Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Decision approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: May 6, 2025

Purpose: Briefly explain what the report will be about, i.e. the issue and then set out the decision(s) required (minimum of two paragraphs, maximum of five paragraphs)   Local Authorities have a statutory duty to commission sexual health services for residents. In Newham, like most Councils across London, we commission specialist ‘in clinic’ services, some services via primary care and also an online ‘e-service’ (Sexual Health London website also known as ‘SHL’ ) for the screening and treatment of simple sexually transmitted infections (STIs).   This paper asks Cabinet for permission to re-procure a sexual health e-service via an Inter-Authority Agreement (IAA) with the City of London.   The e-service helps to expand resident access to vital STI screening services, with around 23,000 Newham residents utilising the existing SHL website in 2023-24. There is also a degree of anonymity around the e-service that appeals to communities where there is a relatively high level of stigma around sexual health – with cultural barriers likely to inhibit attendance in face-to-face clinics.   The Council intends to enter into a new five-year agreement with CoL, with the option to extend for up to four additional years (5+2+2). The estimated spend over the full nine-year term is estimated at £8-10 million. The lower end of the budget estimate would apply if the Council retains the service “as is” (i.e. STI screening only) and the higher end of the estimate would be more likely to apply should the Council wishes to activate additional optional work packages in the future. These optional work packages would be related to oral contraception, PrEP and condom provision.  

Content: Decision   For the reasons set out in the report and its appendices Cabinet RESOLVED to Agree to:   i)  Agree that the Council can procure a sexual health e-service, via the LSHP, which will be led by the City of London as lead contracting Authority. ii)  Delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Adults, Health & Communities, in consultation with the Lead Member for Health and Adult Social Care, to: a)  agree to the Council entering into an Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) with all partners of the LSHP2 . The IAA will allow the Council to utilise the contract for sexual health E-services to be awarded by City of London, following completion of a successful procurement, to commence in August 2026 for an initial term of five years with the option to extend for up to four additional years on a ‘+2+2’ basis (maximum contract length nine years). b)  agree to the Council using the additional services that CoL will also be procuring as part of this contract, during the term of the contract, if required as set out in paragraph 4.1 in accordance with the Council’s governance processes. c)  agree that the Council may continue using the contract referred to in 2.2.1 above, if CoL extend it in accordance with the permitted extensions. iii)  Note that the City of London will enter into a contract with the successful tenderer and members of the LSHP will be able to use the contract and be re[1]charged by CoL based on usage.   Alternatives Considered   a)  Sexual health services are statutory and need to be commissioned in some form. A digital option for STI screening clearly helps to save money and offer choice to residents. Therefore, the only realistic alternative scenario to be considered was whether it made sense to join the London-wide programme or to take an independent approach at borough-level or NEL-level. However, an independent approach was rejected for the following reasons: i)  The current e-service arrangement has worked well to date, as per qualitative and quantitative data cited above. ii)  The main benefit of a London-wide approach is the economy of scale that it allows: the more testing carried out by a single provider, the cheaper the unit price. Any independent procurement exercise would inevitably result in higher unit prices and an increased pressure on the Council’s Public Health Grant. b)  In terms of the preferred procurement route, the LHSP conducted a review of options and held a vote across the 30 member authorities. A direct award was deemed possible under the terms of the Provider Selection Regime (PSR) but the collective preference was for a competitive process. It was felt this process yielded the greatest potential to drive efficiencies and innovation, while minimising the risk of provider challenge.