into the customer transformation program? And Hazel's already talked about the action plan. And paragraph 11 is the strategy referring to that customer model. Where will it be developed? How is that going to be communicated and shared? Thank you. So the two pieces of work stand discreetly. We could choose to do one or the other, or neither. So there are benefits of bringing things together, and that I think is what we're trying to describe. The operating model for the customer is being generated through the customer program, and we'll be looking at that later on. I agree with you that we should have a smart plan. I think one of the things that we proposed and are in discussion about is whether it would be helpful to have a sort of a group, a reference group of a sort, from this committee rather than sort of bringing back iterations to full committee regularly and sort of try to seek feedback that way, but just trying to create assurance and also work together with the committee. We'd be very happy to do that in order to be able to bring the smart plan forward and to be able to, you know, keep that line of engagement going. Of course, the committee will schedule the next updates at the point where it's right and relevant for the committee to do so. I'm not sure what else I can usefully add or what I may have missed in the question, but if there's something I haven't answered, then please say. So I mean specifically, question nine, how is the digital inclusion -- you talked about it, basically you could look at it as being two separate pieces of work, but in the paper we have in front of us, it talks about basically folding in the digital inclusion work, embedding that in the customer transformation program, and we're going to be talking about that shortly, and there's a huge chunk of money that's being asked for out of that as well. So again, question nine is how is that going to be embedded into the customer transformation program, and how will the action plan detailing work be undertaken over the next three to six months to achieve this. So the step-by-step mechanics of that is laid out very clearly in that question. Understood. So the digital strategy and action plan will stand as a separate standalone part of the program. The importance of digital inclusion will run throughout the entire customer program, because that is relevant to customer experience, and it is based on improving their outcomes and experience. So that should be a thread in that program anyway. So we'll be able to clearly distinctly measure the progress of this action plan. What will happen as a result if the customer program is approved is access to resource in a number of ways. For example, there is investment there to improve our web functionality, navigation, accessibility for different users to be able to have a better and more accessible experience. Information and systems that will be able to target those areas where we feel that there are -- that there's insight to be gained in order to be able to improve the experience. Program resource in order to be able to measure and manage this program, properly milestone the activity and measure the benefits of that activity. That's not something currently embedded in either of these two officers' roles, so they would have access to that professional support. So there will be a whole range of benefits in coming together with the customer program, not least of which in terms of ambition and ethos, but also in practical terms to support the delivery as a project and to be able to, in the specification and design, think about the ways in which we are commissioning systems, developing the website, those sorts of things in order to be able to improve the outcome. >> Thank you very much. Louise, did you want to come in? >> Thank you. Just -- the work that's happened since this has been embedded within the customer transformation program has led us to the strategy, but there is a real recognition that there is a lot of work that's happening across the organization in some of these areas, so I absolutely do not claim to be an expert on social value, for instance, but there is social value work happening. And what we are trying to align now to actually get some real progress in the next three to six months is leads within those areas, so we have already had very useful conversations with colleagues in library services because they do a lot in the upskilling area and they are touching on some of that financial area, and we are now engaging with people in procurement and the likes working on social value so that some of that work that is already continuing can start to pivot to include and support the digital inclusion work, so I think the progress and the kind of home of bringing the strategy under transformation has helped get it to this far, but we want to ensure that that picks up the wide and diverse range of work that's happening across the council to support this. >> Thank you very much. Moving forward, I think question 11 really has been sort of superseded by some of the very good responses we have had from officers. That just leaves question 7, what evidence of success by NHS Surrey Heartlands led to them being chosen as a key partner on the project? >> At the time that Heartlands were working on this, they were doing a lot around trying to -- there was COVID and they were trying to get a lot more people and residents using digital within the NHS, so our understanding, and we are -- Ione and I are joining this a little bit later on, that the group has already been established, but there are -- and there was some work done, they've created a website and they have had some work that's already happened. Our experience of the last couple of meetings is that there are partners involved, but perhaps the actions of moving some of this forward and really looking at what each of those partners are doing, what each of those organisations are doing, doesn't seem to be hugely aligned, and there are colleagues in the room I know who are part of that group and have been part of that group longer than I have, but I think that the kind of commitment we're making is, as was said, we've already got some dates so that Surrey can join up with Surrey Coalition, AGK and work out how we can take some of these forward, and we're going -- Ione and I are going back to that existing group that was formed by Heartlands in September, and we're presenting it to them about some of the work that we've been working on, and that will include the work that we're doing with AGK, Heartland -- sorry, Coalition, and we'll kind of try to help take that group forward with those partners in a way that is a little bit more meaningful in terms of delivery, but I think that the cultural piece that they have created does seem to, you know, have benefit because they have got quite a lot of people that are genuinely interested, it's just working out how that is going to lead forward into actions that we can measure and work together with. >> Thank you very much. I've got some comments, although I'm very pleased with the answer, and I think you've partly anticipated why I put the question down in the first place, but I'll come to Claire first. >> Thanks. Yeah, can I just clarify what group that is, please? Is it the Surrey Digital Inclusion Steering Group? And if so, just wanted to point out that that was set up by the voluntary sector during the pandemic, not NHS Surrey Heartlands. We used to invite NHS Surrey Heartlands to come along so they could learn a bit more about digital inclusion, and the original partners in that group was Surrey Coalition who set it up, Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum, and Site for Surries to attend, and then we pulled in other parts of the system. Thank you. >> Nick, then I'll sum it up. David's going to do his-- >> Mr. Barton, thank you very much. So far as Heartlands are concerned, I'm going to make a comment. I may be wrong, please stand to be corrected. I haven't heard of Heartlands in any context in relation to disabled, and I'm very concerned also that there was no specific reference which carries on from what Claire just said, no specific reference to either Site for Surrey or the Royal National Institute for the Blind be included in any of this work. I'm very, very concerned about that because I see all sorts of possibility for going around in circles, lots of committees, and no actual action. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nick. If I could add my comments and then any answers. The reason I put this question down, and indeed it refers to a comment I made at the beginning of the meeting where I genuinely think and know, and I thought this way before I was a county Councillor, that Surrey take these issues seriously, that officers understand. Now even the best experts can find these things difficult, complicated because everybody with different disabilities may need a different solution, but the will is there and a lot of work is put behind it and has been for a number of years. However, NHS Heartlands, I would not say that about, there are people there who understand and care about digital or any inclusion for that matter, but nothing happens. I checked again this morning. Not one of the Surrey hospitals is accessible to anybody who is profoundly deaf. They know that it's possible to do it. The county council has a texting service as part of the adult social care help desk site for Surrey is able to do it, and where Heartlands have tried to include people who are deaf, notably with the 111 service, they get trodden on by NHS England. So rather than being partners, they are, as Claire has pointed out, they are people who need to be pupils, they need to learn from us. And I will also say on the record, I have been deliberately misled by NHS England in terms of inclusion of people who are profoundly deaf, and indeed Claire was at the meeting where I was specifically misled. So yes, partner with them, but don't listen to a word they say, ensure they listen to us. Don't run over. Any answers to the points that have been made? >> Of course can't speak for our colleagues in this area, but we have a really important role as a county council. We want to be able to lead the way. I think it comes back to the inference in the initial stages, and I understand the broadening out in terms of partnership, for the county council to continue to do that, to focus on the things that we need to do to improve the lives of our residents, and that digital inclusion. I am of course aware of the priority areas in the health and wellbeing board strategy. They do include many of those groups that we would want to be specifically thinking about in relation to this work. So it is incumbent on us all to be able to think about this and prioritize this, and we'll obviously continue in that vein, and with our sort of partnership and influencing factor as well. >> Thank you. Yes, Denise. >> Thank you. And there's a much more focused emphasis on this area through the integrated care partnership and the integrated care board as well. So they will be running concurrently, so actually that conveyance of information and understanding will be consistent throughout. >> Thank you. Let's hope that NHS England stop treading on them and stopping them. They have actually stopped them bringing in systems that are used by Surrey County Council, describing them as impossible to incorporate in the database, not true, and describing them as not GDPR compliant, also completely untrue. After all, why would either the Surrey County Council or for Surrey be using such systems were they not? So one has to be very wary of anything they say that they want to cooperate in, because they may do verbally, but they won't actually do so unless pushed. But I'm grateful for the comment. Thank you. Right. I think it would be useful for our four visitors to be able to make any last comments they want to make. Welcome to Sabah Khan, who wasn't with us at the beginning of the meeting, but I think is still with us. Yes, there she is. Great welcome. Thank you. Thank you. No, you will have heard some of the discussion, but I'll go through and I'll come to you last for anything you want to say and add to this discussion. So if I could start with either Claire or Nicky in the room, whichever way round you want to do that. Claire. Yeah, I think most of my points have been covered today. It's great to see that there's renewed energy behind digital inclusion in Surrey. We at site for Surrey remain open to working with the local authority and indeed our health partners. We're trying to push that forward to ensure that as many people with sight or hearing loss and the deaf community in Surrey get online and have digital freedom. Thank you. Nicky. Yeah, so thanks so much for inviting us today. I think like we've already covered all the work that we're doing and the people that we're working with are the real vulnerable people in Surrey that need that support. So that could that needs to continue. So yeah, just thank you very much. Thank you very much. Catherine from Age UK. Thank you. Thank you so much for inviting me today and I completely concur with my voluntary sector colleagues. Please do continue to ask us to invite us and involve us in these discussions and shaping strategies going forwards. Our organisations are expert in our particular areas. We know our beneficiaries and we know our causes so please, please do involve us going forward. It's absolutely vital. Thank you. Thank you very much, Catherine. And finally, Sabah Khan from Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum. Hello. No, just just really wanted to echo what's also been said, just thank you for inviting me to this meeting, but also to please, you know, continue to consult with us because we do know, you know, as Catherine has said, we know our our clients well and we can offer a great deal of information and intelligence in strategies moving forward. Thank you very much indeed. If we can now come to the recommendations, which I think given the answers from the officers and the clear willingness to listen to the voluntary sector groups represented today and others, we can be rather more positive than we might otherwise have been. So what we're suggesting is we note the drafting digital inclusion strategy and the approach of embedding digital inclusion within the customer transformation programme to ensure its reach and sustainability. Any comments from members on that? Can we agree that? So this is noting, not endorsing the report. OK. Oh, yes. Hazel. I just wonder whether we, was that the sole recommendation that was going to come out of this committee? Because I just wondered whether we could be a bit more specific about some of the points that came out of the discussion. It's in the next one. OK, fine. Yes, so we come to the second recommendation, which I think incorporates the points that Hazel was correctly making. However, the Resource and Performance Select Committee also recommends that the strategy is discussed by groups such as the Disability Partnership Board and their recommendations, along with those from any other representative organisations, including the Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum, come before this committee. Any comments? Everybody happy with that? Thank you very much. That's agreed. And that, I think, covers everything we wanted to in our recommendations. And I firstly thank our four visitors from four important voluntary and faith groups for their contribution. They're an important part of this work, and I am very pleased with the answers I've had from the officers in terms of including them in the future work. And just as a -- the point that Liz Mills made about the reference group. Sorry, Nick, I'll come to you in just a second, OK? I think that's important, and I think that's a very good suggestion to try to develop this work and take it forward. And I think it would be appropriate for there to be external expertise advising that group so that we can gain yet more from the expertise and experience that they have. Nick, you wanted to make a comment before I conclude? Yes, thank you very much. I've got no problem with the recommendations as such, but we've had various discussions not least from me in relation to the volunteer sector and particular organisations, and I just wonder in relation to the -- I think it was recommendation two, maybe even a new one, that the close liaison with organisations such as a name it site for Surrey is very important because if that isn't done, I feel we're going to miss out on comments which were made before that whatever strategy we have is fine as long as it doesn't do its own thing and ignore whether or not deliberately the organisations who have significant expertise in this area because by being careful about that, we don't spend our hard used residence council tax, et cetera, et cetera, in duplicating work. I think that's really important. No, I'm grateful for that, Nick. I think the recommendations do encompass that, and particularly the assurances we've had from Liz as the executive director. The disability partnership board encompasses most of the organisations, but we mustn't leave out SMEF and Age UK because they are different areas of digital inclusion, and I think we've had the assurance that they will all be involved in that, and heads are nodding around the table. So I think the two recommendations do do what we need it to do, if you're happy with that. Ah, yes. Yes, thank you. I mean, I think the recommendations are fine to some extent, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. I mean, one of the things that we heard about was the geographical inequality across Surrey and what is being done to address that, and also lack of resource for commissioning, and I just wonder whether we should say something about resources allocated to this, because without the adequate resources, then it's going to be difficult to take these issues forward. I think clearly the recommendations cover working with the relevant voluntary organisations, which is obviously a huge step forward, but, you know, geographical inequality resources and also the SMART recommendations, although we've had that confirmed, it will be useful to perhaps put that in a recommendation so that it's on the record. Thank you. No, no. Thank you very much for that. I think Steve wants to come in. I think the point about commissioning on the basis that you can't necessarily, this is not a criticism of boroughs and districts, but you can't rely on them all making the decisions we would want them to make. Steve, hopefully you have a solution to what the very important point Hazel makes. I'll do my best. I mean, one of the other items that we may want to include as a recommendation, we talked a lot about the digital inclusion strategy and some of the plans and the items that we'd like to see in there, SMART objectives, et cetera. Maybe an additional recommendation is that that digital inclusion strategy is revised and updated in light of the select committee's comments and returns to this select committee for further scrutiny after it's been updated, because, again, we've made a number of comments and we've heard various rebuttals and various comments from officers, et cetera. But as I mentioned earlier, that digital inclusion strategy from my point does appear to be woolly, as it were. And so I would be more comfortable if we can see an update of that in light of the comments and the engagement with the voluntary sector as well, and it returns to a select committee for further review and scrutiny, if members would be minded to support that. Yes. I think that was indeed the tone of the debate. If Jake has got that and can turn that into words, that would be good. Yes, certainly. I can add one along those lines. If all members of the committee are happy, that captures everyone's thoughts. Yes. And if that could be circulated to the committee for us to finally approve, we'll note that. Thank you very much. Denise. Thank you. Just to Hazel's point, there is a thorough analysis underway at the moment on our VCFS spend, looking at how we can prioritize with our corporate priorities the commissioning arrangements we have. And there's also a deep dive, which will be taking place through the Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Select Committee on VCFS infrastructure. So we will be capturing all of this in terms of making sure that those organizations that need supporting to deliver these key priorities are fully funded and supported for that endeavor. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you very much, Denise. So on that basis, can I thank -- I've already thanked our four visitors. We're really grateful for your input. And can I thank Denise and the officers for their very frank answers and I think very helpful answers in taking this forward. We all have the same objective. We want people to be included in Surrey and to use that phrase nobody left behind simply because they can't use digital devices at the moment. So I'm really grateful. Thank you very much. If we could stop the recording and have a break of five minutes to reset the room, that would be useful. Thank you very much. Our witnesses are Liz Mills, Interim Executive Director, Customer, Digital and Change; Michael Smith, Director of Design and Transformation; and we have Anna D'Alessandro, the -- I can't read all the small words on your long title, but basically Director of Finance. How about that? And I'm delighted we have Denise Turner-Stewart, Deputy Leader with us, and David Lewis, who is online. If we could start with the questions, okay, unless anyone wants to introduce anything. We could go straight with the question, whatever you'd like. Okay. Thank you, Chairman. This customer transformation provides the conditions for consistent good customer outcomes across all of the council services, including some very important touch -- contact points which were touched upon in the last session, such as libraries, registration offices and social care contacts. This program will focus on outcomes, encourage self-service, use digital tools, and adopt preventative measures. It's being done in a dynamic way and will be continuously learning and adapting, and again, there was lots of learning that came from that session which will be really useful and be incorporated into the program, making sure we meet the customer needs, really having that hierarchy and focus on no one being left behind. I don't know how much detail you want me to go into at this stage, but I think this is an important session, so we really value your feedback. Thank you. Thank you very much, Denise. So if we could start with question one, which is from me. So what would be different in, say, five years' time if the transformation program is delivered and equally what would be the consequences for the council if the program were not to be pursued? Liz. I'm really happy to start there. This is a really important piece of work, and when we took stock of the current conditions, we understood that the system that we have for our customers is very fragmented. It's largely designed in silos through a service-based lens rather than a customer lens, so we will structure activities based on the way in which we divide up the work often. We've made it more difficult for some of our customers to be able to achieve the outcomes and the experiences that they would expect, I think, from us as a local authority. We of course also have some really pockets of great practice and great ideas, and we look outward and we see other work happening in different places. So this work is designed to bring us back together as a whole council to be able to think first through the customer's experience and lens, and to redesign what we do with that in mind, and to be able to underpin that with a core infrastructure that helps and supports us to deliver, and a culture which puts the customer first, so that people aren't bounced around but received in whatever of the means they choose to do that, and we will be able to equip staff with the skills, the information, but also an underpinning culture and ethos that enables them to help. So some examples of that, for example, in our core infrastructure, we'll be looking again at our web facilities. We have one council main website, but we now have in excess of 40 microsites that have grown up that are doing very significant things, often in partnership with others. But again, if you're thinking about this as a customer, it's very difficult. We have systems that are underpinning our activities, we're using particular products that are at the end of their life, they are absolutely not giving us the opportunity to gain knowledge and insight that would help us to target work differently and support our customers differently, and technology, I would put into that more broadly, the opportunity to automate, to be able to help staff to focus on the things that are really important and take away from that element of their role, the things that are manual, labor intensive, that we could support differently for example. But we will also need to look through every customer journey. We've been doing this in some areas to test out our methodology. We took two very different models. One area we looked at an application online, something that we thought we designed really well with the customer in mind, turns out on 80% of occasions, they were unable to make their way through that system, so we were measuring the impact of that and we're now trialing from a customer design perspective a new model and to be able to mark that difference. And we also did this in partnership across adults and health and the police in relation to the referrals into social care for adults that are vulnerable and might need some help and support and to be able to put that into a frame which really focused on making a difference for that customer. And then finally, I would just point to that culture and that skills piece. We absolutely need to support our workforce to do their work with a whole council mindset, customer first approach. And again, it's not that we don't have fantastic people every day turning up to do a great job, but they've typically been employed through a specific service lens. So if I think about our colleagues in the communities for example, they will all have been employed to do something specific and it's how we act together and work together in a system and within the model that we're proposing that will really make the difference. So not doing all of those things I think will result in less good experience for our customers, outcomes that are not improved and systems that will begin to fail us even more fully and we will not address those really important pain points and lots of those things will be landing in Councillors inboxes regularly. So we know where the work lies in that regard. No, thank you very much for that and I think delving into some of the areas that you've mentioned will come in subsequent questions. I just wondered in the 25 years since .gov.uk was launched, it has changed quite a lot. Actually it changed on the day it was launched. We hacked in and improved the architecture of it. I know because I launched it. But what it does now is that a lot of things that were previously separate websites you get to through .gov.uk. Now I know there are views that you should do that or you shouldn't do that and there are pluses and minuses. It's a very unfair question because Louise is the one who really would know the answer to this but is that something that will be considered? I'm not suggesting what outcome this should be but it's worth looking at. I couldn't give a direct example of that. So yes, absolutely. We're looking at that in the children's domain at the moment through two lenses. So we host information for parents, carers, professionals on multiple sites. So family information service, local offer, council website, lots of different places. And in fact we've seen models elsewhere where we can actually from a front end user perspective pull those things together under one umbrella so you're not having to go yourself into different sites and doorways and try and piece this together but you can get that intelligent search function. You're able to bring together the information. And we're also thinking about this with the lens for our school partners. So if they're looking for support for a child in school, for example, again, often they're having -- they're not able to access one source, one directory, they're having to find that from multiple sources. So that would be another example of somewhere where we're looking to bring together information and looking at technology. We know that Hampshire, for example, have invested in that recently and we're working with colleagues that led on that to be able to learn from that experience and design. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Can we come to question two from Hazel? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Paragraphs three and eight of the report note the challenges that many residents face when contacting the council. How will the county council follow best practice when implementing new processes as part of the customer transformation for customers to contact the council regarding vital or urgent matters? Thank you. Again, this is -- we're doing this in a number of ways. I'll try and be succinct. What we started with a set of really important design principles. They build on our organizational design principles, but they're explicitly for our customers so that we can absolutely think through those principles to be able to understand and design in a way which achieves that best practice. So they will be a guide across the whole council, so if we're thinking about systems, if we're thinking about policies, strategies, job descriptions, they should be embedded in the whole, and that will have the important sort of guiding light for us in relation to our best practice work. We've been looking at lots of other authorities and also business, you know, examples, so really looking outward and making sure that we're drawing that in to inform our work. We have internal expertise, but we've added to that to really try and shape our insight while we're developing our design. And so, you know, in a number of ways, we're very much trying to take a very open approach to the way in which we're doing the work to take a learning approach to the way we're doing the work and also build on that practice that we're seeing elsewhere. And we have absolutely been looking at the government model and working with colleagues in some of those spaces, but not alone, lots of areas. And of course, we'll need to see that right through into the implementation. So we're taking an approach which we describe as a sort of test and learn approach. It's not new, we didn't invent it, but it does help you solve complex problems quite rapidly. And so what we're not looking for here is one big bang change, but multiple iterations driving towards a singular goal that will need to be very well sequenced and programmed. And that helps us to understand from a benefits perspective whether the thing we think we're going to implement actually is going to have the outcome. So we'll be using some tools along the way to help us make sure that we are actually getting to that best practice. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for that answer. I mean, I've had a couple of instances recently where I've had to deal with the highways emergency and also an adult social care individual emergency, and it wasn't that straightforward to get it sorted. I mean, I did in the end, and as far as the adult social care issue, I actually went to the executive director and got it resolved very quickly that way. But in some cases, I think one needs to be able to actually pick up the phone and speak to somebody and actually say, this is a scenario, please could we have some help to be able to resolve things properly? And I just wonder whether that will be available in emergency situations. And also, I'd like some sort of reassurance that you're talking to members about our issues. I mean, we all have casework that we're dealing with. In some cases, it is very urgent. And perhaps if we talk through some of our experiences that might help to shape the customer transformation program. Thank you. The feedback and the insight that we will get from our customers and our members, and we specifically reference members in our work, both as a customer group, but also important to that understanding that you bring from your communities and so on, is very much built into our program. We've got several things that we are progressing in that area. We have a member development session that will bring everybody in at the beginning of September. I think it's on the 2nd, as soon as we're back, something like that, we're doing that. We've been reaching out to different groups. I have traced through some examples that have been sent myself. And also, I've been doing quite a lot of mystery shopping. And I've been encouraging other people to do that as well. And particularly, our customer champions group, I've been encouraging them to do the mystery shopping. Because what we know is that we think it's easier to do things than often it actually is. So we will very much be working through in that way. I recognize the issues specifically around some of the areas that you're mentioning. And it would be no surprise to know that we're focusing on those areas. It's too early, I would say, to be able to tell you explicitly in design terms what the solution will be. But we will definitely be focused on finding better solutions to the areas that you're describing. And that will be a part of the program to work over the coming months. Steve. Thanks, chair. Just to kind of pick up on a couple of comments made about the model. And I think the cabinet member also mentioned the dynamic model as well. So later on in the report, paragraph 17, talks to the proposed model being specifically a dynamic rather than a target operating model. And I always get nervous when we talk about those sorts of things. Because it becomes a little bit, well, what are we actually going to get done? How do we know when we're done? The cost of it all. So again, I appreciate the approach being a dynamic approach. But fundamentally, this council needs to have some targets in mind about what to do, what to address. And from a costing point of view, the fundamental question from my point is, how do we know when we're done with this? Because there's a four-year program being talked about here with a significant chunk of money on it. And from the proposed dynamic model rather than where we have a current operating model and a target operating model and having the gap analysis in the middle about where we need to get to. You're talking about a dynamic, agile approach, which always does make me very nervous. So it becomes, again, very sometimes a bit too flexible. And we end up basically going along on a journey with no sight in end, no end in sight. So if you could just help clarify that for me, please. Thank you. Yeah, definitely. So the reason that we're describing-- and I know this is set out-- but the reason that we're using the language of dynamic is because, of course, customer needs change over time. And policy decisions get made that might change elements that might be outside of our control, which might lead us to need to respond differently. But the model itself is quite clear in terms of its components. It is not an unboundaried piece of work. It is a program which has a beginning and a middle and an end. And the way in which we will fund that is through drawing down in a gateway type process. So it's not-- whilst we've given a sum to the whole program, we won't draw down on that funding all at once. We will be doing that in chunks, phased resource, and to be able to evidence what we have achieved with that and make the case for the next tranche as we go. So we need to be able to break this down in order to be able to deliver it. And that's the way in which we'll be able to make sure that we're helping to understand the benefits that we've realized and the next planned phase. Excuse me. It is a very large piece of work, and we've talked about this. How do we make sure that we're sequencing this and program managing this in a way which is going to achieve effect? And so there is, within the program, a component which is about the programming resource to make sure that we've got the professional eye to that and we've got the governance in place in order to be able to monitor it. The last thing I would say is that we must demonstrate through our benefits tangible step change improvement along the way. So of course, at any point, there could be a decision to change the course of the program or to expand the course of the program or cease the work. But there will be, along the way, those finite benefits which will remain within the council and be able to be built upon in the way in which it's appropriate at that time. So I appreciate the four years is a long time, but we're making sure that we're dividing this program up in a sequenced way to be able to cope with that change over time. >> Okay, thank you. With permission of the committee, I think we should take questions three, four and five together. Mine is three. David's is question four and Steve's question five. So the question three is measures that are in place to ensure the council's most vulnerable customers benefit from improvements to efficiency and service quality and I accept that we spent a lot of time on that in the first half of the meeting, but if we could, David, if you could ask your question four. >> Sure. Yeah. This is based on paragraph three of the report which states that a significant number of our customers face challenges in their interactions with the council. That sounds pretty wide ranging in my mind. And I'm sure that all members would say, yeah, that's true. But can you be specific in, if you like, you know, rating which are the most important categories in any way or can you give us a bit more guidance on what kinds of challenges? >> And Steve's question five. >> Yeah, thanks, Chair. I mean, the more detail and clarity on the discovery phase of the project that's mentioned in paragraph 13 to 20 in the report, more detail and information on what exactly what consultation was done with which service users and how that was done and just more information on that as well, please, just to help me understand a little bit more. Thank you. >> I'll take those in the order in which they were posed. So in the first question about how we are making sure that our most vulnerable customers benefit, at the heart of this program is absolutely accessibility and inclusion of our customers in our work. And we have started through the lens of an equality impact assessment. So that's something you would expect as a bedrock of our work. That has drawn out quite a large range of considerations for us and for us to be able to think about that will guide our design work. It's a live document and we'll keep that updated. We're also working very closely in collaboration with a large number of people, experts in different ways. So that's everybody from our resident insight unit to those that are working together with partnerships and into our directorates. So as you imagine, there's a very wide range. And explicitly also our communities and our prevention teams. And there's, for example, a very rich range of information coming from colleagues working in the team around the community in the towns and villages model. I will give you as an example there. So we've been wanting to make sure that we're focused on and targeting our work to be able to respond to those vulnerable customers' needs. An example of that might be something which I know will be probably in different people's inboxes but around the blue badge scheme. This will be a really important contributor to a positive life experience. And it's often more difficult to be able to get through that process. I sat and listened to some calls, anonymous calls, but really hearing very clearly from residents about what was difficult for them in that process. So that might be an example of one of the processes that would come to mind that's making it difficult. But if you trace that right through, so we would often think about blue badge in isolation, but it's actually also having the parking bay outside your home or the accessibility into your home. So we're thinking end to end throughout this work about that vulnerable person's journey. So having the badge will be one thing, but being able to park your vehicle and be able to have access from your home is something different. So we're looking at the whole journey. And then, of course, we'll need very specialist interaction and support with specific groups and feedback loops that tell us whether both in qualitative and quantitative terms, we're doing the work in a way which is making the right benefits. So we're doing that through taking a multidisciplinary team approach that takes in the customer, customer's voice, and we are setting up, for example, different resident panels, customer panels to be able to help us inform our work. It's just one example of a range of ways in which we're trying to engage vulnerable groups and customer's voices in the design. I think, like before, questions six and seven -- yes, they're both about complaints six and seven. If you could ask both of those, Steve, and then answer as one. Sure. Thanks, Chair. I was just basically looking for some more clarity and detail on the -- from the report. So paragraph seven refers to a number of customer complaints made by different avenues, but doesn't include the number of complaints made via Surrey County Council's website webforms. Is there a reason for that? And if not, what is that figure? And paragraph nine in the report states Surrey County Council recorded 2,598 complaints and is there a breakdown of those complaints by category? So just more detail and some information on those two items, if possible, please. Yes, absolutely. I can circulate explicitly the breakdown of the number of complaints, if that's helpful. The information is also repeated and drawn from the information that appeared in the annual complaints performance report to the Audit and Governance Committee. So there's a correlation of that data there. The data that we cited in paragraph seven relates to the customer interactions to the contact center and the complaints data, including the webforms. So we can, again, give explicit breakdown of those figures, if that's helpful. We have that information available. I have to circulate that. Okay. Thank you very much, indeed. Question eight, can you estimate the staffing resource needed to implement the program over its lifespan? Michael, welcome. Thank you. Yes, certainly. So as we've spoken about it, we're taking a multiyear approach to the program. So obviously the further we go into the -- sorry, the further we go into the distance, the more we're kind of estimating heavily. However, we anticipate it will be an average of around 23 full-time equivalents over year by year on average. So just for kind of a bit more insight, those roles will cover kind of user research roles. And we've spoken obviously in the earlier agenda item about the importance of digital inclusion. So that will be user research from an internal perspective of the services within the county and then obviously the service users and the communities more widely. There will be the standard program support that you would expect to see in terms of program management and project support within the team. And we're also kind of taking a design-led approach, a co-design. So design capabilities and capacity change management and making sure that the conditions for success are there in the areas that we're working with. And one final thing that I would like to draw out is there is additionality in there for service roles. So obviously we've spoken about adult social care. There's additional needs in disability things, the really big areas that we're going to be working with that are under huge amounts of pressure. And one of the learnings that came out of the DB&I recommendations as well as just past learning from other programs is this needs to be done with and we have additional support going in at the time of the change so that it's embedded and can sustain once the kind of project and the work unwinds. >> Thank you for that. Yes, please. Presumably that's one of our recommendations of the DB&I report which is really important. Thank you. Okay. Next question. The reason I've got so many questions is sadly one member wasn't able to come. So if they're clever questions, they're certainly not mine originally. Question nine, report notes the approval of drawdown of funding required in 2526 onwards will require approval from the governance boards which will in turn be dependent on evidence of that benefits are being realized as paragraph 31. How will this be evidenced and assessed? I guess it would be Anna. Yes. >> I'm going to defer to my colleague on the screen. So Matt Marsden has been working very closely with Michael and Liz on the business case. So he will take this one. >> Thank you, Anna. So Matt Marsden, Strategic Finance Business Partner, First Strategy and Innovation. We are undertaking financial modeling of each of the individual test and learn activities that Liz has highlighted. We'll create a baseline to measure against on the performance data that we have. We're capturing the key assumptions that underpin the activity and drive those financial benefits. The assumptions will be benchmarked where possible against other authorities and similar activity that we undertake in Surrey. The results will be presented back through the service leads to gain agreement to those proposals and those results will also be presented through the transformation governance for review and challenge. The results from the test and learn will be captured on a benefit tracker and that will feed into the budget setting process and the benefit tracker will be updated on a monthly basis as part of budget monitoring and reported against through that mechanism. Regular monitoring of progress against the benefits will also be undertaken by the transformation governance and updates on progress will be shared through the Strategic Improvement and Assurance Transformation Board. Okay, no, thank you very much and presumably also technology will inevitably be frankly completely different in four years time and probably one year's time and presumably that will be part of the assessment as well. It will. Just say yes. Yes. Yes, Steve. Thanks, Chair. I mean, just drilling into this in a bit more detail. So it implies that there will be a set of achievable benefits to be clearly defined and the next stages won't be basically released, but from what I'm hearing, and Craig may or may not have misheard, but those benefits or those amount of benefits, the percentages or the -- they haven't been defined yet. So we're going into a program with gateways there and I've heard there's a lot of modeling to be done from test and learn and a dynamic model, but currently what's being presented or what I'm hearing at committee today, those benefits to enable further drawdown of funds for the program in later years haven't been defined. Have I misunderstood? I'm happy to comment on that. So they have been defined and they've been brought together under different groupings, but we have had to use a lot of examples from other local authorities of modeling principles because of course a lot of this, particularly when we're thinking about technology, has yet to be proven through the test and learn approaches. So we are front-loading the areas of activity where we know that there's the highest level of interest and outcomes and experience that need to be improved upon. That's informed from all parts of the council and our evidence base. They would include areas that you'll be familiar with and we spoke about in various forums including the last full council. So what we will be doing is constantly refining and reviewing those against the outcomes that we are seeing emerge from the work. So the benefits have been modeled, they've been defined, but they of course need to be constantly iterated and tested because it is essentially a business plan. It's a case for change and it's not something where everything is currently known with a finite degree of accuracy. I think if Matt wants to add then I'm happy to bring him in. If I might come back, so if it has been defined in the report I'd be grateful if you could actually highlight that. Where it is I might have missed it. And again from a test and learn approach typically that's an iterative development approach. So you're basically going into that. Again some more detail about the test and learn approach and about the goals aspirations and especially one of the key items here about entry and exit criteria, which we touched on in the DB&I program. So there's a lot of unknowns here I feel, and especially when we're talking about benefit realization that again if it is defined within the papers or you can point it to members here that would be very, very helpful. But again I just get very concerned when we're talking about requesting for funding, further funding based on the evidence of benefit realization and from what I see at the moment I don't see where they're defined or what this council is going to be targeting or looking towards those benefits. So if you can basically share where those benefits are defined as you just mentioned that would be very helpful in the first instance. Well we can certainly circulate more information about those benefits if that's helpful and we might be able to talk through in the meeting the areas where we have defined those benefits. We've captured them in the full business case which is referenced in the report. That's where the detail is referenced in paragraph 29. And we of course are moving forward to a decision about that also at cabinet. So we're really happy to present more of that information as it's relevant to the committee to be able to help you understand more of the detail of this. But I would say that I haven't yet come across anybody who has felt that the experience and the outcomes from the way in which we've set up our work as a council is delivering for our customers, our residents the outcome. So it is absolutely founded on trying to prove those outcomes and those experiences, those needs. And the benefits will very much be experiential as well as financial. Okay thank you very much. We can turn to question 10 which is relating to paragraph 32, research from other local authorities demonstrating the benefits that can come from digital strategies such as the use of AI. I wonder if you could give some examples of services where improvements have been realised in this way in other councils and how successful those measures have been. I think it's fair to say that many local authorities are undertaking similar activities around either customer transformation or obviously the introduction of AI. Many are at a similar stage as us as an organisation. We have been working with some other organisations, having conversations, so namely Derby City Council have invested significantly in a customer transformation programme. They are still very much in what you would call the early stages but they are further ahead of us. So they have started to realise benefits using AI in adult social care and children's services. So when it comes to customer contacts, enquiries and assessments, it's demonstrating benefits within there. So we are working very closely with them and will continue to do so. Kingston Borough Council have also delivered pilots of automation in adult social care assessments. So you can see adult social care is obviously a theme that is running through their programmes. We have also been talking to Hackney and Dorset Council and as we move into the design stage and the programme moves into that next phase, we will continue those conversations and learning from across the country and with other authorities. If we could move to the last three questions, all about finance, from Steve, who else? Thank you, Chair. If I can take this one at a time, rather than comb England, that would be helpful. So again, paragraph 25 in the report talks about a saving, £17 million saving being identified by the programme, again, part of the justification for the programme and given this is going to come in front of the cabinet shortly for approval, my question is, I don't see anything in the report about how the savings have been identified, how they will be achieved, is it an annual figure expected to be realised across the four years, that that level of detail is not in the report at all, and again, given this is a very, very large chunk of money, if we can talk about that, that would be most helpful and I'll come on to the other ones if that's okay, Chair. Matt has that detail, Chairman, Matt can speak to that. Yes, thank you. So the financial benefit quoted represents the collective benefits across the cross-cutting transformation programmes, including digital and data and core function redesign. It's key to look at these as an aggregate as the programmes are intrinsically linked and enablers for one another. The efficiencies build year on year to an estimated, it's actually 17.9 million in 2728 and are against the budget. As plans develop and we talked about the detailed working that we need to do to underpin each of the tests and learns, those savings will be updated with an expectation actually of improving upon those estimates. The customer transformation programme is targeted to deliver 7.9 million of those benefits by 2728 and the profile financial modelling that we have currently shows that the customer transformation programme delivers cumulative benefits over the four years of 12.4 million to 2728 against the 11.3 million investment ask. So work continues, as I mentioned earlier, to develop the financial modelling in relation to these benefits, but the financial benefits are expected to be delivered across three core areas. A significant proportion of the financial benefits are expected against staffing of customer contact services across Surrey by creating capacity through driving more streamlined and automated processes. Liz talked earlier about the manual labour-intensive work that some of these processes currently undertake and trying to streamline these through robotics or AI or technology will help in delivering some of that streamlined process. That along with synergies from consolidating some of these functions where we've got disparate pockets of people sat within service areas where we feel that there's opportunity to bring those services together and deliver greater synergies. We're also expecting to deliver significant benefits through a targeting providing customers easier access to information and data to help meet their needs in a timely manner, reducing the impact of escalating needs and aid the management of demands across services. So Michael referred earlier to the work in Derby where they're doing work with adult social care and children's social care and we are absolutely expecting to see similar benefits within Surrey, so delivering benefits to that wider organisation. And then a smaller but still relevant saving from consolidation of systems and microsites. Liz mentioned the numerous microsites that we have currently and some of the difficulties we have in navigating some of those microsites, so bringing those together, avoidance of cost of future investment in microsites but also synergies from training and development of fewer microsites. The financial benefits are based on estimates against activity currently being undertaken on the test and learn. What we've done here is extrapolated out based on that activity very high level in terms of what we think those future benefits will look like. And we have benchmarked this, so we're relatively confident of the ability to deliver the whole, but what we've got to get to is really understanding the detail that sits behind and really model and measure exactly what is going to be delivered and where and ensure that we can deliver those efficiencies. Thank you for that. So basically the $17 million.9 proposed savings is basically cumulative across the four-year programme. You've gone into a lot of detail and the question is why isn't that detail in the report and can that detail, all that modelling data be included in an updated version of this, most certainly for cabinet to have a look at because they're going to need all the information they need possible to basically come to a decision on this one. So can I ask that -- well, first of all, why that level of detail wasn't available in this report and secondly, if it is now available, if it can be included, certainly made available to this committee and to cabinet as well? Yes, that can be included, yes. Just on your point about the $17.9 million, just to be clear, that is incremental, not cumulative. It's a combination of the $7.9 million from customer on an incremental basis as we would put into the MTFS and a $10 million coming from core function redesign. As Matt said, we look at data digital core function and customer as a combination of programmes because they work together in a cross-cutting way to enable each other. But that $17.9 million is $7.9 million on an incremental basis over four years for customer plus $10 million from core function, which hasn't been profiled out yet. That's the piece of work we're doing at the moment. Thanks for that clarity. Again, the total investment ask, including the customer transformation programme, core function redesign and digital data and AI partner, four-year total is $25.6 million and we're talking about a £17.9 million saving, is that correct? Correct. At the moment, we are still looking at the benefits. We haven't included the benefits for data and digital. That business case has been worked up at the moment and that will have its own benefits, so that will add to the benefits as well, plus the work that we are doing. So there is a definite pump priming to customer, right? In the first couple of years, there is pump priming to get customer to where we need to get it and with the benefits coming in later years over that four-year period. So that's still being worked up through these tests and learns and what Matt was talking about earlier. I think Lance wants to come in, but just a final point is this modelling, we talked about all of this detail, why wasn't in this report? I think simply because of the speed of us trying to provide the information and the report. This was a late item to come on to this agenda. We were grateful for the opportunity, but obviously we would endeavour to make sure that you had all the information available to you in a further iteration. Thank you. Lance. Yes, sorry. I came into this at a bit of a late stage. I'm assuming this is built on a systems technology that you've already got by the underlying databases and all the systems, which are not talked about in this at all. I assume that these front ends are built on top of that infrastructure. There's no risk in here about whether that infrastructure is suitable or capable of supporting the changes you're making. So that assumes there is no risk to that at all. The second question I've got, I suppose, is a lot of the data for the work you're doing here would be on other systems outside of the county council. So do those underlying platform systems you've got relate to other organisations where you will move data in and out? I'm happy to answer that. So in relation to the underlying systems, there is also work to do there, which is why we describe this as a long-term programme. I'll describe more. So we are working through the digital and data part of this programme to make sure that we have systems architecture that really, truly speaks across the council. That's not what we have at the moment, and it's part of the core transformation for digital and data. We also have, because of the way in which we have operated without a core operating model for customer, duplicated multiple applications and systems. So for example, the way in which you can pay the council or report things to the council, these are all book things with the council. We have multiple applications and technologies that do those things. So part of this programme is to work together with our information technology and digital colleagues to be able to streamline those things. The benefits of those activities have already been factored into the MTFS, the medium term financial strategy. But we need that work to occur so that we can realise the benefit for customers in terms of their experience by transferring data, by being able to join up those systems, and to be able to reduce the fragmentation, quite honestly. So there is a lot of work to do in this area. The underlying system that we have in our contact centre, it's a system that we chose to extend whilst we redeveloped a specification for the system. You'll be very familiar with the terms around CRMs, customer relationship management systems. And I think, again, it's been proven that many parts of our organisation have wanted to go ahead and commission their own CRM. So what we're saying is, no, let's redefine this for the whole council, understand what the need is and what we need to achieve. And we're in the process of beginning that piece of work this September to be able to implement specification together in order to procure and implement in 18 months from now, which is when our contracts end. So there's a lot of systems work, underlying systems work in this programme. And again, very happy to draw in. But as you would expect, we are very much drawing the lessons from the task and finish group, the DB&I work. And we want to make sure that this work takes all of that into account. And is robustly done as we go forward. So I think I've got most of that. I still think the pace that covers the risks of this and the mitigations, I assume the bit we've just been talking about comes under digital in that it's dependent on digital investment transformation. Is that the bit that covers that? Which is a medium risk, I think that's where you've got it Dan, medium probability. From all my experience of system deployment, it doesn't feel like a medium risk at all to me. I guess my overwhelming concern about this is, coupled with the concerns that have already been talked about, about how you measure all the benefits, is I'm not convinced that the risks are well enough articulated so the cabinet really do know what risk they're taking on. Because I consider sitting here in four years time going we've just spent whatever many millions it is and it didn't deliver what we expected. And I think we are, you're not clearly articulable giving enough information on risk or being open enough about the risks, because I would have for example that digital piece as a massive risk. The deployment of the CRM system was tricky, I'm not sure it's even finished yet, but now you're building this on top of it, really good idea, I've got no problem with concept, but the reality of the risk is enormous here, and the amount of money involved is significant, and this council is not going to be able to just keep shelling out huge amounts of money to resolve the issues, because halfway through this project in two years time, you're going to come back and go, sorry we didn't quite get this right, we need another 20, 30, 40 million. And I just see this coming, and I don't believe that the risks are well enough articulated to cover the scale of expenditure and risk. We can absolutely develop an articulation of those risks more explicitly with before and after mitigation ratings as well, so that we've got that clarity about high risk, high dependency mitigations, post mitigation risk and assessment of that, very happy to take those comments on board and redevelop that. I think David wants to come in on this point. Well yes, thank you Chairman, as a member of the task group, the primary lesson or primary recommendation that fell out of it was that you need to make sure that you know what it is you're trying to achieve before you start achieving it, and whenever that happens, and I've seen that in other sectors as well, when that's done fully, then everything works, and if it isn't done, everything costs three times as much, and that sort of was in response to some extent to what you're discussing with Lance just now, but that's the crucial part, and I'm concerned that I'm sort of seeing that you're edging towards that, but not sort of taking it fully into your plans. So clearly Liz can cover off the technical aspects of this, but the test and learn phase with the decision gateways for investment is actually there just purely to address that, I mean the rigour around this whole programme in terms of the governance and the contact points with those scrutiny opportunities are very frequent and very robust and very regular, but in terms of the technical aspects, perhaps Liz you can address. Yes absolutely, so one of our design principles is that this programme is technology enabled, not technology driven, we're not trying to buy a solution to create these experiences, we need to understand really clearly what it is we need technology to do to support the experience and have real clarity before we go out to the market to buy anything or indeed adapt our systems to be able to do those things, I couldn't agree more, we stood down a solution that was coming I think with the right intention but probably from the other end of the lens because we thought that it would be, we would be potentially chasing our tails trying to put the energy into making that work as opposed to actually focusing on the customer experience, and I think we'll take that learning, the learning that we've had from the recent task and finish group and make sure that we're drawing this through in a different way with that real explicit understanding of what the need is and what we're trying to achieve. Okay yes thanks, if we could go to question 12, Steve. Thank you chair, so question 12 again is finance focus and hopefully there will be a response on this one, a description in the paper in paragraph 30 to 31 it talks about intending to draw £3.5 million from the council's reserves to basically start this project, I kind of know the answer to this question but I'm going to ask it anyway, it's basically why hasn't this, the cultural project's not been accounted for in the current year's council budget hence it's coming from reserves, so I'd just like to understand the thinking from that and the justification for doing that, thank you. You are correct, it is coming from reserves, it was, it didn't, it wasn't part of the discussions as part of setting the budget last year, it came in later, if you can recall the budget setting process goes over a long period of time, it was, the budget had already been finalised by the time it has to go to cabinet and full council, it effectively is finalised by January, early January, this came later, it wasn't part of those conversations but I should also add that every time we look at the investment of a large project we look at various sources, so even if that was thought about as part of the budget setting process we still would have looked at reserves as a mechanism for funding that, it's a big strategic programme, it is multi-year, it has significant benefits outside of financial benefits, particularly around the customer experience in the first two years which I alluded to earlier around pump priming, so it's not unusual that we would look at the reserves as an option to fund this and this was the mechanism that was the correct option for funding a programme of this size. Thank you throughout, so yeah, given the budget cycle is, we're in next year's budget cycle now already, so I'm going to paraphrase, so this customer transformation project, it seems to have come out of left field into the council's scope of work and wasn't considered in last year's budget setting process, this piece of work wasn't on the radar and then suddenly it's on the radar, so again the question around timing from this council's point of view and given the fact we just completed the review of the DB&I programme and SAP Unit 4 etcetera, I get really, really nervous again about the fact that we're embarking on a very, very expensive and long-term project and programme that maybe hasn't been properly thought through, the information may not all be there and available for the cabinet to make that decision and the fact that it wasn't considered or wasn't on the radar to be considered in any budget cycle last year and now we're into the current budget and we're pulling it from reserves, which is a valid point, you can take it from there as well, but it seems that this very, very large piece of work has come out of left field. I would dispute the left field comment because we know, we were in a fortunate position in this council that we have the option to go to reserves and that's always an option to fund, we are very financially sustainable, so that is an option, so just because you haven't immediately identified your funding source of which it was one, doesn't mean that it wasn't thought through, that the work hadn't started to be thought about, that there's some proprietary work already being underway. To include it in the budget setting process is something that takes time and takes a lot of work and takes a lot of thought in terms of having a business case that is thought out to the point where you are going to put it as part of the budget setting process and then because we are not flush with cash in terms of when we receive money from central government, you have to be really clear about what you're doing, how much it's going to cost you before you decide that you're going to put it into the gap and make efficiencies as a result of something which isn't clearly thought through, so it has to be very rigorous before you decide that you're going to put it as part of the budget setting process. So I'm not disputing the fact that it was still being thought about, what I'm disputing is that it's coming from left field, so there was already some thought process behind that. Okay, maybe left field is an unfair comment, so I'll clarify, the customer transformation programme or the project that we see in front of us, when did the business requirement for that actually become realised and when did work start in that within this council? Well, it started with a communication last autumn which recruited into the strategic director position which I held and still hold in terms of my set of accountabilities, but I commenced work in that role at the beginning of the new year and at that point we had just a very broad sheet and an ambition, so the detail has not been available to us in relation to the programme of work activities until well beyond the financial setting period. We were well into the medium term financial setting period come January and February of course, budgets approved, so we were with a sort of an outline by the time we got to the end of April outline approach and then we've more recently completed work on the full business case, so it's taken that long to develop the principles. Sorry, Denise, yeah. Thank you, I mean this also coincided with the rationalisation and analysis of all of our transformation programmes, so they were reduced down to some very key programmes which coincided with obviously we have the time imperative in terms of the customer experience, customer satisfaction levels and recognising that this is a core piece of work after we've already actually analysed and interrogated every single transformation programme, filtered out those that were either complete or could be consolidated and this was one of the products of that exercise, so it coincided with this new approach that we're taking. Thank you. Can I just ask, I mean I think all of that is in my opinion entirely understandable and that's logical. I'm still slightly confused as to why expenditure in the next financial year would also come out of reserves when plainly, as I understand the paper, should that not be part of the base budget? Not in a programme, no, because this is all treated as a programme of works, a programme of works we don't have in base budgets. Okay, interesting. Okay, let's move on then to, I'm still trying to absorb that one, but doubtless we'll talk with the photocopier about that. Question 13, Steve. Thanks, Chair, so again as per the question in the paper, paragraph 35 talks to the in principle £11.3 million investment requirement over four years, so the question is under the detail about is cabinet going to be asked to sign that off or is it a release of that funding contingent on the stage governance board process referred to in paragraph 31 which we've already touched on, which is about benefit realisation, which again is not defined, so again some detail on that, again it's going to be an interesting cabinet meeting going forward on this, but just some clarity on what exactly that means, please. That's correct, it is in principle because in my view Liz and the team need to have some kind of understanding of the magnitude of what cabinet are prepared to invest in this, so does she have £5 million, £10 million, £2 million, so it's an in principle on the basis that Liz can do some planning for the program, however the drawdown will be strictly on a stage control basis, so when Liz comes and asks cabinet for some money there will be a business case put forward with benefits identified, ensuring that the benefits are realised and budgets are removed before we move onto the next phase of the process and then the next drawdown will happen if and when it's required over that four year period, so that's why we talk about it as an in principle and we are doing that across all of our transformation programs, they're called function data, they all work on exactly the same basis. Just for my interest, so this stage control process, if you decide not to allow any more money to be drawn down, what happens? Has that ever happened in the council, that you just go no it hasn't delivered because you must have had projects that didn't deliver against the milestones, at that point you go you know what, we're not going to do this? I understand what you're saying but I don't think it's that straightforward because yes we do re-evaluate projects, we evaluate projects in flight, there's a lot of capital projects that we re-evaluate, that's a very good example when capital projects go over the allocated budget or we have a process to bring those into budget, we may also have a process to re-engineer them, to review them, to do something differently, it comes at a caution though, we don't do that lightly because there's money that's been invested that then needs to be written off, particularly if it's a capital project then there's no asset, then it gets written back to revenue, that's a technical, that's something technical but it's very valid so it would have to be against a very clear set of criteria and then if that criteria wasn't met you could de-scope it, you could then change course, so I think it will need to be looked at in the round, it's not something I can say as a matter of principle there are many aspects that you would look at in terms of risk of advancing versus risk of de-scoping versus risk of stopping because they all have risks. I think the point I was trying to get to is in reality once you commit to this project you're committed to the whole amount so talking about stages is pretty pointless because you know you've got to spend the whole amount at least because none of the stages would stop the expenditure so in reality as soon as the cabinet agrees this they're agreeing to the whole amount in reality. No I disagree because that's why it's in principle, that's why it's based on a business case so who knows what's going to happen, I mean you had the comment earlier on what technology is going to look like in four years time so it's not an open checkbook, it isn't in principle to cap it but the exact amounts that will be released within that budget and it could be less and it could be slightly more as we move into the future years will be around a solid business case and I as a section 151 would want to make sure that the benefits that were released with the drawdown, the first drawdown are delivered as they were stated and if not then that that's another discussion that needs to be had with cabinet about future drawdowns. Okay thank you very much for all of that, can we move to the recommendations? Oh sorry Nick. Thank you very much, I'm not sure what stage I should perhaps raise these before, the point or maybe points I'd like to raise is the first is communication. This is going to take place over a long time, communication might be this committee, it might be the members development group and it might be members. I'm not convinced from my experience over the last X years that communication is something we're particularly good at, with this sort of project with a large amount of money I think it's very important that the need for communication is fully understood, I don't think that members of this committee necessarily will be expected to be involved in any way in day-to-day decisions but I think in practical terms members do have experience and maybe are able to offer something even taking the members development group they're saying maybe to us as members we're going to look into X, Y and Z to assist the program. We need to know what's happening so that we have the opportunity to feed into that, there may be other ways of communicating that's fine. I'd like I think it was Lance to go back to the point that's just been made, I completely agree with him that if once we start this project with a fair amount of money being approved it's going to be difficult if not impossible to go back and say we've had enough, I think it's really really unlikely but it's nonetheless extremely important and I'll give you an example where it would have been impossible to go back but it's just as an example of what might happen. The original estimate for the IT project which Stephen has done an excellent work on with his report, my memory is that the original cost of this was going to be let's say $18, $19 million. It ended up costing us $29 so another $10 or $11 million. There was at no stage a possibility of saying enough is enough. This is the sort of example, it's probably not a very good one where we had no opportunity to say no and the thing wasn't dealt with in my view properly, the report says it all. So communication and the opportunity to go back I think are absolutely essential. Thank you. Yeah I'll just take those in two parts if I may. I absolutely agree about the communication and we have structured a range of opportunities so as I said earlier we have the member development group session but we're also meeting with the member development steering group next week, I think it's on Monday, so we're trying to engage in a range of ways individually and in different groups in order to be able to do that and we must keep it going so that's something which I very much take on board and also welcome views about places and ways in which to do that which work best for members in different ways. Also just in relation to the program and this sort of once we've started we can't stop. I mean of course I would be advocating for this program, I don't think we should stop because we've got work but we need to evidence that work and we are structuring this in ways which means that you will get benefits from every part of the work which can stand alone and they will build over time to create a whole and more impactful impact but it is possible for us to do this. It's in part a technology program because there is a decision to be made about our CRM platform for example but it is not a wide scale technical program. We will take advantage of technology to help us do things but in very targeted ways so I think that this program will have different features that does enable a genuine gateway approach and benefit realisation over time which will be demonstrable. Thank you. David Lewis. Yeah thanks Bob, I just wanted to say I don't think that Nick's example is comparable because with the DB&I program the reason it was initiated was because the existing system, the SAP system was going to become redundant so therefore we had to do something. It wasn't an option not to do anything so I do accept that it was over budget as we know and it was over time but we had to do something to replace the system so from that point of view I don't think that example is comparable to the work we are doing on the customer transformation where we are not faced with the situation for all the reasons which Liz and others have articulated and we are really optimistic that this program will largely enhance the customer experience and give us some financial benefits but we don't have this burning platform that we had with DB&I where we had to do something because the system is going to become redundant. David sorry I had you finish, you froze right at the end of your last sentence. Thank you. Okay we will assume David has. Thank you very much David. Can we move to the, oh Denise. Thank you, I was just going to say I mean in comparison this is almost a modular approach that has been taken because each stage of this process will be subject to a business case, to decisions, to a rigorous scrutiny gateway as well as the evidence base that will be set out to support the next stage being progressed to so this is not the same kind of approach that was taken as DB&I and we have got the benefits of all of that learning to incorporate into the approach that has been taken here and with the competence and the rigour around the program management and the staffing and the expertise that we have on board I think we are confident to proceed on that basis, thank you. Thank you very much. So can we go to the recommendations, we have various drafts of these but let's see which is up first. So the first recommendation is that we, the cabinet recommend that the cabinet approves the four recommendations in relation to the customer transformation program as set out in the cabinet papers, noting the progress made in the program to date. I don't think I have heard anything that indicates to me that we shouldn't, Steve. Sorry chair, I mean this committee is a scrutiny committee and there have been several questions and concerns raised about, for example, the benefit analysis about the financial commitments about the deliverability of this particular program. Is it not within our goals to not recommend it because there are significant concerns here. I think there are some further work that needs to be done on the strategy on the business case on the benefit analysis that could help cabinet if it came back to this committee with that extra detail. Yes, I think it would be helpful, could you put up the second recommendation because this may certainly for me, this is an important part of it. So this is the select committee continue to receive regular updates on the customer transformation program to ensure that it delivers best value for Surrey residents and does not exert a disproportionate effect on council budgets. I mean, that certainly answers part of what you said, but Lance, you want to come in? Yeah, my underlying problem here is to do with the risks. I, you know, it's a worthy program, it needs to be done, understand all that, absolutely the right approach, got all of that, so I'm quite happy with the first slide, but I don't believe the risk of the program has been well enough worked through and so when it goes to cabinet, I think it's all, you know, let's get ahead with this program, it's a really good idea, it's going to transform customer experience, I love all that, but I honestly don't believe there's enough discussion and information on the risks they're taking on, the impact that, you know, if things don't go as well as we expect, what is that going to mean? The fact that the digital platform is built on is deemed a medium risk, when in fact it's a monumental risk really, that they can build all this on top of platform, I just don't think cabinet can, you know, I'm quite happy for them to make the decision, but they need to accept that the risks are not well enough defined. Would it help if at the beginning of this second recommendation, we noted the potential risks, and you may want to add some words to that, and then wanted us to receive regular updates? Hazel. I think the problem that we're facing as a committee, we don't have sufficient information, I mean we haven't got a business case, and I think it sounds as if there is perhaps more detail that we haven't seen, and I think that's the problem, so I don't think we've had the reassurance on paper that we really need, and I think that's why we're struggling to say this is all fine, because we haven't had that detail and reassurance to put our minds at rest. Thank you. And David. Well I think at this stage, it would be unlikely to be able to get what you're asking for there, but I think it's quite an interesting project in the sense that it's quite modular, department by department pretty well, I don't know how you're doing it, but it looks like what we might do, and so long as we get regular reports coming back, then I think that that's as far as it would be sensible to go, so I'd be quite comfortable with the recommendations as proposed for that reason, but the critical thing is that we do get the opportunity to see how far they've got, on a regular basis. I wonder whether the way to deal with this is to take the points that have been made in terms of the business case and the risk, note that this is a modular, as David puts it, program, and in the second recommendation this is, and that we should continue to receive regular updates about what is going on, because as you say, I think it's important they embark on this, but we need to make the point that there are risks and we recognise that, and we want the cabinet to recognise that. That's all I'm trying to get through really, yes I think we should go ahead with it, I don't think it is modular personally, because I think once you've done adult social care or whichever we're doing first, if that doesn't work, you can say well we won't do the children's social area, really I just don't see that happening, so all I want to do is to say to cabinet, this select committee doesn't believe that the risks are well enough articulated of this project going forward. They can then decide to take a view on that, to go you know what, we're happy with the risk, but I think this committee should recognise, and all the discussion from different areas effectively means that the risks are not well enough articulated for us to make a recommendation that this should go ahead, the cabinet can overrule that and that's fine. So the committee notes the programme's risks. Because we're sort of taking the responsibility back on ourselves, saying well come back and update us on a regular basis and we'll take the risk of this all falling apart, and I don't think we should. No. So how would you word it to take into account what you've said? Could I suggest that you, if you want to do that, that you use the phraseology, we recognise that it contains potential risks, and we would wish to be updated on those as well, as things go forward. I've phrased that a bit better, but you know, that principle. We're getting there, I just want the cabinet to be clear that this committee doesn't believe that the risks are well enough articulated for us to thoroughly recommend the project. The trouble with keeping bringing it back to this committee is you're sort of moving the risk back to this committee. So we'll let the committee decide whether enough progress is being made. Can we say that in making its decision, the cabinet needs to take on board the risks that this committee have articulated? Yes. Yeah. Okay, so maybe trying to, just to try and capture the discussion. So I think it sounds like we're happy with the first recommendation that we already went over about that cabinet approves the four recommendations in relation to the cabinet papers that they received. And then in the second one, noting that the program contains potential risks, that the select committee continue to receive regular updates on the customer transformation program. Maybe the best way to reflect it, to keep that, and then to add a third recommendation on what Nick just said about the risks being recognised by cabinet and owned by them, is that way we're, would everyone be happy with that permutation? Steve. Stephen. Sorry, chair. So I just want to understand what this committee's remit is with regard to this and the recommendation to cabinet on this particular proposal. Because what I'm hearing from several members is that there's not enough information being presented to this select scrutiny committee and there's certain nervousness about whether or not it comes back to this committee with additional information on us accepting the risk. Fundamentally, I think that there's, I'm summarising that there isn't enough information here for this committee to make a decision. And in previous committees, if there's not enough information, you basically defer it and get it back with the extra information. So it's a question about whether that happens, whether it comes back to this committee, or we make recommendations to say we've got significant concerns with the lack of information being presented to this committee and cabinet should be aware of those concerns and you take your decision off the back of that. So some clarification on that one. I think there's a key line in there about that we, the cabinet should be aware of the potential risks and that we would want to be updated on that in any event. In other words, as Lance says, we don't want the responsibility to come back onto us, but we want to know that the cabinet are taking that responsibility. Sorry, Chair. It's not necessarily the responsibility of those risks and whether they, it's basically the articulation of what those risks are, is I think what Lance is talking about is that detail isn't there, or that information isn't in the report. So we're not, I don't think we're being asked to shoulder those risks as such, it's basically those risks are not detailed or articulated sufficiently to make a view, and I think I'm paraphrasing again, don't miss the talk for Lance, but he wants extra information on that. So what's the remit of the committee in as much as this report, and we're basically coming out to come back with these extra pieces of information, do we note that there are concerns from the committee and it goes forward to cabinet with those concerns noted? Which way? Well, I think what we're saying, surely, is that we want to know that the cabinet understands those risks, that they get the detail as the programme unfolds, whether you want to call it modular or not, when they make decisions going forward. That's one way of pitching it, chair. Given the information that we've got in front of us, I wouldn't be able to support this going forward at all, so I will not support it. Not going forward at all? It needs to come back to this committee with extra information, there's not enough information for me to make a decision on this. You know, we're not making, that's the question, what decision is this committee making, if any? Hazel? Yeah, I have a lot of sympathy with what Steve is saying, I think, you know, our job is scrutiny, but I don't think we've had enough detail to be able to properly scrutinise this project, and I think that's, so we haven't really been, had the opportunity to properly perform our role, that's my view. But are we saying that the, we don't think that the project should start at all? I think that would be unfortunate. What we do want to know is that the cabinet takes account of those risks, and maybe comes, the cabinet, potentially, if we can do that, comes back to us, so we can be reassured they understand the risks. David, or, yeah, David, then Nick. Well, my view is that you'll be stopping the programme, doing the things you've been saying, that the next step in the risk, in the project, what's being proposed by Liz to the cabinet, is to proceed, and in the process of proceeding, we'll find out what risks are. But at the moment, nobody could identify the risks today, because they don't, they haven't got that far in the project. And unless you're planning to stop the project completely, then yes, of course you should say that there will be risks along the wrong road, of course there will, but they will only come to light if the project continues to proceed. Otherwise, nothing will happen at all. I agree with what Steve has said. It's not within the gift of this committee to refuse to allow the project to continue. What we're saying is that we have received insufficient detail for us to endorse it at this moment. If cabinet want to make a decision in the light of us saying exactly that, that's up to them. They can decide that, or they can say, well, we take on board what the committee has said, we're going to defer it, whether that's a good idea or not is a different matter. But I don't think we should be provisionally agreeing it. We need to say quite specifically insufficient information in whatever way we decide. Here you are cabinet, if you want to make a decision, that's up to you, but we don't positively endorse it, nor do we oppose it. We just don't have the information to enable us to make a sensible decision. >> I'm slightly struggling to work out how we put that into a recommendation, but Denise, I'm sure will be able to help us. >> Thank you. So I mean, the risk information has been presented, we would be very happy to come back and share more detail on that risk if that was what the committee would like, and I can certainly flag to cabinet on Tuesday the reservations that have been expressed today, and we can obviously draw their attention to the risk information, which every cabinet member is fully appraised of and across, if that would help to move things forward. Thank you. >> It would certainly be helpful to me, I don't know about colleagues. Steve? >> Basically what Nick just said, if anybody captured that, I would be more comfortable with, but this committee, again, isn't a decision maker in that regard, but it should be noted that it's not supporting the program in its current light, given the information presented to this committee, and it's up to the cabinet to decide at the end of the day, but there is insufficient information, or there are significant concerns about the program's benefits and potential impact on the council budget, that's one of them, so the work is commissioned to demonstrate that to this committee, and I think we've already talked about that any impact on future budgets will, and it will indicate how the program will deliver best value for Surrey, and again, a full updated business case, because I assume the business case is going to have to be updated, further information will be updated, we've talked about the benefits, we talked about risk, so as when that business case or that, the program's strategy is updated, then that comes back to this committee with those updates on how the benefits are being realised. But I don't see how this program can endorse this, or how this committee can endorse this to cabinet, it's basically what, you know, Nick basically paraphrased or summed up pretty well what I'm thinking at the moment, believe it or not. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Sorry, Liz, did you want to come in there? >> You might be about to solve the issue for us. >> I wouldn't go that far, but I was going to suggest maybe if we could try and capture that, possibly one way could be so, results and performance select committee, notes the progress made during the discovery and design phases of the program, maybe we can agree that part, maybe for the time being, given maybe the feelings of members in the discussion, we could hold the endorsement section for now, or maybe we can just endorse its ambition of certain members. >> Certainly endorse the ambition. >> Yeah. So perhaps we endorse the ambition of the customer program, and then moving on to the recommendations, recommends that the cabinet approves the recommendations in the cabinet papers, it sounds like everyone is still happy with that? No? Okay. Maybe we can come back and adapt that one, but recommendation two was noting the program contains potential risks, that the select committee continue to receive regular updates on the customer transformation program to ensure that it delivers best value for residents and does not exert a disproportionate effect on council budgets. And then in addition to that, so to capture what we just discussed, essentially something along the lines of the select committee does not feel it has sufficient information at this time to fully endorse the program, but recommends that a full updated business case is brought back before this select committee for further overview and scrutiny. Something along those lines. And that would hopefully then bring in the detail that Steve was asking for, and that can happen. The information can then go to cabinet in the way that you described, and then when the next -- sorry, did you want to come in there? Not can we have it, because that anticipates that it will be approved, so what I would be wanting to do is to make clear that cabinet have within their gift the decision to go ahead anyway, and we just make in a sense that clear without spaying it specifically. If approved by cabinet, then the rest of 2 follows. >> Okay. So 2 now reads, noting the program contains potential risks that this select committee continue to receive regular updates on the customer transformation program to ensure that it delivers best value for residents and does not exert a disproportionate effect on council budgets if the program is approved by cabinet. >> I would put that if approved by cabinet at the beginning of that. >> Put that at the start. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. >> That's the one about the recommending the cabinet approves the recommendations in the cabinet papers. >> We could note the four recommendations going to cabinet. Further notes to progress made in the program to date. >> Do we have a bit more consensus on that version of that recommendation? I'm sorry, Councillor, what was that? >> I do wonder whether the way in which the recommendations are now worded doesn't now focus the attention in the way which I think Councillor McCormick drew out, which was in relation to risks, benefits, and so on, just that real clarity, but might give the impression a very widespread concern, and I'm not -- I mean, it's for the committee to make the determination, but I do wonder whether the language casts more concern across the whole, including its purpose and ambition and approach, than the elements which we're really coming to, which is around risk, financial investment, and return on that through the benefits. >> And the recommendations should be a fair reflection of the views of the committee, so actually to be more specific, rather than have a general kind of indication of concern, which isn't necessarily shared. >> I think that's important. I think the important bit in what Liz says is the potential benefits from this, and we ought to certainly note that. So notes to the cabinet will receive four recommendations in relation to the customer transformation programme, set out in the cabinet papers, notes -- and further notes the potential benefits of the customer transformation programme, and then goes to -- further notes that if the program is approved by cabinet -- okay, and was there still a three? >> I don't know if you feel that we still need -- >> Sorry, Chair, but I don't know what the disproportionate effect on council budgets actually means. >> Do we want to -- maybe remove that? >> The suggestion is if you focus on the best value, because it is a disproportionate effect, as David mentions, how do you actually determine that? What does that actually mean? >> Sorry, David, do you want to put your microphone on, because we're not really catching that? >> That you could say does not significantly affect council budgets. >> What does that mean, David? You've got to articulate what that actually means if you're going to put something in that. I mean, overall, in terms of the council's budget, it's a pretty small amount of money. I mean, it's a big amount of money in itself, but in terms of the -- you know, if you look at the size of the total budget, it's, you know, it's relatively small, so when you talk about disproportionate effect, I think you've got to be quite clear what you mean. >> Sorry, I wouldn't have done any of this anyway. So I just thought it was a great program. >> Maybe an adverse effect, but I do make the point overall that we are looking at an open-ended commitment. Whatever anyone has said about modular or whatever, it is a significant amount of money. We are likely, in my view, to spend lots more. I don't see that we have to be precise in what we say in relation to adverse effect, what significant effect, whatever adverse effect may be enough, because we haven't got the detail in many areas that we wanted and expected, so we're trying to be helpful giving a thumbs -- in a sense, a warning, a yellow flag rather than a red one, we want more. You get cabinet, approve it if you want, we're not saying that they can't, they're entitled to overrule any committee if they wish to, we're not saying, oh, my goodness me, this is terrible, you must not endorse it, it's your decision, we're making it very clear. The recommendation doesn't actually say that. >> Yes, it's a process you wanted to raise, because the select committee is a scrutiny committee and it's supposed to be independent of the cabinet, and I really feel that our recommendations should be what we, as a committee, want to make, and really, I'm questioning whether cabinet members should be telling us what our recommendation should be, because then we're forgoing our independence as a committee, so I'd just like to pass that message on to the chair. Thank you. >> Thank you, I think that is noted. I mean, we can recommend what we want, basically, and I think we should be grateful for the guidance we can take, or not, as we choose. >> Thanks. I think the point about the phrase disproportionate effect I think is, you know, I think it's accurately described by the cabinet member, and, you know, it's a significant amount of money, but it isn't necessarily disproportionate, and therefore, best value covers that, unless someone's got a clever way of putting it. Lance? >> So, I don't agree with the disproportionate effect anyway, because, as pointed out, it is a small amount of money, it is the potential impact on council budgets is sufficient, because that's our concern, is two years time, this will have a potential impact on budgets, because we have to spend more and more money, so that's my point there. In the earlier part, my issue was not to do with the potential risks unidentified in the future at some time, and therefore, it needs to keep coming back, just in case these things turn up. My concern is the way that the risks are articulated in the current documentation does not reflect the level of risk that's been taken on here. It's a one-pager of not well articulated risks, and so what I would be asking for is a better articulation of the risk to be brought back to this committee, not suggesting we should stop the program moving forward, but I think, you know, we and the cabinet should have a better understanding of the risks we're taking on, and going back to Steve's point, a better understanding of the financial risks, as well as the technological risks. So that's all I'm asking for. In instead of receiving regular updates, what you mean is that we should receive more information about the current risks, or current and future risks? Yes, I mean, you know, the officers are very clever people, have done a great job, generally, but I don't think they've done a good job of articulating the true risks. You know, the little bit I talked about, about the underlying platforms, you know, there is a risk in there somewhere, and we should be able to articulate that risk, just so that we know what we're taking on, because I do know in two years' time, we're going to look back on this project, and it won't be running exactly how we imagined, and we should be able to point back to a document that says, you know what, we knew these risks were there, but we took those risks on board, and still moved ahead with it. What I don't want to do is to be there in two years' time, and everybody goes, well, what was the scrutiny committee doing to let this thing go through, without even questioning the way the risks have been articulated? I'll come to you in a second. The phrase that's been highlighted there is disproportionate effect. Could that say adversely affect council budgets? Potentially. Yeah, or potentially affect, yeah. And then I'm sure they will be happy with that, because that's an actual reflection of reality. The word on needs to come out. Steve? Thanks, Jay. I didn't realise I was causing quite such a stir, but it, again, I think, you know, potentially adversely affect council budgets is, it's got to be measurable. You've got to have something in there to basically say-- It's a risk, isn't it? It is a risk. It's one of many risks that are not well articulated about this project, and you pick that particular one out. But the technological risk, I think, is equally large. It is. And possibly, I think, maybe this recommendation is about done to death. But then possibly an additional one to consider for members would be that an updated business case is brought back to the select committee for overview and scrutiny, indicating risks and financial information and benefits, so that we can be informed. That might be an additional recommendation if members haven't minded. And again, that might be something that can be done before it goes to cabinet or afterwards, but at least then we have that with the select committee. Is everybody content with that? I'm sure the cabinet would want to press on with this project, and the officers would want to, so it doesn't need to come back before the cabinet, because it's not possible. No. But afterwards, it definitely does need to come back with more information. Denise. And again-- Denise, yes. Thank you. Sorry. Just as further assurance, I mean, there is that opportunity prior to the meeting, the pre-meeting and the sign-off and approval of the draft reports for that information that you're requesting to be fully satisfactory to satisfy the committee. So you do have that checkpoint. Which would be allowable within the wording that's up there. Liz. Microphone. Apologies. I'm not wordsmithing. I'm picking up on the comment about before. Would it, therefore, be more straightforward to say brought back to this committee, this select committee? Yes. Because before might give an impression of the when in relation to the cabinet meeting. Absolutely. And I take your meaning. Thank you. OK. So just go through the final wording of this one then. So recommendation three, an updated business case is brought back to the select committee, including detailed financial information on the risks and benefits of the program. Any objections? Are people content with the recommendations we've now got? Does that agree? That's agreed. Thank you very much. Sorry. Sorry, last. It's just the way he just changed the wording there, including detailed information on the risk. It isn't just financial. It's all risk. Both technological and financial risk. Detailed information on finance. Risks and benefits of the program. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Have we that detailed financial, technical and other information on the risks and benefits of the program? Yeah. Is that all right? OK. Everyone agreed? Agreed. Agreed. Well, thank you very much, committee, for swiftly coming to that. And thank you very much to the officers and the two cabinet members for their attendance and guidance. If we could move to somewhere I've got my agenda. Yes, all right. Item 8, notes of resource and performance select committee performance monitoring session. Are people content with that? Agreed? Agreed. OK. Item 9, actions and recommendations, tracker and forward work plan. You look to this in a reasonable amount at our pre-meeting. Are people happy with that? Agreed? Thank you very much. Date of next meeting, Friday, 20th of September, 2024. That's agreed. I will close the meeting. Thank you very much.