Issue - meetings


Meeting: 05/03/2020 - Audit and Risk Management Committee (Item 550)

550 Commissioning (Brokerage) Follow Up Audit Report 2019/20 - 10 Minutes pdf icon PDF 158 KB

To receive the report of the Director of Law and Governance providing an explanation of the Internal Audit Report on Commissioning (Brokerage) and actions taken.



Additional documents:


Received a follow up report on the Commissioning (Brokerage) Audit Report 2019/20.




1.    The update was presented by Doug Wilson (Head of Strategy & Service Development).

2.    The report was a review of the Brokerage Service.

3.    The service is located within Adult Social Care (ASC). The function of the service is to support vulnerable people and to purchase the right kind of support, whether that’s care in the community or care in residential or nursing settings.

4.    The audit was originally requested as part of the 2018/19 programme for assurance that there was transparency on how brokers procured services for people. The initial audit report provided a reasonable assurance.

5.    Some things identified from the first report heard at the October 2019 committee meeting were around the transparency of the process, how that process worked and how clear staff were regarding work instructions. The section had done a considerable amount of work to ensure the policy and procedures were clear for staff and an evidence base for decisions staff were making.

It was felt appropriate, as the service had just transferred from where it was previously to ASC, that (December 2019) a further review be done and he was here to update the committee about that review.

6.    The Brokerage Service had always been a good service and since the transfer it has continued to be a good service. Things had been introduced and done which has added benefit and value to the service.

The review has been done and all the actions and considerations, previously identified, have been implemented ad staff are clear about the policy. The policy wasn’t clear enough about purchasing and evidencing that. That you don’t need to apply all the criteria when you choose a provider. Clarity was needed about which criteria is chosen and the reasons for that. Often the decision is based on the ability of a provider to deliver the service.

The review found that staff were very clear about the criteria and were working to the policy. So, there was transparency and staff were evidencing their decisions appropriately. There is assurance that the service is transparent and evidence to support decisions made.

7.    Some improvements have been around resilience in the team. Where previously, the service had people working in specific areas i.e. hospitals, community learning disabilities, mental health, etc, the view of the Head of Service was that the focus should be able to cover all those areas in the event that staff leave or are absent/sick.

8.    The other area identified was where is difficult to obtain provision and those areas are the north west and east of the borough. The service has taken a more strategic approach to addressing those kind of issues by having a better overview of what the service is providing across the whole borough, where the hot spots are and where accessibility issues are. The service meets regularly to go through these issues and what can be done about them.

9.    The other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 550

Meeting: 16/01/2020 - Audit and Risk Management Committee (Item 446)


To receive the report of the Director of Law & Governance presenting the Information Governance Board’s yearly update 2019/20 and the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).



Additional documents:


Received an update report presenting the IGB annual report 2019/20 including GDPR implementation update.




1.    The update was presented by Jayne Middleton Albooye, Head of Legal Services.

2.    This was just an update and the reason why it was not presented in a proper report format. The reason being is that Jayne Middleton Albooye was trying to synchronise it so that the proper report comes to the committee at the end of the financial year but after the 5 March 2020 committee meeting.

3.    As detailed at page 11 of the report, the data protection officer’s update. As regards data breaches, only 2 had been reported to the ICO and they required no further action.

As detailed at the 2nd table (page 11) of the report, highlights the types of incidents reported over a 12-month period.

4.    There was also a requirement by GDPR to list all processing activities and to provide impact assessments on any high level/high risk processing activities, as detailed at the bottom of page 11 of the report.

5.    The Information Governance Board (IGB) meets every month and the above is reported there. The Data Protection Officer also attends, who is independent of the Council.

6.    As detailed at page 12 of the report, two tables highlighting details of FOI and SARs requests.


AGREED to note the update to the IGB Annual Performance 2019/20 and GDPR.