Agenda and minutes

There had been circulated copies of the Minute of 27 October 2016

DECISION

AGREED the Minute.

Consider Extract of Minute of Executive Committee of 15 November 2016 in respect of the Scrutiny Committee Recommendation – Review of Bridges.

There had been circulated copies of an extract from the Minute of the Executive Committee of 15 November 2016 regarding the Scrutiny Committee recommendation in respect of the Review of Bridges.  The Executive Committee had amended the recommendation of the original recommendation to reflect that, once the inspection of bridges had been carried out, the condition of all bridges be categorised and incorporated into an annual report to the Executive Committee as part of the Roads Asset Management Plan process.

            DECISION

            AGREED the Executive Committee’s amended recommendations:-

(a)     to endorse the following parts of the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee that:-

          (i)      the current Roads Review should take account of the need to inspect bridges within the Code of Practice for Management of Highway Structures recommendations and that, if possible, some additional resources be identified to allow this work to be carried out in line with the priorities within the Roads Asset Management Plan;

          (ii)     when considering future repairs to historic and iconic Borders bridges, officers continued to assess on a case by case basis any opportunities for external funding; and

(b)          that, once the inspection of bridges had been carried out, the condition of all bridges be categorised and incorporated into an annual report to the Executive Committee as part of the Roads Asset Management Plan process.

MEMBERS

Councillors Nicol and Herd joined the meeting during consideration of the following item of business.

Presentation by Strategic Lead – ADP and Health Improvement.  Background papers attached.

3.1       With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 27 October 2016, there had been circulated copies of the Alcohol and Drug Partnership Strategy 2015-2020 which presented the strategy and overall vision of the Borders Alcohol and Drug Partnership for people in the Scottish Borders.  Mr Tim Patterson, Joint Director of Public Health and Ms Fiona Doig, Strategic Lead – Alcohol and Drug Partnership (ADP) and Health Improvement attended the meeting to give a presentation on the Strategy, its progress and challenges to date.   Ms Doig explained the way in which the ADP Governance was delivered and how NHS Borders, Scottish Borders Council, the Community Planning Partnership and the Integrated Joint Board contributed to this.  The structure of the ADP included a support team; six operational groups covering Alcohol Brief Interventions; Data and Performance Management; Drug Trends Monitoring Group; Quality Principles Group; Take Home Nalaxone/Injecting Equipment Provision; and Workforce Development.  These groups reported to the ADP Executive Group chaired by the Joint Director of Public Health and ultimately to the Borders ADP, chaired by the Chief Social Work Officer of SBC.  A further layer in this structure was the Drug Death Review Group which reported to the Borders ADP and the Critical Services Oversight Group (CSOG.)

3.2       The key aims of the ADP Strategy were to reduce the prevalence of alcohol and drug use by 5% by 2020 through: prevention and early intervention; reduction of alcohol and drug-related harm to children and young people; improvement of recovery outcomes for service users and reduction in the number of deaths from accidental drug use to fewer than four per year; and the strengthening of partnerships and governance structures.  Ms Doig explained each of these key aims in detail.  The number of alcohol-related hospital stays had remained relatively stable between 2003/04 and 2014/15, with a decrease in overall rates since 2007/08.  An increase in the number of alcohol-related deaths had been reported and further analysis was being carried out to look at reasons or trends for this.

3.3       With regard to harm caused to children and young people, work was ongoing around support for children affected by parental substance misuse; a review of the substance misuse policy in schools; and the availability and enforcement issues relating to “legal highs”.  Generally, there had been a reduction over time in the alcohol-related hospital admissions and the amount of alcohol and drug use in young people.  There had been an increase in recovery activities such as user group projects and Ms Doig reported that more client reviews were carried out now on a regular basis.  Ms Doig summarised the barriers facing the ADP, advising that a reduction in Government funding; availability of alcohol along with attitudes towards drinking; and the stigma attached to the use of drugs and alcohol, all contributed to these challenges.

3.4       Discussion followed and Members raised questions relating to the interpretation of the available data and how the information differentiated between drug and alcohol related deaths.  Ms Doig confirmed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Presentation by the Chief Legal Officer.

4.1       With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 27 October 2016, the Chairman welcomed Mr Bill Edwards, Interim ICT Programme Manager/Head of IT and Mrs Teresa Maley, Information Manager to the meeting who were present to give a presentation to Members on Protective Marking of documents.  Mrs Maley began the presentation by explaining that Protective Marking of information ensured secure communications between Government and its agencies.  The Cabinet Office had introduced a new Government Classification Scheme in 2014 which included: Official and Official (Sensitive); Secret; and Top Secret.  Each classification provided a baseline set of personnel, physical and information security controls that offered an appropriate level of protection against a typical threat profile.  Protective Marking was part of this process, for example, for the Council to obtain Public Sector Network (PSN) accreditation.  In terms of Council use, only two categories were applicable, namely Official, which was not usually marked as all Council information fell into this category; and Official (Sensitive) which did need to be marked.  Mandatory training was provided by the Council for all employees on Information Awareness and guidance was available on how to apply Protective Marking to ensure that all staff understood their responsibility to keep information safe.  It was necessary that the Council was able to balance its duties to both meet the growing expectation by the public for openness with respect to the information it collected and managed, whilst at the same time fulfilling its duty to protect information in its care.

4.2       A number of questions were raised by Members.  In response, Mrs Maley advised that the Council’s Information Governance Group was chaired by the Monitoring Officer and considered areas of risk relating to information and how such risks could be addressed within the Council’s policy.  New legislation had taken effect in 2008 and this had increased penalties for information security breaches.  Mrs Maley explained that the process for reporting concerns/potential breaches would usually be initiated by a call to the CGI Service Desk, which would then be referred to IT Security.  The category to which information was allocated should be clearly identified on all documentation and reasons given when it was restricted.  It was noted that on occasion, websites via a hyperlinks within official emails might be “blocked”.  Members were advised that when access to such websites was required for Council business, “unblocking” should be requested through the CGI Service Desk.  The Chairman thanked Mr Edwards and Mrs Maley for their attendance.

DECISION

NOTED the presentation.

Update on subject included in the future Scrutiny Review Programme.  (Copy attached).

5.1       With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 27 October 2016, there had been circulated copies of the updated list of subjects which Scrutiny Committee had been asked to review and which included the source of the request, the stage the process had reached and the date, if identified, of the Scrutiny meeting at which the information would be presented.  In addition, Members were also asked to consider further subjects for inclusion on this list for presentation at future meetings of the Committee.  When deciding whether subjects would be reviewed by the Scrutiny Committee, Members required a clear indication from the initiator of the request as to which aspects of the subject they wished to be reviewed.  This would enable the Committee to determine whether the subject was appropriate for consideration.

5.2       The Democratic Services Team Leader explained the current status of the reviews listed and Members discussed a number of the items on the timetable. With reference to the Review Subjects 2016/17, it was agreed that more detail was required in respect of Items 5(a) and 6(a) on the list of subjects for review.  Following discussion, it was agreed that for each item, a general update was required, with the emphasis on how the Boards had progressed their business programmes to date.  In addition, information was requested relating to key issues that the Health and Social Care Integration Joint Board had identified.  In terms of the Police, Fire & Rescue and Safer Communities Board, Members asked that details of key decisions made by the Board be included in that review.

DECISION

AGREED the list of subject for review by Scrutiny Committee as amended and appended to this Minute at Appendix 1.    

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee is scheduled to be held on 26 January 2017.

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee would take place on Thursday, 26 January 2017.

            DECISION

            NOTED.