Agenda and minutes

To note apologies for absence and confirm the quorum of 11 members is met.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jeanette Sunderland, David Jones, Betty Rhodes, Tony Hames, Rachel Melly and Jacob Goddard with Councillors Alun Griffiths, Fiona Fitzpatrick and Paul Wray as substitutes.

The meeting was confirmed as quorate, with 12 members present out of 11 needed for quorum.

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests.

There were no items requiring the exclusion of the press and public.

Resolved:  That the notes of the inquorate meeting held on 19 November 2021 be noted and entered as public record of what was discussed.

Resolved:  That the notes of the inquorate meeting held on 21 January 2022 be noted and entered as public record of what was discussed.

The Committee received a verbal update from the Chair. The Chair welcomed Members to the first meeting in the newly renovated building and asked Officers if Scrutiny could see the closure report of the Accommodation Project.

The Committee heard that a wrap-up session was due to be arranged for the end of the year to evaluate progress and performance of the Committee and forward plan for the coming year. Members noted the initial proposed changes to the Committee structure and plans going forward to transfer place/environment work from the Economy Scrutiny Committee to Transport Scrutiny Committee.

Members also noted the Communications Team re-structure, including a new Head of News and Head of Marketing. The possibility of Scrutiny to look into the Communications Team re-structure amidst consideration of wider staff structure was also discussed.

The Chair suggested that in future Members with particular specialisms/interests take a lead on relevant topics and lead discussion and questioning on those items. 

The Chair sought clarification on the position of the Combined Authority on Welcome to Yorkshire which was confirmed to be not directly invloved. West Yorkshire Leaders and CEO of Kirklees Council had an interest in the resolution. In future, tourism might fall under the Mayor’s wider culture plans.

Resolved:  That the Chair’s verbal update be noted.

The Committee received an update on the Transport Committee Review following the Combined Authority meeting on 3 February.

In questions and discussions, members sought clarification on a number of things including:

• Allowances: The Independent Renumeration Panel had been instructed to assess the level of allowances paid for the roles of Deputy Chair, Transport Engagement Lead and Ordinary Member. The IRP’s findings were planned to be reported back to the Combined Authority at its meeting next week on 17 March 2022.

• Aim of review / change inToR: Members were unsure the final proposal fulfilled the initial aims of the review to make Transport Committee consistent with other thematic decision-making committees.

• Roles and numbers: Questions were raised regarding the lack of consistency in membership structure, particularly, the lack of private sector and advisory members on Transport Committee compared to others and the lack of backbench members on other Committees as opposed to Transport Committee. Members felt that a backbench member presence would pull the Transport Committee back into a Scrutiny role, as previously.

• Two Deputy Chairs: Members felt the two Deputy Chair roles were difficult to justify as no other Committee had these roles. The Transport Committee had a large workload which was expected to increase in the future with mass transit and bus franchising. The two Deputy Chair roles were intended to be thematic with significant workloads. The remit of each Deputy Chair would be agreed from year-to-year to secure a balance of anticipated workloads. 

• Cross-boundary working: Some Members felt that cross-boundary working should be more explicit in the Terms of Reference (ToR) as well as how the liaison with Climate and Place Committees as written in the ToR would work in practice.

• Case study of decisions at the CA: The Scrutiny Committee needs to fully understand the decision-making process at the Combined Authority. Members wished to know who was responsible for setting the parameters, where ideas originated from and whether the conclusions were motivated by evidence or influenced by political concerns. This was considered to be a potential future topic of enquiry for the Committee.

Resolved: That the report be noted, and the Committee’s feedback and conclusions be considered further.

The Committee was provided with an overview of progress on the 2022/23 business plans and a report on performance against the current Combined Authority’s 2021/22 Corporate Key Performance Indicators.

In questions and discussions, members sought clarification on a number of things including:

• KPIs: Clarity of definitions in target setting and methodology when assessing achievement/performance was requested; an example was the sustainable/affordable houses pledge, Members wished to know the definition of sustainability (or affordability) and how the level/success of sustainability was determined.

• Impact of Inflation: Members questioned whether a bigger inflation rate had been factored into the budget. Inflation at 2% was factored in for staff salaries and 5% for energy and other operating costs. Members heard that some contracts were fixed, others connected to RPI which had risen higher than expected. The Committee was interested in receiving the raw figures against the percentages. Members were informed that budget holders were responsible for monitoring further impact and identifying and implementing solutions.

• Equality, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI): Members were informed that EDI was now embedded in all KPIs as opposed to being a separate measure. Members discussed EDI target setting which reflected the area’s demographic, as a minimum, matching the demographic (for example 50% female, 20% BAME).

Some Members felt the report contained too many abbreviations which should be written in full for Member and public benefit and inclusion. Members agreed the length of report was good as the detail allowed Members to contextualise and pose helpful questions.

Resolved: That the report be noted, and the Committee’s feedback and conclusions be considered further.

The Committee was provided with further information relating to the Combined Authority’s workforce as requested.

In questions and discussions, members sought clarification on a number of elements including:

• Recruitment and Retention: Members heard about the current challenge facing the Combined Authority (including other local authorities) in recruiting and retaining staff. Pay was highlighted as a particular challenge with private sector paying more for roles such as marketing or project management. The Combined Authority’s Hays system of salary calculation could be refined or reconsidered entirely. Members also discussed the possibility of paying bonuses for scarce skills and the focus of ‘homegrown’ talent and internal development including the possibility of apprenticeships to supplement the lacking talent pool.

• Overall Package: It was emphasised that flexibility in working, training and progression, wellness, and quality of life as well as pay were equally important. Members emphasised the need to advertise the benefits of working in government and the wider public sector such as pensions and the travel pass.

• Pooling Staff Resource: A discussion took place regarding a previous seemingly unsuccessful WY-wide memorandum of understanding which intended to stop social worker salary competition. It was suggested that a better approach could be to pool common skills instead of competing, the challenge with this approach was different pay scales and systems.

Resolved: That the report be noted, and the Committee’s feedback and conclusions be considered further.

The Committee was advised of the Themes, Outputs and Measures (TOMs) selected to use to measure social value obtained by the Combined Authority in the future.

In questions and discussions, members sought clarification on a number of things including:

• Monetary Value: Members expressed interest in understanding the algorithm used to calculate the monetary value of each social target.

• Focus of TOMs: There was concern that having too many monitorable targets could dilute focus and impact. Members noted that the long list of TOMs had already been shortened, Members questioned if the list could be shortened further.

• Supplier Onus: Members noted that TOMs had been rolled out across the board, TOMs were now an established industry standard and well understood in procurement circles.

It was suggested that a case study would be useful to look at the TOMs process in practice and cases where social value was considered more important than the monetary aspect.

Resolved: That the report be noted, and the Committee’s feedback and conclusions be considered further.

The Committee received a report which provided details on the Combined Authority’s current position regarding cyber security and ICT resilience.

Recent events particularly the pandemic and Ukraine crisis had significantly increased the risk of cyber-attacks and emphasised the importance of digital infrastructure. The last major cyber incident at the Combined Authority was a ‘zero-day virus’ 5 years ago.

Members noted that human error was the major weakness in the infrastructure and the entry point for cyber-attacks and hackers. Although human error could not be eliminated entirely it was emphasised how important rigorous staff training was, ensuring staff vigilance and ability to identify potential risks. The Committee heard that some simulated phishing emails would be sent out in future to test staff’s awareness and resilience.

Responsibility of the Combined Authority’s data had been moved to specialist suppliers and trusted partners through a multi-vendor approach, all data had been put on the cloud which sat on 3 different servers. Members were concerned about a potential overreliance on cloud services and external servers. 

Resolved:  That the report be noted, and the Committee’s feedback and conclusions be considered further.

The Committee considered the Work programme for 2021/22. The Annual Report was due to be produced and short wrap-up sessions arranged for each Scrutiny Committee.

The Chair also urged Members to seek reappointment to Corporate Scrutiny Committee for continuity and progression.

Resolved: That the 2021/22 Work Programme is noted.