Official Report 519KB pdf
Item 3 is the continuation of our brief inquiry into the governance arrangements for arm’s-length external organisations, although the inquiry has turned out to be a bit longer than we had hoped. At our second evidence session on 18 November, we took evidence from High Life Highland and Highland Council; the EDI Group and the City of Edinburgh Council; CultureNL and North Lanarkshire Council; and Bon Accord Care.
Aberdeen City Council did not attend the evidence session, and we have invited the chief executive, the council leader and the relevant council official to attend today’s meeting to explain their reasons for non-attendance and to answer the questions that members were not able to put to them at the previous session. I welcome Councillor Jenny Laing, leader of Aberdeen City Council; Angela Scott, chief executive; and Judith Proctor from the health and social care integration team.
First, I want to ask you about the response to the committee’s invitation and the decision not to appear before us.
I will take that question, convener.
My understanding is that the original invitation was sent to Ms Proctor and to Ms Ross, who is the chief executive of Bon Accord Care. On receipt of the invitation, Ms Proctor discussed with the chief executive whether she was the most relevant person to attend and what capacity we had in the council to send somebody to the meeting. The chief executive then spoke to me about the situation and said that she was minded to write to inform the committee that we did not feel that we had adequate capacity to send a council official at that point.
I accepted that, because we had recently discussed the capacity in our health and social care team. You may well be aware that we have been asked to take part in a joint inspection of older people’s services, which will have started now, as it was due to start yesterday. We have had a fairly rigorous inspection situation in Aberdeen during the chief executive’s 18-month tenure, and all group leaders across the council discussed the planned joint inspection. It was agreed that we would write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport to ask whether the inspection could be delayed to allow us to concentrate on the integration agenda. The cabinet secretary responded that she felt that the inspection had to go ahead—
I will stop you there, Councillor Laing, because that inspection is a matter for the inspectors. Your communication with the cabinet secretary or anyone else is not a matter for the committee.
I am trying to get to grips with a number of issues. We are looking at the governance of ALEOs. One issue is that I received a letter, which was passed to the clerks, from Ms Scott, in which she responded on behalf of not only the council but Bon Accord Care, which is an arm’s-length external organisation. I would like to know why it was felt that Aberdeen City Council could respond on behalf of Bon Accord Care, given that the latter is an ALEO.
I was putting that in context, because you asked why the council had made the decision not to send anybody. It is right that we put that in the context of the discussions that I had with the chief executive, which were predicated on previous issues with capacity. I was happy for the chief executive to write on that basis, and the chief executive is best placed to answer the question about the content of her letter. The first time I realised that there was an issue was when I was contacted by a journalist asking whether I would be attending the committee today, which was the committee’s decision. Perhaps the chief executive is best placed to cover that aspect.
Mrs Scott, can you tell us about the letter, which was a response from you, as the chief executive of the council, and Bon Accord Care?
I had a discussion with Sandra Ross, the managing director of Bon Accord, about the capacity issues that Councillor Laing has addressed. We reached the conclusion that neither of us had the capacity to support the inquiry, and the MD of Bon Accord was content for me to write a response on behalf of both organisations.
In terms of the governance issues, it was felt okay for the council to respond on behalf of an arm’s-length organisation.
With the permission of the MD.
I understand that, after we received that letter, the clerks phoned Ms Proctor on at least two occasions and your own office, Mrs Scott, on two occasions to discuss the invitation to appear but did not manage to elicit any responses.
I spoke to the clerk to the committee, Mr Cullum.
Okay. Fine.
Let us move on to the governance of Bon Accord Care and Aberdeen City Council’s position in relation to that. Which committee or committees of the council does Bon Accord report to on its work?
It reports to two committees of the council: the audit, risk and scrutiny committee and the education and children’s services committee. There is also a requirement for an annual report to go to the full council.
In her evidence last week, Mrs Ross seemed to indicate that her main point of contact is the ALEO hub, which she said—if I remember correctly—she reports to four times a year. Is that correct?
Her main point of contact is the commissioner of the service, which is currently the head of older people’s care. The ALEO hub includes the lead commissioner of the service as well as representatives from finance, procurement and HR and legal representation from across the council’s corporate governance directorate.
During the interlude, I have had the time to look at the papers that the committee has received from Aberdeen City Council. The report of the audit, risk and scrutiny committee of 25 June 2015, which is entitled “ALEO Governance—Outstanding issues”, includes the recommendations
“(a) to put in place consistent reporting arrangements for the scrutiny of ALEOs and (b) to ensure that ALEOs established risk management processes and frameworks”.
The report also states that the ALEO governance hub’s performance was “not consistent”. The same report went to the education and children’s services committee on 3 September 2015. Are those the two main committees that deal with these matters?
Yes. That happens in addition to the council receiving an annual report from Bon Accord and an annual report from the chief social work officer.
How often do reports from ALEOs such as Bon Accord Care—not from the ALEO governance hub—go to the audit, risk and scrutiny committee and the education and children’s services committee?
We have given a commitment that the minute from each ALEO hub meeting will be submitted to the audit committee in order for that committee to scrutinise the minute further.
According to the report, the ALEO governance hub meets only biannually. Is that correct?
To date, but Audit Scotland recommends that we consider increasing that to four times a year.
When I was a councillor, I was on an arm’s-length external organisation. I do not know Bon Accord Care, so can I ask a couple of daft-boy questions to start off with? What is the make-up of the governance board of Bon Accord Care?
The board is made up of a chair and four non-executive directors.
Are there no councillors on the board?
Not as part of the board. The managing director and finance director of Bon Accord Care are also members of the board. The council decided not to place any elected members on the board.
Is that not highly unusual for an ALEO? Is it not normal to give ALEOs democratic accountability by having elected members on the board?
It varies across our ALEOs. I was not in the council when it made that decision, but my understanding is that there was concern about a conflict of interest with the council’s code of conduct. It was also, in part, about the expertise required. My understanding is that the four non-executives who have been appointed to the board of Bon Accord Care were all recruited, through the public appointments process, based on their relevant skills and experience.
Although there has been talk of conflicts of interest for councillors in ALEOs, councillors tend to be told in no uncertain terms that they are there as a representative of the ALEO. Are you saying that councillors at Aberdeen City Council do not have the skill set to be on the board?
I am not saying that.
It was decided by councillors that we would not have councillors on the board. As the chief executive said, she was not there when the decision was taken. It was felt that it would be best if we had people with the correct skill set. Councillors from the administration were involved in the selection process; opposition councillors chose not to take part.
That seems to have been a bizarre decision from the point of view of democratic accountability. You normally get a good mix on a board of elected members and people who have the experience that you are talking about. Although I do not have the numbers in front of me, the scenario here seems strange when compared to the position at other ALEOs throughout the country.
I would not dispute that a different approach was taken, but it was done democratically and for—
One person’s different approach is another person’s strange approach.
You said that you went through a selection process. Where are the board members from? Are they local to the north-east? Are they people who have worked in the area their whole lives or are knowledgeable about the area?
I cannot answer that. I do not have that information.
You do not know—
I do not know whether they reside in Aberdeen.
Thank you. We can follow up on that.
Just to follow up on the questions about democratic accountability, we have just heard that Bon Accord does not have any elected members on its board and that councillors are not involved in discussions in the board. How does Aberdeen City Council ensure that Bon Accord is held to account for the services that it delivers and for the public money that it receives from Aberdeen City Council?
11:30
The process has been described in terms of the governance of the organisation through the ALEO hub, the annual report to full council and the ALEO hub reporting to the various committees of the council. In addition to that, we have regular reports from Bon Accord Care, setting out its performance and delivery against its key performance indicators. We get weekly statistics about what is being delivered, the number of service users, information about on-going complaints, and comments and compliments that they receive. I attend the board meetings, or one of my senior managers does, and we are also in regular contact through our contracts and commissioning team about delivery against the contract.
Can you clarify the capacity in which you or your representative attend the board meeting?
I attend as an observer, not as a member of the board.
Do you have full speaking rights at the board meeting?
Yes.
Do you have voting rights?
I do not vote.
You have indicated that the ALEO hub provides weekly statistics to you.
Bon Accord Care provides weekly statistics to us, not the ALEO hub.
Explain the difference between the ALEO hub and Bon Accord Care.
Shall I do that? John Wilson’s first question was about holding to account. From a governance perspective—
It was about holding to account from the perspective of a democratically elected member.
Absolutely. What are we holding Bon Accord Care to account for? It is its management of risk and performance.
The ALEO hub has been designed to have the capability to look at systems of risk management on behalf of the audit committee. The audit committee is a primary, democratic committee in the council. A primary function of the audit committee is to look at systems of risk management. The ALEO hub gives a view to the audit committee about the system of risk management that Bon Accord Care has in place.
The ALEO hub, supported by the commissioning team, also scrutinises the performance of Bon Accord Care, and reports are submitted to the audit and service committees of the council. The hub provides those two committees with evidence about the management of risk and performance.
In addition, the internal audit function has been commissioned to look at the ALEOs, which it does in rotation because of the number ALEOs that the council has. The findings of that internal audit are submitted to the audit and service committees. The Care Inspectorate, as an external assurance body, is providing assurance as well—its reports are submitted to the service committee. The council’s two primary service committees are provided with information that allows them to hold Bon Accord Care to account.
The ALEO hub is largely populated by officers who have appropriate expertise. We have a finance lead, a human resources lead, a risk lead, a legal lead, and the commissioning from there. All the information is triangulated; it is all joined together and tells a cohesive story about the performance of that organisation. That information is presented to the relevant committees, on which the elected members sit.
Is the hub “largely” populated by officers, or is it exclusively populated by officers?
To date, as we have been creating the ALEO hub, it has comprised officers. That is consistent with my understanding of the recommendation to create a stakeholder group. It said that the stakeholder group should comprise officers, commissioners and elected members. The complexity—
At this moment it only has officers.
At this point they are all officers, but the reports are submitted to the council’s committees.
Thank you, convener, for that follow-up question. That is where I was going to take my questioning as well. It seems surprising to someone like me, who has been an elected member, as I have declared in the past. It sounds as though the information is provided to the ALEO hub, and then the ALEO hub, which is made up of officers and commissioning officers, sifts the information before it is provided to the democratically elected members of the council for them to read in the reports that are delivered from the ALEO hub. Is that the situation?
There are three layers of assurance on any issue in the council, whether it is the arm’s-length structure or our primary services. I provide assurance through three levels: management assurance, internal assurance through internal audit, and external assurance. We are being very consistent in the ALEOs; the ALEOs provide the management assurance, the council commissions its own internal audit to provide internal assurance, and there is the external Care Inspectorate assurance. That is wholly consistent with the assurance that we provide on all other service activity across the council.
One of the explanations that we have been given for the establishment of ALEOs by local authorities is that they reduce costs. We have heard that services are delivered in that way because the charitable arrangements that can be set up can produce cost savings.
I am interested to find out the costs of the additional systems that have been put in place—particularly by Aberdeen City Council, given that we are looking at it and you have the ALEO hub—to monitor the delivery of services. The general argument is that setting up ALEOs brings local authorities better value for the public pound, but complicated monitoring systems are being set up that involve senior staff in councils monitoring service delivery. Were the same monitoring systems in place before the services were transferred to ALEOs?
I will attempt to answer that. All that I can explain is how I want our group structure to operate under my watch. It is complex, but that is the nature of service delivery in local government.
I have four tier 1 ALEOs and a volume of tier 2 ALEOs, which are smaller. In addition, I will have the integration joint board. In the midst of all that, I need to ensure that the scrutiny arrangements support that.
On the ALEO hub, a clear business case was submitted to the council that set out, as you described, a number of expected benefits. The initial objective for me, in getting the ALEO hub created, was to ensure that we provided that assurance back into the democratic system in the way that you described. That was objective number 1 for me. I had also inherited a number of ALEOs in my group structure and I wanted to ensure that we were consistent in our scrutiny of all the ALEOs, which are quite extensive in the council’s area. I was not persuaded that we had that in place.
My primary objective has been to get the ALEO hub set up and functioning for both the tier 1 and tier 2 ALEOs. The second objective is to go back to the business case that was provided to the council and ensure that we are tracking the benefits that were set out in it, based on which the council decided to move to an ALEO structure. There has to be a workstream and a focus in the ALEO hub to ensure that we track the benefits that we set out to the council to support that. To move into that space is the next phase of the ALEO hub.
Thank you for that explanation, but my initial point was that ALEOs are supposed to have been established to save local authorities money and increase value from the public pound. My understanding is that, under the previous system, before ALEOs were set up, the delivery of a service was the responsibility of the head of the service. They reported to a director, who reported to the relevant council committees on the performance and delivery of the service.
I am concerned that it sounds as if the ALEO hub that you described has set up a whole new structure to monitor the delivery of services by ALEOs. As it has been described, the hub sifts or filters the information, which then goes before elected members at the council’s audit, risk and scrutiny committee or other committees or at the full council. That is what happens in reporting on the delivery of services. How has that been costed as part of the council’s good practice to save the public pound by transferring services to ALEOs?
The ALEO hub is not a different structure. It largely comprises officials and officers in the corporate governance directorate, whose primary role is to support the organisation’s governance.
Back when the services involved were in house, finance, legal and HR colleagues supported the scrutiny and challenge of the services. There is a strength in the approach that we are devising through the ALEO hub, which I would like to see spread to allow for deeper scrutiny of the services that are in the council. The strength of the ALEO hub is that we can now join together to triangulate all the information. We are no longer looking at performance through one lens; we are looking at the outcomes that are being achieved versus the financial performance versus the staff issues that are coming. There is a strength in bringing all of that together.
There is no additional cost to the council in having created the ALEO hub. There will simply be a quarterly meeting, led by our director of corporate governance, where officers bring all the information that is coming into the council from Bon Accord Care and scrutinise that information. No additional cost is associated with the ALEO hub.
I guess that the second part of your question is about the cost of setting up Bon Accord Care and it having its own management structure. I do not know whether Ms Ross got into any of the details, but a management structure has been put in place to support that, which entails a cost; that was a cost when the service was in house, as well. I am not sure what more I can add to answer your question.
I will ask about performance. It sounds as if you have structures in place to gather and examine a lot of performance information. Has the council ever had to take action because of concerns about performance? Have there ever had to be sanctions or a withdrawal of contracts? Are you satisfied that performance is good and will continue to improve?
Is the question specific to Bon Accord Care or about ALEOs more generally?
Let us make it about Bon Accord Care, because that is what we talked about last time.
We have applied no sanctions.
I will ask you the same question as I asked everybody else the last time, just to be consistent. Does Bon Accord Care pay the living wage?
Yes.
Is it fully funded through the council to do that?
Yes.
I go back to the first question that Jayne Baxter raised. We have been concentrating on Bon Accord Care. Has Aberdeen City Council withheld funding on any occasion from any of the ALEOs that are currently under its funding regime?
We indicated that in our survey response, but the ALEO in question was not Bon Accord Care—it was one of our other ALEOs.
I am widening out the question because I want to examine what the suspension of funding to an ALEO entails.
Funding was delayed, because the ALEO had not produced the business plan that we expected. It was given additional time in which to do that.
It was delayed funding because additional time was required to produce a business plan, but what were the practical implications in relation to the funding that was to be provided? I understand that the overwhelming majority of the funding that any ALEO would receive from a local authority would be for staff costs. If you delayed funding to an ALEO, did that have any implications for the staff who were being paid by that ALEO?
I am not aware that it did, because the delay was short.
What was the delay?
It was a couple of weeks.
Were there no financial issues with that ALEO in relation to non-payment?
I am not aware of any.
I would be grateful if you could check that out, because I am keen to know whether, if local authorities are minded to take action against ALEOs by withholding funding, that could have a knock-on effect on operational delivery of the services by those ALEOs.
I accept that and we can check that. I would like to point out that that situation occurred before we had the governance hub, and it has not happened since then.
I will return to Bon Accord Care. I have looked at the information from the audit, risk and scrutiny committee and the education and children’s services committee and nowhere could I find key performance indicators. How do elected members get the key performance indicators on Bon Accord Care’s delivery of service to some of the most vulnerable folk in the city?
11:45
Elected members will do that through the annual report that Bon Accord Care provides.
So you are saying that the only opportunity for elected members to scrutinise the key performance indicators is through the annual report and the questioning session on it.
The ALEO hub also looks at areas of high risk and at the risk register of the care provider.
I am asking about scrutiny by elected members, not scrutiny by the ALEO hub. Are you saying to me that, as things stand, the only occasion on which elected members can look at key performance indicators on the delivery of care by Bon Accord Care is at the time of the annual report? Is that correct?
That is correct. The same is true in relation to all our external providers.
I understand the situation with regard to other external providers but, in the context of Bon Accord Care, we are talking about some very vulnerable people, who are often at great risk. If I was an elected member in an authority in which an ALEO was dealing with care, I would want to look at key performance indicators much more regularly. After all, the buck stops with the elected members. As things stand, that happens only once a year.
All our providers provide services to people who are vulnerable. Our performance as a social work department against key performance indicators with regard to vulnerable people is reported regularly to the education and children’s services committee, which is the parent committee for adult services, and that will continue until such time as the integration joint board goes live in April 2016.
I looked at the agenda for the education and children’s services committee’s meeting on 3 September 2015. All that is given there on adult care is the same minute of the meeting of the ALEO governance hub as went to the audit, risk and scrutiny committee, and the adult services performance report, which provides no key performance indicators at all. When was the last time that key performance indicators on social care aspects were reported to a committee of the council?
The performance report that goes to committee contains the KPIs for social care.
So the very brief set of graphs in the performance report is the KPIs that go to the committee. Is that it?
Those are the performance indicators for adult social care.
That is just in recognition of the fact that there are a load of other commissioned bodies that the council uses. The report to council reflects the totality of the outcomes that we achieve from all our providers, one of which is Bon Accord Care.
The objectives that are listed at the beginning of the adult services performance report are:
“People at risk are protected ... People are effectively supported within their families and communities ... People fully participate in individual and service planning, review and delivery ... Wellbeing is promoted in all care groups ... Our resources are managed effectively ... Our organisation is effective.”
Do the KPIs and the minute of the meeting of the ALEO governance hub allow you to adhere to the principles of scrutiny and ensure that those things are happening?
I am sorry—can you repeat the question?
Absolutely. I will go right back to the start. It is stated at the beginning of the adult services performance report that the objectives are to ensure that
“People at risk are protected ... People are effectively supported within their families and communities ... People fully participate in individual and service planning, review and delivery ... Wellbeing is promoted in all care groups ... Our resources are managed effectively ... Our organisation is effective.”
Do the minutes from the ALEO governance hub and the brief report on the KPIs actually allow elected members to scrutinise properly to ensure that the objectives are being achieved in the service delivery by Bon Accord Care?
It is up to the members of a committee, if they are unhappy with the reports that they get, to instruct officers to bring additional information.
As far as the KPIs go, we have talked about the committees that deal with the ALEOs. We have heard from Ms Proctor and Mrs Scott that we report to committees on the performance of all the services that the council provides in that regard, and that would be no different if we were operating without an ALEO. The reporting of information would be the same, apart from the fact that we would not have the governance hub, and the information probably would not appear in front of the audit, risk and scrutiny committee but would just come to the service committees. Therefore, we probably have a couple of layers of governance that we would not have if the services were provided directly by the council rather than by an ALEO.
My understanding is that we have reported such information for a considerable time. If elected members required additional information, it would be up to them to request that.
So you have more layers than you had previously, which follows on from what Mr Wilson said. However, the information that is given to councillors seems to be much less than the performance indicators that were given to councillors when I was a member of Aberdeen City Council.
We would have to look back at the record on that.
Another aspect is that the convener and the vice convener of the audit, risk and scrutiny committee are opposition members. Therefore, I would have thought that, if there was unhappiness among elected members, that would be brought to the fore there—
In terms of—
—and also at the service committee.
I am sorry, but I am speaking now, Councillor Laing.
In terms of the social care and wellbeing objectives—I have read them out, so I will not read them again—I would have thought that a body other than the audit, scrutiny and risk committee would look at that. At the moment, that seems to be the education and children’s services committee but, from what I can see, there is not much information there.
I want to move on to savings. Other witnesses have given evidence on the expected savings from moving to ALEOs, from things such as non-domestic rates and VAT. How much saving has Aberdeen City Council made from moving from an in-house service to the ALEO Bon Accord Care?
The business case that went to Aberdeen City Council indicated savings within five years. Obviously, we are just 18 months into the operation of Bon Accord Care.
So what is the saving thus far?
We are not looking at savings year on year; we are looking at them within the broad delivery of that five-year plan.
Is it correct that, as the shift took place, the budget from the council to Bon Accord Care for the first year was £23 million or thereby?
Convener, can I have clarification about the remit? Are we entering into an investigation into Bon Accord Care?
No. It is an investigation into arm’s-length external organisations.
A business case was put forward and was agreed by the council. I take on board the point that ALEOs are set up to make savings, but that was not the whole point of the business case that came before us. There were various other aspects. We can send it to committee members so that they can see—
We would—
—the reasoning behind that. However—
We would appreciate that, Councillor Laing. With all the folk who have come in front of us on the issue, we have tried to establish whether any savings have been made by moving from an in-house service to an ALEO. Most folks have been able to point that out.
The interlude has given some of us time to look at other issues round that. You can set the record straight by writing to us, but my understanding was that the original budget was £23 million, which was raised to £24 million. It has now risen to £25.5 million and I think that it will rise further to £26.4 million. That is quite an uplift. However, it seems that a much higher percentage of delivery of service is going to providers other than Bon Accord Care. Is that the case? Would you prefer to write to us about that?
I have a point of clarification about the increases. I was asked earlier whether we pay the living wage. When we set up Bon Accord Care, it was important to us that staff terms and conditions were the same as if the services had remained in house. As a result, pay has increased, which has led to increased amounts going to Bon Accord Care because of the terms and conditions and levels of service.
We need to bear that in mind. Perhaps it would be best if we wrote to the committee so that you have an understanding of where the amounts have come from.
That would be extremely useful. Could you also write to the committee about the external income aspect of the business case? Am I correct in saying that the business case was largely predicated on bringing in additional income?
Part of it was about the right to trade and reinvest. That was in the business case, yes.
My understanding is that that will reach £100,000 in 2019. Perhaps you can also clarify that for us in writing.
I take it that it is just Bon Accord Care that you want clarification on and not any of the other ALEOs that we deal with.
We are just dealing with Bon Accord Care. We were trying to match one ALEO with one council when we set out on the inquiry.
When we took evidence from Ms Ross, she was asked about the pension liabilities of Bon Accord Care and she admitted on the record that it was admitted to the pension scheme. She indicated that the pension deficit had increased during the operational period of the past 18 months to two years. If anything happened to Bon Accord Care, I assume that the council would take the services back in house.
Do you monitor the liabilities of any of the ALEOs in case the council has to step in and deliver the services if, for whatever reason, the ALEO’s funding is withdrawn or its board feels that it can no longer operate?
The contract allows the council to intervene in the event of any significant failure in Bon Accord Care and to bring the services back in house. If anything happened, we would of course do that.
My understanding of the contract is that we would honour the pension liability. There is a whole set of governance that sits around the north-east pension fund and Bon Accord Care has been admitted into that pension fund.
We look at all the council’s financial exposure, whether it is a consequence of pension deficit or of giving guarantees to any organisation. Our role under section 95 of the Local Government Act 1973 is to monitor constantly the council’s exposure to those things that are clearly on the balance sheet as well as to those things on which we have given guarantees.
12:00
I assume that that includes any ALEOs that operate under the funding regime from the city council.
Yes.
The other ALEOs that we have looked at were carefully selected to include a cultural ALEO, a leisure ALEO and a property ALEO. Bon Accord Care is slightly different, given the care service aspect, particularly with regard to health and social care integration.
How will that be dealt with? Was integration written into the original contract? Will it be achievable to complete integration with an ALEO dealing with care services?
I am not sure that I fully understand your question, convener.
You are moving to health and social care integration. I think, if memory serves me well, that Bon Accord Care would account for about 10 per cent of your joint integration budget. Is that right?
Yes—it would be around that amount.
Has the contract been set out so that directing Bon Accord Care to fulfil all the integration that will be required between the health and care services will cause no difficulty whatsoever? With regard to fitting everything together, including governance, how is that going to work?
We are on line to achieve everything that we need to achieve in order to go live as a partnership by the required date of 1 April next year. Bon Accord Care is a key delivery partner in what we are doing. It currently delivers services on behalf of Aberdeen City Council, and it will do so under the direction of the integrated joint board in future. We are doing some work within our organisation on looking at contractual assurance so that we are very clear about the contractual obligations to Bon Accord Care that sit between the IJB and Aberdeen City Council.
Do you think that you have the flexibility in the contract to be able to fulfil all aspects of integration with Bon Accord Care still in place?
Our delivery of integration is not contingent on the Bon Accord Care contract.
Okay. It has been suggested to me that certain things were transferred to Bon Accord Care and certain things were left in house. Some things were split between Bon Accord Care and Aberdeen City Council. Would that be correct?
I was not working in Aberdeen at the time that the decision was made on which services would be given to Bon Accord Care, so I am not entirely sure which services would have been split.
Where does occupational therapy lie at present? Is it between the council and Bon Accord Care?
Occupational therapy sits across Bon Accord Care; aspects of occupational therapy are delivered within that. We have some occupational therapists who work within the wellbeing team, and we also provide occupational therapy through the national health service.
It has been suggested that, at present, some folk have three OTs and some folk have zero OTs. Is that the case? How can the ALEO contract be dealt with to ensure that folk get an OT each rather than three OTs, as may be the case at present? Is that a flaw in the contract, or just a flaw in the system at this moment in time?
I would certainly be very interested to see evidence that people have more OTs than they require.
I can provide you with that.
That would be helpful. Obviously we would be looking to set up services so that people have the services that they require from the right person.
Okay. Thank you very much for your evidence today. We have asked for a number of details—there may be more—and we would appreciate a reply in writing.
We now move into private session.
12:04 Meeting continued in private until 12:08.