Transcript

The meeting is being recorded for the Council website for public viewing. If there are any technical issues, I will decide if and how the meeting should continue after taking advice from the officers. So before we begin the call, I would like to point out some issues. We are seeing this meeting as a calling today, but before I begin I have to tell you when the last cabinet happened and this report was presented to the cabinet within two hours notice. I was given a paper to sign and I was not explained very properly why this happened. I was just told this is an emergency, I have to sign as an awareness chair. Councillor Asma Islam, Councillor Amy Lee and Councillor Natalie, they pointed out to me some issues and I have reached into chief executive and I have spoken to in length with Joel and Afazul and I have decided to have this meeting with this paper. But then I heard calling happened, so this is why we are just going through this calling. Otherwise we would have this meeting anyway. So I will explain as I go on how this meeting will be conducted. Is there any apologies today?

Good evening, the chair. I have not received any apologies directly, Councillor Amina Ali is joining us online. I am happy to receive any further apologies. Can members declare whether they have any disclosure interest and indicate which aspect the interest relates to, state whether interest is personal or religious nature? No, I don't think so. Thank you. Our only item this evening is a calling. Dormitory Care Service Contact Award agreed by cabinet on 11 September 2034. This cabinet report was presented with an unrestricted main report and a number of exempt appendices. The committee will therefore need to balance its desire to conduct its business in public with the requirement that some of the more detailed matter relating to this item are restricted and if we used to discuss them, we will have to move into a private session. So, chair, before we go into the call-in, I want to raise a point. Last Thursday, the Chief Exec has emailed a letter to all of us committee members informing us, not consulting us, informing us that he has reassigned the statutory office role to a directorate, to a director in charge of a service area. This is not what has been happening in this council prior to that. It has been away from any service area with an officer, and as you are fully aware, with LGA improvement recommendations and the conversations we have had in this committee and conversations we have had during our training and consultation, we have always made it clear that we felt that the officers that support us are very good and we are very happy with the set-up. What we asked was extra support for officers so we can do work around research, chasing up questions and paperwork that we sometimes bring up in this committee, so it was an absolute surprise to some of us to have this letter. There was no consultation. We have no understanding as to why this has happened, and also we are a bit concerned about how this might work if it goes to a director that is looking after a service area, because this is not something we are used to, it is not something we have done, and there are lots of conversations in local government about how it works better when it is not with someone who is looking after a service area. So that is one clarification that is needed for this committee by the chief exec. Thank you, Councillor, for raising this issue. Chief executive will be present at the next meeting. Can you make that note and can you add this note to our agenda so that he answers this question in the next meeting? Yeah? Thank you. So shall I begin again? Okay. So our only item this evening is calling. The military care service contact award agreed by cabinet on 11 September 2024. The cabinet report was presented with an unrestricted main report and a number of exempt appendices. The committee will therefore need to balance its desire to conduct its business in public with the requirement that some of the more detailed matter relating to this item are restricted, and if we used to discuss them, we will have to move into a private session. I have a general note on which information is public, but I will be looking to officers presenting in relation to the calling to help guide which part of our discussion will need to be held in private. I will also take legal advice if required. In a moment, I will set out a slightly amended calling review procedure, adjusted to take account of this deal, and I will look to all members to show support as we look to manage our meeting effectively and appropriately. Before we go into the details, can I also remind members about the conduct in this session to act professionally and not to be political. Keep an open mind throughout the discussion, not discuss matters that are not part of calling, not discuss matters that are factually inaccurate. Also regarding voting, co-opties of the committee are not able to vote, unfortunately, but you are welcome to engage in the discussion. Can members be mindful of time? Please be clear and concise with your questions so all committee members have an opportunity to ask questions. I would also ask cabinet members and officers responding to questions also be clear and concise in their response. We will first hear on the open part of the session, which will include hearing from the calling member after five minutes, followed by questions from the committee. We will then hear a response from Councillor Golomb-Kibri, the cabinet member, and officers up to five minutes, followed by questions from the committee. We will then hear on the exceptions in a closed session, which will follow a similar format of presentation from calling members and response from cabinet members and officers. We hold our deliberation and discussion after this. We will then vote on the matter and, if necessary, have a brief adjustment to draft any recommendation wording before closing the items. Open session will start now. I will now call Councillor Shiraz Ali's term to present calling for an agreed, unrestricted aspect, please. Thank you, thank you, chair, and good evening, committee members and colleagues and officers. We are here tonight to discuss the calling in our cabinet decision to award contract of domestic care service worth nearly £190 million. This is not just about finances, it's about the quality of care we deliver to some of the most vulnerable residents in our borough. This decision carries significant responsibility and is deeply concerning. The process followed do not reflect this responsibility. First let me address the issue of transparency. This report was presented less than two hours' notice before the cabinet meeting, leaving officers and members no chance to scrutinise it properly, and indeed O&S members as well, I'm sure. Transparency and accountability are fundamental to good governance, yet this rushed approach undermines both. More troubling is that fact the chair of the over-scooted committee, a member of administration, waived the committee's right to scrutinise the report without consulting the other members. This is, in my opinion, unacceptable, particularly given the size and scope of this decision. I know the chair is committed to this committee and ensuring that it conducts its work properly, and that this was likely an oversight, but it was a serious oversight nonetheless. As many of us know, Mayor Luthwarahma's previous time in office was marred by a governance issue's allegation of propriety. After such a history, one would expect this administration to go above and beyond in ensuring transparency and due diligence in every decision it makes. Yet here we are again dealing with a significant decision that has bypassed proper scrutiny. Have we not learnt from the mistakes of the past? Shouldn't this administration of all administrations be extra vigilant in handling decisions of this magnitude? Now, let's turn to the content of the report itself. The Council is a signatory to the Unison's Ethical Care Charter, a commitment that aims to improve standards for care workers and, by extension, the care they deliver. The Charter advocates for fair treatment of care workers, including the elimination of zero-hour contract and the assurance that workers have adequate time to care for their clients without being rushed between appointments. Yet in this report, the Council only commits to minimising zero-hour contract rather than eliminating them. Everything is not enough. The Charter calls for real job security, not precarious employment. How can we claim to be a Council that values its care workers when we are failing to meet one of the Charter's core commitments? Let's also remember that the Charter isn't just about employment conditions, about quality of care. When workers are stressed, overworked and uncertain about their hours, quality of care they provide inevitably suffers. Unless these are the people who care for our elderly, our disabled and our most vulnerable, we owe them more than the half-hearted commitment. If it's the case that the Council does believe that the Charter aims in the best interest residents, then they should say so. I invite the Lead Member to announce this evening that by accepting this decision, we chose to no longer be a signatory of the Charter. Another significant concern is the issue of Care Quality Commission accreditation. The report states that a substantial number of providers awarded contracts are not currently registered as CQC. The Council intends to support these providers achieving accreditation, but what happens in the interim? Are we comfortable with the idea that care might be delivered by providers who haven't met basic regulatory standards? The Council claims its work with these providers, but what safeguards are in place if they fail to achieve the accreditation? The risk here is not hypothetical, it is real. We could end up with a smaller pool of accredited providers stretched thin, deliver larger care packages than they can handle. That's a recipe for disaster in both service quality and financial efficiency. Finally, I must ask why it wasn't a decision of this scale that significantly handled with more care. We are talking about a contract worth 190 million, this is no small matter. The speed and secrecy around this decision are not only worrying, but also just something is amiss. This isn't how the Council should operate, especially when the commitment is self-transparency accountability and in conclusion we would like to ensure the decision made in this Chamber will affect the best interest of our residents and I fear that this sum does not. If we are serious about transparency, if we are serious about ethical employment, if we are serious about providing best care for our residents, then this decision must be considered. I urge the committee to send this report back to proper scrutiny, ensure that the risks are identified and addressed before it moves forward. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Islam. Can I invite a member of the committee to ask any questions? Do you have any questions for Councillor Islam? Yes, thank you, Councillor Islam, for your very comprehensive grants that you've explained for the... Can you say it again, sorry, I can't hear you. Can you hear me? Okay. So my question is to Councillor Islam, so you've been a Councillor since 2002. I wanted to know if you've ever come across a situation in this Council where you've had a paper that's gone to Cabinet that's been dropped publicly in the public domain two hours before the Cabinet meeting of contracts that amount to this scale and just explain, also go into a little bit more information about the lack of transparency and accountability that this shows on behalf of the Council. Thank you, Councillor Islam, one Councillor Islam, another Councillor Islam. Indeed, I've been a Councillor since 2001, actually, I won a by-election for a short period of time, and I was also a Cabinet member of social services in the days, back in 2002 for three years, I think, when we managed to achieve a three-star rating. To my knowledge, I haven't come across such a report of such magnitude that's been to Cabinet kind of two hours before notice, particularly I'm sure Cabinet members may have had sight of that report because they do have Mayor's Advisory Board, and they may have gone through that already, but indeed for backbench members, or even the over-scootony committee, I think it doesn't do justice to such a big report, such a critical report, which is 190 million dollars worth of contract given to care providers who provide care for the most vulnerable in society. I'm sure backbench members and ONS members should have had an opportunity to have a look at the report and raise any British scrutiny with the Cabinet, with the Mayor, which you did not have that opportunity, so therefore I feel that, you know, this is a really serious issue, and this is why I decided to call in the report. I just want to find out your understanding of how the system works, because you've been a Councillor for many, many years, if you could just brief us how the system works, and your understanding of how it works, it would be nice to get your side of the story on this. Through the Chair, can you clarify for people what you did this report or such a service? Regarding the report, yes, the calling, the ins and outs of it, your understanding of this. What do you mean by it? Do you mean how, I mean, is the paper was submitted in two hours' time? No, no, not the paper, the Councillor's understanding of the system, because you're an older Councillor, you're still a Councillor, I just want to know your side of the story, your understanding of how this procurement system works. I understand the question correctly, my understanding. The process, sorry, wrong word, of the tender or this? The procurement process, you mean? Yes, this. I can't comment on procurement process. I think officers do that. I think the officers can answer that question better. Thank you. Sorry, can I call the cabinet member, Councillor Gullam, and Georgee Jimbani, I think she is online. Hi. Call for the Director of Health and Adult Social Care. I am indeed. Director for the Integrated Commissioning, Juliette, how do you pronounce this name? Sorry if I pronounced your name wrong. Thank you. Senior Commissioning Manager, Noor Jahan Begum, Senior Commissioning Manager. Thank you. Andy Grant, Interning Program Director and Program Manager. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair, and good evening, everyone. Home care provides care and support to some of the most vulnerable people in the borough. It's a key service that supports people at home and enables them to maintain as much independence as possible. Our home carers are the backbone of our health and social care system, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they are given the resources and where they need to provide the highest quality care to our loved one. It's crucial that we have a model of home care provision that delivers service at the highest level, that enables an element of choice for residents, that provides value for money and gives paid carers appropriate employment opportunities. The recommendations of the home care report are the result of a long but robust procurement process that will give us a consistent and stable provision of home care, ensure residents are receiving the care and support they need, and the Council has stable, good bill of contract in place. As members, we had no part in the procurement process, purely independent process led by officers and an independent panel with no members involvement. We set out the framework, set out the principles, allocated the money, it's come to us as a recommendation, and we are accepting the recommendation in its entirety. The corporate director of health and adult social care is present online in Georgia, and officers from commissioning and procurement team are here to answer any question, any clarification. Thank you, Mr Chair. I was just going to speak in answer to your question, Councillor, just in general terms. The process by which these decisions come about are they sit on a contract forward plan that's published, it goes to cabinet, the details of that contract forward plan were duly published correctly. A long procurement process then takes place, as the Councillor says. In this case there were absolutely no member involvement whatsoever, and we also had the methodology of the moderation independently reviewed by Trowells and Hamline, and the solicitor lawyer from Trowells who led that process is here for you to talk to this evening. My understanding is, following that process, this could have been a mayoral decision, this didn't necessarily have to go to cabinet at all. It was the mayor's decision, in order for transparency, to put the decision to cabinet. I wholly accept, and I know the chief executive is coming next week, I know you will all want me to say this, that we could do better at timely reports to scrutiny, and next week he's going to be talking to you about that, however there will always be exceptional circumstances. In this matter there are exceptional circumstances, those circumstances can be referred to and discussed in detail in part two of the meeting, but I just wanted to represent the true facts, this could have been a mayoral decision with no reference to cabinet, and in order to promote transparency, because of the exceptional circumstances, a) it was late, b) you can see and hear from the director of adult social care as to why it was late in part two, and I just wanted to make sure that that was clear to everybody. Okay Julie, can I invite the corporate director for health and well-being, George S. Timbani. Can you come in on the public sector? Nothing too bad at the moment, chair, I think Julie set out what I was going to say, thank you. Okay now, can I invite members to ask questions? Thank you chair, good evening everybody. My very fundamental question is, the question of the cabinet member, you had said two hours to a notice before the cabinet, you went to the cabinet, since you need to go to cabinet but you went to cabinet, could you not delay it for following cabinet to see so that everybody had a fair chance to see the papers properly? My question is to you, could it have been delayed for following cabinet rather than two hours before? As you said, the legal team that they need to come to cabinet, but since they come to the cabinet, is it a matter of the cabinet, so could you not delay it for the following cabinet? Thank you Mr Manal, it's a good question. I think it's a matter of urgency, it will be best... I think I said earlier that there are exceptional circumstances, in this case there are exceptional circumstances, Georgia has written to the chair, if you've got that information, that can be discussed in part two of the meeting, so I think the two hours noticed relates directly and only to the exceptional circumstances around this particular contract, that is not a secret from elected members, but it can't be discussed in this part of the public meeting. Thank you chair, I'm quite shocked to be honest with you from what I'm hearing, because firstly we had an overview and scrutiny meeting 24 hours before the cabinet meeting, why does that fall out of everyone's mind? You talk about urgency, there was a meeting in place, you're not asking the committee sit at an exceptional timing, what happened that failed this council to bring this report to ONS, I understand exactly how the council works, that yes it can be a mayoral decision and for that there's a calling process too, he didn't front it, the mayor decided to take it to cabinet, that doesn't naturally mean that there's accountability and transparency when you had a meeting the night before and you didn't take it there, so I'd like those questions answered, and to Councillor Kiberia, I understand transferring questions to officers and it's natural for cabinet members to do that and officers will come and support you, but that report went to cabinet, yes it had no member's involvement in the process, you fronted that report, you took it and you spoke to it, I'd like to ask you if it crossed your mind that it should come to overview and scrutiny? Can I ask Julie to answer the first part of the question? I think Georgia can specifically answer the reasons, and that will relate to the confidential letter that you've all seen, I'm just asking you, I think Georgia will be better to ask Councillor Islam's first part of the question, so can I ask Georgina to ask the first part of the question please? I'm sorry chair, I missed that, could I ask the question to be repeated please? Sorry Councillor Islam, can you just do it briefly, yeah can you do it briefly please? What date did Georgia start? What date did Georgia start? I started on the 2nd of September Councillor. Ok so this makes it extremely difficult because we know Georgia started very late in the day in the middle of the process, my question is, and actually to be honest with you Julia I expected you to respond to that because you're the one who defended it with those statements, so I'd much rather you answer and you heard my question, so would it be ok if you, you're the deputy chief executive of this council, I'd really really appreciate it if you'd answer it. Ok in principle every report that goes to cabinet should come in time to come to scrutiny. In this particular instance as Georgia will explain, partly because she was so new, she is the statutory officer, she has significant responsibility and accountability for this contract and Georgia herself sought and wanted some additional detail, background and assurance and that was provided after Georgia started, only when that process was concluded was Georgia in a position where she was happy and understood the reasons why, one option was that the report could go to the October cabinet, that was Georgia's initial preference and the reasons why that could not happen, it was considered, can be explained in full detail in part 2 of the meeting but there was a genuine reason why it could not be moved to October, Georgia's preference on arrival as a new director was exactly your point councilor, she wanted time to review, consider and her preference would have been October, it was not possible in these exceptional circumstances to delay that to October and the timetable of Georgia's decision and agreement was critical. This is Georgia's report, it's her appointment and she needed to be satisfied and to do that she needed to go through an awful lot of background information. My question wasn't fully answered because I still need to know the reasons why it didn't come to ONS, what was the reasons that stopped you from bringing this report that was held 24 hours before cabinet, firstly, and the reasons you've given actually gives more reasons why you should have waited for the next cabinet meeting, not why it went to that cabinet meeting, so that question could be properly responded by, answered by I think Georgia on the second part. Would you like me to come in chair? Have you heard the question, Georgia? Yes, I did hear the question chair. Just answer her briefly please. As Julie explained, I am happy to explain the reasons as to why this wasn't presented, why it wasn't an option for it to be presented at the October cabinet but that would have to be in the closed session. Why the report wasn't presented 24 hours before the ONS we had, the ONS meeting? Is that the question I asked you last night? I thought the question, sorry if I misunderstood the question, the question was why it wasn't presented to October. The question is, I've heard lots of reasons why it needed to go into that cabinet meeting in particular, but it doesn't answer why it couldn't come to ONS that was held the day before, the night before, 24 hours. I can't answer that, Councillor Slim, and the reason I can't answer that is as somebody who is still quite relatively new to the council, I'm still finding my way around governance. Exactly what I thought, hence why I said it was unfair for her to answer this question. I think it relates to the date that agreement was actually reached to move forward and award the contract in accordance with the recommendations which was the 11th of September. Chair, to the officers on your side, my question is, if you need to hear without a public part 2, how can we make a decision without hearing part 2 on ONS today, because part 2 is very fundamental to that calling. What do you mean by that? We have legal officers here as well, so they will advise us which part we cannot answer, and if you look at your email, we have a guideline, officer already provided us with a guideline. All I'm saying is from there we hear that the part 2 which cannot be public, we can hear what's in part 2, so if we don't hear the part 2, how can we make a decision about part 1? You want me to answer? Yes, please. We will hear part 2 before making a decision, so we will do the first part and any questions members have, we will be able to ask those questions after we hear confidential information. That's when the committee will be making the decision before hearing section 2. Sorry, is it my turn, chair? Thanks. What alternatives were considered? I guess this is a question for Georgia. What alternatives were considered before proceeding with what looks like a very rushed process to go ahead with this contract award? There are some issues which you have laid out in a confidential letter which cannot be discussed, but were there alternative options that you considered before and what were they? I have a question for the lead member. This relates basically to the decision to award multiple contracts to smaller providers as opposed to a few contracts to larger providers. I want to know, is there not a risk, what are the risks that you considered and weighed up with appointing smaller providers over larger providers? Can I just clarify your question, when you say alternatives considered, do you mean alternatives for the actual decision or the procurement process? Alternative solutions to the problems that you have identified in the contracts. If I could just hand over to Warwick, my colleague in the room, to give a little bit of some of the alternatives that we considered, but, again, we have to be very careful because some of these will probably stray into the area of the private, I beg your pardon, private. Warwick? Warwick, can you start, please? I'm not quite sure I understand the question, alternatives to what? So the contract award, the reason that it was so rushed is because of issues which have been, were not allowed to discuss in this public meeting. I'm assuming that you didn't just go straight into trying to get a rushed decision and take it to the mayor in what seems like a rushed way, I'm assuming that you considered some alternative options before doing that, before going ahead with this contract award. So what were they? So I think I'd echo the points that the corporate director of resources made earlier, that this has been a long procurement process that has fully looked at those alternatives and the recommendations are the result of that. The reasons for the urgency are the reasons in the letter that I don't think we can discuss in this part of the meeting. I fully understand that and I know that this is a culmination of a long process, but were there any alternatives considered at the point where you identified that there was an urgent need to go out for a contract award, come to a final point at the prolonged procurement process? Do you mind, Councillor, if I answer? There were alternatives considered and I was party to the recommendation and raised concerns with the monitoring officer that one option that was considered was to delay until October and take it to cabinet then, which would have meant an extension to existing contracts unavoidably. I raised a concern together with the chief internal auditor with the monitoring officer that delay was unacceptable and those concerns remain today. I remain steadfast that delay in the decision until October would have left the council in an at-risk position unnecessarily. My question to you, and the officers, obviously I would like to know first of all, when was this process, when did this process start? I was told by someone, I'm not sure earlier, it started in May 2023, am I right? The intention behind this model of home care is about increasing the range and flexibility in choice around home care providers in the bar for people who are receiving those services. We currently have contracts with a very small number of providers. It doesn't give a huge amount of choice to service users who are receiving home care. It also doesn't give us many options in terms of using those providers when capacity increases or when we need to find alternative providers outside of those contractors ones. Increasing the pool of home care providers does allow us to do that, so it gives us the ability to maintain the links between home care providers and other locality services, which is a really important part of our service delivery, and it gives us more providers for residents to have some choice about who they receive services from as well. Thank you, chair, obviously I did say earlier, when did this process start, if you could tell us. The question is what are the risks, if there is a delay, the cost, if you could share with us some data, that would be nice, thank you. The procurement process actually went live in about July last year, I don't have the exact date here, but it was about July last year that we went live. About the risk if we don't award contracts? So the risk if we don't award contracts is that first of all that we would have to extend existing contracts, but secondly we are currently spot purchasing a huge amount of home care provision outside of those contracts, because we don't have the capacity to meet those within contracts. That means that we don't have some of the same protections around contracts, it also means that some of the commitments that we are signed up to through the ethical care charter can't be delivered through those contracts. And where we don't have those controls and obviously there is a risk that what we pay for home care actually increases we can't manage and mitigate those costs. Can you be brief please? Yes, I find it hard that we have come to such a bottleneck scenario, situation, the process started a year ago, we have come to a bottleneck situation, I find it hard to digest, thank you. Thank you chair, I just wanted to go back to the Councillor's point really, I am still a bit confused why it was overlooked that the scrutiny should have been pencilled in at least before the meeting with cabinet, I still feel that considering the models being changed of the home care that we are using and as the officers have described, they are going for much more multiple contracts as opposed to a few contracts, I think that was a big change, big shift and it would have been really good to have been able to scrutinise that because I think for us at the end of the day, residents really don't care how many different providers are out there, they just want good quality provisions and I think that would have been really good to be able to discuss the kind of people that are putting themselves forward and the kind of quality that they would be offering residents, so I think that was a very important decision and I think it is really, really a shame that overinscription were not able to have sight of it early and I just hope that maybe in the next part, part 2, we can discuss a bit more honestly as to why that was the case. I think your question was already answered, but yes, I think part 2 we will discuss it more. Thank you. Thank you, chair. My question is to the officers, maybe partially might have been answered, but having had no meeting today and what's been arranged by, due to some of our colleagues and members and the chair, what would have been the consequences, like if it's, I mean, what would have been the risk that we have taken without, we haven't, not going through this meeting today? What would have, the consequences, is there, were there any risk we have taken or is something normal? Sorry, Councillor, you're asking what would be the risk if it hadn't been called in. In usual circumstances, where there are not exceptional circumstances, then the consideration of broad details like that would be really important and I know that home care and the model of home care has been subject of discussion at the health and scrutiny panels, certainly by Denise when this first was designed as a different way of operating to mitigate risk. So the model construct of this contract and smaller suppliers and geographic areas, Councillor, has been subject to lots of operational discussion. In terms of this particular issue, and I can't stress it enough, there are exceptional circumstances. The risk of lack of transparency in this case to a large degree was mitigated because the matter was considered in detail by the Audit Committee in June and in July. The September cabinet was the first available cabinet to take the decision that it could have taken and had it moved to October, the risks that the Council faced, in my view as the Council's section 151 officer, were too high. So in this particular instance, Councillor, and I'm not pointing out the obvious, but the wonderful thing about local government is transparency is so important that even when exceptional decisions are taken, when they've been to Audit Committee, when they go to cabinet and they fail to meet the scrutiny test, you will still have the option to do exactly what you've done today and call it in. And what you will get today is a confidential, comprehensive, transparent overview of the exceptional circumstances of this case. So I hope that answers your question as best I can. I can never tell you what would have happened if you didn't do something, because you did, so we'll never know. Councillor Martin, James, Councillor. Okay. First things first, I think, I just want to clarify, I think in your comments you said that this could have been an individual mail decision. And frankly, as my understanding with the constitution, all of the executive powers sits within the mayor, and the cabinet signing it off is different from other councils. The mayor could, you know, we could change the constitution, we could change the power of the cabinet so that they sign it off, but everything is signed off by the mayor. So that's the first comment, and that will come to my second question. First question, which is to both of you, Ms Lorraine and Councillor Chaudry, is why are you so keen to tell us that members were not involved, executive members in particular, through this process? Because that I am staggered to believe that the mayor of the council is not given regular updates on such big contracts and the way that they are progressing through the strategic plan and our forward plans. So can you tell us, Ms Lorraine, when and if the mayor was updated throughout and when throughout the process? And similarly, Councillor Chaudry, I'd expect you to have even more of an oversight of this massive contract from May to 2023, so can you tell us all the times and the ways in which you were across and being briefed at the process of this contract? Shall I go first? So I think, first of all, in relation to why am I telling you members had no involvement in the process, I'm not. I'm telling you, members had no involvement in the scoring process, the decision process that evaluated should it be this supplier or should it be that supplier. Members were not party to those recommendations. They were scored by a panel of officers. They were moderated by a different panel of officers with oversight by an independent legal organisation. So that is the process that members had no involvement in, nor ever should they. In terms of when recommendations come out, the second issue is do members then accept those recommendations of that very robust independent process and the assurance you're given today is that yes, they did accept the recommendations that have been made to them. In relation to why did I seek to give the assurance and the member can certainly speak for himself, from an officer perspective, part of my responsibility is to ensure that issues like £190 million worth of contracts are let and governed in a way that is robust, not open to question or challenge. That is the assurance I am giving you as members, that that process, from my perspective as the person who is accountable for providing you with that assurance, I can because there was no influence of members in the selection or not or scores of any of these contractors. It was completely independent. In terms of the process itself, of course members are updated, is it on track, are we on time, there was slippage because we remoderated, did we attract a broad field, how many applicants did we attract, over 120 interested bids in providing services for the council. The mayor was informed by me when I raised concerns with the previous director of adult social care relating to not the contractual process itself but related to the supply chain that sat beneath it. So members were always updated as to are we on track, is this good, it is a) very costly but b) we have got 127 suppliers out there who have set out in detail and taken time and cost to go through a complex, challenging, complicated process. So part of my diligence is actually in fairness to the 127 bidders that decided to throw their hat in the ring and want to work for us, we need to take a safe, strong and timely decision. In this case there are exceptional circumstances. I leave the member himself to tell you other engagement but that is an honest answer in terms of process. Thank you. This is a good question again. As I mentioned before, we set out the framework, set out the principles, allocated the money and time to time it has come to us as recommendation and we are accepting the recommendation in its entirety. We have full trust and full confidence in our commissioning team and procurement team and they did it independently, we don't have any interfere or any part. Thank you. Thank you. Can I come back on that? I'm going to lift the lid in case anyone is under the illusion. Questions by officers are not made to council cabinet members and the cabinet and the Mayor in a vacuum. There is a dialogue that goes on and that's what I was trying to unpeel, try and get a sense of what sort of dialogue, not in the sense of the scoring process but in terms of the setting of the contract scope, the timelines, who was executing it, that sort of stuff. So I still would like some clarity from you, how often, for instance, do you meet with your senior officers and discuss this sort of thing, because if there's not oversight from the cabinet, then that is a real, from the cabinet members, then that could explain why we're then being bounced into decisions that show, that highlights, that beg the question about transparency in our council. Because recommendations, as I said, they're not delivered in a vacuum. There is a final recommendation, yes, but there's an ongoing dialogue. So what was that dialogue? Just our, I think we started our procurement process in July 2023 and basically every fortnight I had a lead member meeting with procurement director and our adult social care director and every time I got update from them. Thank you. Did you put any steps in place to try and escalate this? I'm chairing the meeting, James. If you want to ask a question, you have to ask me. Don't go through directly, please. Okay? Who? Jaiheed Ahmad. Please. Thank you, chair. Some of the questions I had was probably asked by other members, so it kind of like, to think about just bouncing off from what has been said already. So just wanted to probably ask you, Judy, if I may, around the previous contracts and I assume, not assume, sorry, I understand there's far more, a lot more contracts being given out to a lot more companies compared to the previous contracts where probably less, larger companies were delivering the services. What decisions, why did you come to that decision that it would probably be best to give it out to smaller contracts, smaller companies to fill in this 190 million pound service? And what was this means tested, are there any examples of this smaller companies provided quality and standard services were kept in other, how did you come about this decision? If we can be, if you can't answer in this or the other session, I'd be appreciative. Okay. I think it's important. Julie, can I come in? I was just going to say, I think it's important that we publicly we do answer that question and that really is for the practitioners to talk to you. This is their field of expertise. Thank you, Julie. And I just wanted to come in to say, one of the responsibilities that I or my predecessor has is we have a legal responsibility to ensure that the needs of the population are met. And it ensured that there is a sustainable and diverse market in terms of provider market. So one of the approaches, appreciating obviously that these decisions were, this process started before I arrived, but part of that, and I'll hand over to colleagues to explain was to ensure that there was diversity in the market because the more providers you have in terms of diversity, in terms of size and ability to meet needs, the better you can actually meet the needs of the population. But if I hand over possibly to Warwick and Northern might be able to give a few more details that predate my arrival in Tower Hamlets. Thank you. To add to that, as I said earlier, we currently contract with five providers for our home care provision across the borough and one of the things that we've learned through the lifetime of those contracts is that doesn't give us the mix or the number of providers that we want to see in order to make sure that residents have choice, some level of choice about who delivers their home care provision, but also some assurance around what happens if we need more providers, so if we see, for example, an increase in demand and therefore need more home care packages, so a very good example is through the pandemic experience when we had higher numbers of people needing home care provision, you need more providers who can deliver that, it can't necessarily all be contained within the five providers that we have. So having a larger number of providers gives us a better mix of the market, a better number of providers to use. The open part of the report that's in front of you explains how we split that. So 80% of the home care work goes to the larger providers using our locality model, but we have 20% of the work who will go to what tend to be smaller providers and one of the reasons for that is, as the corporate director has explained, is around managing the market and making sure that that's sustainable in the borough. But also one of our commitments is to encourage where residents want to have direct payments to manage their home care provision themselves and smaller providers are very good at doing that with residents and that's the reason for the model that we have put forward. Thank you. Just firstly, just to very briefly go back to this question of the overview and scrutiny committee, I just want to point out that this letter that we keep speaking about was only given to the members of this committee in the pre-meet, so that's the first point to make. I'd also make the point that despite that I've read it several times and there is nothing in here at all that explains why that paper couldn't go to the overview and scrutiny committee even before, there's absolutely nothing in there that says that, so I'm not sure why that's being used as a reason not to discuss it in this public section, that's quite concerning to me, but my question is to the cabinet member and it's a pretty simple one, are you comfortable with this? Are you comfortable with the way that this has been handled? I wasn't finished and I asked you if you were comfortable with the way that this situation has been handled, this is £190 million with no scrutiny, you've sat in this committee before, you know what we do here, you've sat in other scrutiny committees, you know why it's important, you know why we're here, I'm asking you, are you comfortable that a decision was taken, considering what's in here, what we are going to discuss in the private bit, that you know our residents will have concerns about, are you comfortable that this committee was completely bypassed? Can you please ask me, I'll think, no, no, no, no, you misunderstand, I am full confident about this process. I'm talking please. Councillor Amy Lee asked, can I switch off your mic please? Councillor Amy Lee asked you a question, before you answer please understand his question and then answer it fully. Thank you, so my question is to you Warwick, have you been involved in other procurement processes for home care, if so, can you tell us how this process is different to the last one you have been involved in? Thank you. I have been involved in other home care procurement, previously here, and also in different vocal authority, I think one of the differences about this point in time is probably two things I would reflect on, one is actually we are needing to meet needs that are very different now across our residents who use home care than when we previously commissioned home care, so the level of need is much higher and therefore we need a different level of response through our provision, and secondly, we have a lot of providers in the borough and across north east London who deliver home care, there are a high number and higher certainly than when we did this piece of procurement previously, two key differences I would flag. I will take a very brief question, before you ask the question, I want to take a very brief question because I want to move to the restricted one and a brief answer please. So the question to officers is, when it comes to CQC standards, and I'm particularly interested in these organisations have long standing CQC standards that have been proven track record, because some of these names as you know are new, can you give me some assurance around that, especially from Warwick please? Thank you. It's a really important question and it's a really important part of our evaluation process, so we require all home care providers to be registered with CQC and we require CQC rating of good or outstanding for us to use and that's also true of other services that we use. There is an issue that we have no control over when CQC carry out their inspections and it is very possible for providers to be registered but to have not had an inspection that gives a rating. So to mitigate that, we asked for providers to be delivering services for at least 12 months under their CQC registration as part of putting the bid in. We require exactly the same documentation and evidence from providers, whether they have had an inspection or not. We do have the detail around those providers that are recommended, which I can share in the second part of the meeting, but are not in this part. Thank you. Natalie. Very briefly. In the call-in, a key part was that Talahandas has signed up to the unison ethical care charter. Could you confirm or not whether we are still signed up to that and whether these providers are compliant with the charter? Yes, I can confirm that we still are signed up to the ethical care charter. We require all recommended providers to be signed up to the charter as well. That gives guarantees around pay and conditions essentially, including supervision and training and development. As part of this contract, we have set out in the specification that we require all our providers to offer all carers contracted hours, and there is a range of contracted hours that can be offered to carers. It is up to carers as to whether they want to accept that or not. They can turn that down, but we require providers to offer all carers that option. The range of contracted hours that should be on offer are 12, 16, 24 and 36. That came out of some work we did with carers before starting the procurement. Before I move on to the restricted item, I just want to make a comment, especially Julie. Please note my comment. When I was asked to sign in, I wasn't fully explained what I'm signing. I wasn't given the full report, and I wasn't even told 190 million pounds of contract was involved. So, can you make a note that that never happened again? If a scrutiny chair is asked to sign something, he or she needed to be explained the full report before he signed, he or she signed it. This is my final comment on it. As you've raised it, I've got a question. Why did you sign it then? Just to explain my decision, signing on the issue before I begin. If you say you weren't furnished with the full issue. I'll tell you personally, I've already told the mission. I want to know why you didn't. I don't want to know personally, I want to know publicly. I've already told the officers I wasn't fully involved. I was just asked, this paper is emergency, there is a time limit, they have to go to me. I wasn't given the full report. I wasn't told what it was about. What did you ask for it? Sorry? What did you ask for it? To defend the chair, I think there are good reasons why he... James, I told you, there are some personal reasons, I have to tell you personally. That's why I told you personally. Natalie knows because I was presenting the cabinet and Natalie knows my personal reason, that's why she is saying it. But I'll tell you personally, I don't want to say it in public. I propose that we now move to the restricted section of the meeting to ensure the committee can discuss some of the detail matter as contained in the restricted appendices from the cabinet report. I therefore propose the motion to exclude press and public as set out the agenda item 4. Can I request a seconder? Sorry, it has come to my attention that you have indicated whether it would be possible to bring the members of the public back in before the committee announces its decision tonight. I can advise that is possible. All we would need to do is the committee would just need to slightly amend the motion as set out from the agenda, which effectively agrees to exclude press and public for the remainder of the meeting to the public be excluded for a period after which the committee will indicate it's happy to resume public. With that amendment, I'll hand back over and you can do the seconder. Thank you, Councillor Natalie Bien, you are seconding it? Okay. So does the committee agree the motion to exclude the press and public? Yes. I'll return the meeting for one minute for Joel to switch off the thing and ask everybody to leave. Thank you, Joel. Are you ready? No problem. Thank you. I would like to propose that we now vote on whether we are sending the decision back to Cabinet for the consideration of confirming the original cabinet decision. For members in favour of sending the decision back to Cabinet for the consideration, please raise your hand. So first, for members in favour of sending it back. All right. Now you know. For members in favour of confirming the original cabinet decision, please raise your hand. Okay. So you make the note? Aye. No. I don't need to. No. Don't. I said don't make any comment on it. Okay. So now we... The vote is finished. We are confirming cabinet or, you know, cabinet decision. So thank you. We're finished now, isn't it? I would like to thank... So the meeting is concluded now. Please give me some time to recover. I can't do another one next week. No. We're finished? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Meeting is concluded. You can go home. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. Bring paper. Leave the paper. Thank you.