Kingston Conservative Councillors

The Scrutiny Panel

The Scrutiny Panel is theConservative (Opposition) led body responsible for holding the Executive to account. The role of the Panel is to provide an appropriate level of challenge to the Executive in order to create better decisions and policies for residents in Kingston.

The Scrutiny Panel can carry out pre-decision scrutiny of matters that the Executive is due to consider and can also call-in for review decisions that have been made by the Executive but not yet implemented.

The Scrutiny Panel membership includes 4 Executive Members, 7 Shadow Executive Members (Conservative Councillors who scrutinise the work of the individual Lib Dem Executive Members) and the member for the Labour Group.

Shadow Executive Members and their portfolio areas:

Recent Scrutiny Panel

Leasing of Ravens Ait Call in of Executive Decision of 11 February

Appendix A

Councillor Howard Jones called in the following decisions of the Executive on 11 February that

1. the current position concerning the leasehold offers received for this property, as set out in the exempt section of the agenda, be noted; and

2. Ravens Ait be leased, with vacant possession, to Stewart Marine on the basis set out in the exempt section of the agenda; and

3 officers be authorised to complete the matter as soon as possible.

Reason for decision

To enable the property to be brought back into use and secure an income for the Council whilst retaining control, as landlord, over how the property is used

Reason for Call In

The decision was called in on the on the basis that the Executive papers provided were lacking in sufficient detail on which to base such an important decision concerning an asset owned by the residents of RBK and it is essential in the interest of transparency to ensure best value is achieved.

The Panel would review the following:

1. Disposal process used by RBK

2. Question if RBK considered relocating The Albany Park Canoe & Sailing

Centre to Ravens Ait.

3. Review the methodology used to evaluate the proposed decision which led to the Executive accepting a lower financial offer with community benefits against higher financial offers made by other interested parties.

4. The Panel also wish to review the proposed use.

Scrutiny of Decision

The following attended to assist the Panel

Councillor Derek Osbourne Leader of the Council

John Barlow Borough Valuer

Roger Jones Ist Surbiton Sea Scout Group

The first part of the meeting was held in closed session - without Mr Jones – and concerned the consideration given to whether the island would be retained for any

Council use; the way in which the site had been marketed, the assessment of offers received and the lease terms.

Particular issues on the lease terms related to the investment needed to bring the premises up standard, how this would be assessed and how the requirements on the condition of the premises at the end of the lease would be reflected. The permitted uses were also raised, with particular reference to houseboat moorings.

Councillor Derek Osbourne and John Barlow, Borough Valuer, responded to the various points raised and the Borough Valuer indicated how the issues on initial improvements and assessment of the state of buildings at the beginning and the end would be dealt with. In response to the clarification sought by the Panel on how bids were assessed, the range of factors included, the business plans submitted, the viability of some of the proposed uses given the planning constraints and the parking and access issues, and the willingness of prospective Lessees to enable the

Sea Scout use to continue and to provide for an element of other community uses.

On the uses John Barlow confirmed that whilst some moorings would be permissible, these would all be short term and require the Councils consent, planning permission and consent from the Environment Agency. Houseboat moorings are excluded and the lease is clear on this

In th open part of the meeting the Panel was joined by Mr Roger Jones of the 1st

Surbiton Sea Scouts.

The discussion centred on the availability of the island for community use. It was confirmed that the lease contains provision for the use of the island by the 1st

Surbiton Sea Scouts and that there is also provision for use, up to 10 days annually, for Council events or for use by community groups, at no charge. In addition there is the facility within the lease for discussions between the Council and Lessee on the Council using space on the island. This is not defined but provides for discussion.

Mr Jones confirmed that the prospective Lessee was supportive of the use of the island by the Sea Scouts and he outlined some of their plans for their facilities on the island.

The meaning of community use was discussed and there was general agreement that plans for the use of the 10 days should be developed as quickly as possible for discussion with the Lessee. These should not all be about the Council’s own events or activities but should provide for uses by community groups whose proposals could be channelled through the Council. It was important to define community use so that both parties were clear on this from the outset.

Conclusion

The Panel

1 supported the suggestions made in the discussion in the closed part of the meeting concerning the approach to be incorporated in the leasing conditions covering

(a) the way in which the condition of the premises at the start and finish of the lease should be dealt with;

(b) a costed Schedule of Works for initial investment in the facilities and noted the actions agreed by the Borough Valuer on these

2. agreed that the Executive be urged to formulate proposals for likely community use of the island on the 10 days included in the lease; the definition of community use to be clear in the documentation and be on the lines of ‘being based on providing for some of the Council’s own activities but also providing for a range of community uses which will be channelled through the Council’

LEGAL SERVICES REVIEW - FURTHER REPORT

Appendix B

Following the report to the September meeting the Panel received an update on the further work of the Member Working Group. The Group has been exploring the development of measures to illustrate performance and considering whether there were alternative ways of carrying out the legal function.

At two recent meetings the Group has received further detailed information on both the development of performance measures, and recent statutory developments related to possible alternative approaches for the delivery of the legal function.

23rd March 2010

Destination Kingston - A Medium term Service and Financial Plan, 2010-2013, Detailed Capital Programme, Revenue Budget & Council Tax 2010/11

23 FEBRUARY 2010

The Panel considered the recommendations of the Executive from 11 February on the approval of the medium term service and financial plan for 2010-13 and the Capital Programme 2010 -2013 and the budget and Council Tax for 2010-11

To assist the Panel the following attended

Councillor Derek Osbourne, Leader of the Council, and all other Executive Members Strategic Leadership Team – the Chief Executive and Ian Davey sent apologies for absence – together with the following other officers Anne Redparth, Simon Pearce,

Lindsey Wishart and Jeremy Randall

The format of the meeting was that the Leader of the Council and Peter Derrick -

Director Finance Interim were asked to give an introduction to the budget and then the topic was open to questions from the Panel.

Introduction

In introducing the budget Councillor Osbourne referred to the budget objectives set out in the Foreword to the Financial Plan. In brief the budget is a continuation of the last two years in redesigning the way the Council works. This involves changing processes to protect front line services and reduce administration costs and other costs of delivering services; this is essentially the One Council Programme. The

Council is also in some areas changing from being a direct provider of services to being an enabler. As an example of this there is now a network of partners organising and providing the arts and cultural programme and this has removed the need for the Council to have an in-house post.

In planning the budget the Council also has to deal with shifts in budgets and cost transfers from the Greater London Assembly (GLA) and the Government. The GLA has admitted that it has achieved a zero increase by passing more on to London

Boroughs and the Government, whilst it gives grants, makes other changes which add to costs. An example of the combined effects of GLA and Government action is the increased costs London will have to bear through increases in bus fares, in turn increasing the cost to Boroughs of Freedom Passes and there will be a further additional cost as some of the funding for the national Freedom Pass scheme is being withdrawn by Government. Zero tax increases are a mainly inner London phenomenon and tend to be among Boroughs which retained many services in house, even through the years of Compulsory Competitive Tendering and Best

Value, and therefore have a lot of scope for making efficiency savings. Kingston has been slimming down since the ‘80’s and like other boroughs such as Bromley and Croydon is taking the view that against forecast reduced public spending it is prudent to prepare for this by investing in services.

Peter Derrick referred to work done on budget planning since the autumn to bring the budget back to the forecast last year for the 2010/11 Council Tax. The One

Council Programme is the cornerstone for reorganising the Council and how services are delivered and is also the cornerstone of the financial strategy, recognising that the traditional ways of doing things cannot be sustained.

The budget estimates and the policy proposals in the One Council programme are realistic and credible and can be delivered over the year. However the exceptionally high base budget reduction, compared to recent years, coupled with the savings and investment requirements in the One Council programme gives a budget with a fair degree of risk. The risks are understood by the Administration and the Strategic

Leadership Team (SLT) and two particular measures are being put in place from

March to handle risk and deliver the budget. These are: changes to the financial governance arrangements to give rigorous control and tracking of investment costs and savings in the One Council programme, with quarterly review reports a strengthening of the budget monitoring system by the addition of an SLT monitoring group to be chaired by the Director of Finance.

Questions

Specific questions to Councillor Osbourne concerned

The aspiration to change the budget proposals to achieve a Council tax rise of 1.9%, as mentioned at Executive and before that in the local Press – had this been achieved and why was the budget being changed after months of work to produce the current budget.

The lack of detail in the budget proposals is a concern and although the detail of the draft revenue estimates has now been made available wouldn’t it have been in the interests of transparency to publish these as part of the budget papers.

The estimated extra costs to Kingston of the GLA decisions on Freedom Passes and the increase in bus fares.

Councillor Osbourne responded that 1.9% is achievable and as is usual there will be an amended budget motion a Council. Budget proposals are published to meet the necessary processes but work on the proposals go on until the Council night. Part of the contribution towards achieving 1.9% will be removing the provision for any staff pay award – there is currently provision of 0.5% which is £300,000. Executive members are also looking at their various budget areas for other possible contributions.

The budget process is changing and is still not quite right. The draft revenue estimates, were not included last year as they relate to the old style budget process but some transparency may have been lost in transition.

The estimated cost to Kingston of the increase in bus fares, which is passed on to Boroughs by the GLA and other decisions on the Freedom Pass is around £1m.

Other questions concerned specific portfolios and ranged over the transfer of funds from NHS Kingston for particular care groups; the potential effects of the current Bill to introduce free personal care; transport costs across Community Services budgets; the level of reserves; the adequacy of the provision for road repairs, given the effects of the winter weather; waste management costs; the provision in the insurance reserves; the inclusion of a policy of recruitment restraint.

These were responded to by Executive Members and officers.

On the position on earmarked reserves and the Capital Programme the following issues were raised

The Capital Reserve and Strategic Investment Reserve will have been fully spent on the One Council programme by the end of 2010/11 and there is no forecast on how these reserves will be replenished.

The Capital Programme has been ‘slashed’

The Repairs and Renewals Fund will also have reduced from £2.75m at 1 April 2009 to £800,000 at April 2011; this coupled with reductions in the Capital Programme leaves the position ‘tight’

In response the Leader indicated that these two reserves were intended for the One

Council Programme and had been built up from a number of one off savings items.

Peter Derrick added that the £4m upfront costs of the Building Schools for the

Future had also been met from the Strategic Investment Reserve. Consideration will need to be given in 2011/12 on how these reserves can be built up again. There is potential for this within the anticipated savings from the One Council Programme.

This would also be a potential source for any additions to the Repairs and Renewals fund.

The changes the Capital Programme follow from economic analysis and the adjustment of priorities.

Conclusion

The Chair thanked Executive Members, Directors and other officers for their attendance and responses and Panel members for their contributions.

The debate on the budget is to be continued at Council on 25 February.

Adult Safeguarding Annual Report and Action Plan Annual Performance Assessments of Adult Social Care

26th January 2010

The Panel met to examine the Annual Assessment of Adult Social Care and the Adult Safeguarding Annual Report and Action Plan.

Both of these have recently been considered by the Executive which has referred them to this Panel and has also agreed the Safeguarding report and Action Plan and referred it to the NHS Kingston Board for consideration approved the Improvement Plan in response to the areas of improvement identified by Care Quality Commission

The following attended to assist the Panel

Councillor Rolson Davies Executive Member for Health and Adult Community Services

Ian Davey Director of Community Services (Interim)

Simon Pearce Head of Community Care Services

Jo Carmody Principal Manager for Adult Safeguarding

The Chair invited Councillor Rolson Davies to set the scene by commenting on the Annual Performance Assessment on Adult Social Care.

Councillor Davies highlighted the Inspector’s comments on the improvements made which are reflected in the award of a grading of Performing well (Grade 3 of 4). The partnership with NHS Kingston on identifying health needs and how these can be met is working well and the strategies for commissioning Community Care are aimed at personal budgets and choice of care.

The plans and improvements in place will, it is hoped assist in the aim of gaining a rating of Performing Excellently for one or two outcomes at the next Annual Performance Assessment.

Ian Davey referred to the various areas of improvement and in particular to the work done on increased choice and control of care – this had contributed to the improvement in grading – and maintaining dignity and respect within which safeguarding has a higher profile.

The improvement Plan is RBK’s but has been drawn up in discussion with the Care Quality Commission and has clear measures, outcomes, identified lead officers and timescales. An example is the work being done on adaptations to the Council’s housing stock to meet the changing needs of residents, additional money has been allocated to deal with the backlog and meet the targets to 2011.

Points raised and responded to by Councillor Davies, Ian Davey and Simon Pearce ranged over the progress made on providing a single record system of sources of advice, a point on the need for this had been made by a Mencap representative at a previous Panel meeting; the comment on engagement with the voluntary sector was surprising, given the work the Council’s record on this; the capacity to provide supported housing, and publicity of the forums for care providers; will the Improvement Plan include more on the brokerage scheme and potential involvement of agencies such as Age Concern.

On improvements to quality of life, an issue raised concerned a perceived lack of liaison between departments which sometimes delayed these improvements, an example given is the assessment and provision of disabled parking bays which seem to run on a 6 month cycle.

A particular issue raised concerned Young Carers and the people they care for.

What arrangements are there for finding out how many Young Carers there are and how they are supported and, notwithstanding the devotion of the young carers, is an assessment made of the needs of those for whom they care? This is not covered in the external report.

Simon Pearce explained that there is a Young Carers project run with Learning and Children’s Services and hadn’t been included in the Improvement Plan as it is more an element of Children’s Services than Adult Services.

Ian Davey indicated that there would be adjustments to Action Plans as they were being implemented.

Safeguarding

Councillor Rolson Davies referred to the rising number of alerts received by the Council of adults who may be vulnerable to abuse or neglect. A dedicated Adult Safeguarding team has been created and an external inspection of the service is expected sometime after April.

Jo Carmody gave an overview of the working of the Safeguarding team.. As well as investigating some of the more complex safeguarding cases arising from alerts, the team provides support and training to a range of services across the Council and with partners and other agencies. People who come into contact with vulnerable adults are many and varied and work has been done with the Community Police teams, the Ambulance Service and also the Council’s Trading Standards service. There are plans to provide guidance and training to the ‘meeters and greeters’ in the new Guildhall Reception area. Another area of development is will be providing guidance to individuals who will be ‘employers’ using personal budgets to buy their own care.

Points raised covered the reporting lines from the Safeguarding Board to the Adult Health and Well Being Board; how integrating safeguarding across a range of services and providers was being done and monitored, is this a requirement of contract and commissioning arrangements; how safeguarding and domestic violence issues are handled; what are the arrangements for vulnerable children making the transition from Children’s to Adult Services and what checks are made on maintenance contractors who may working in a property with a vulnerable person.

In response the plans for extending Safeguarding Awareness training were explained and the Safeguarding standards will be included in new/renewed contracts. It is intended that this will be included in all Community Care contracts from March 2010 and other contracts will, for the present have an awareness of safeguarding issues. Domestic violence is a complex aspect of safeguarding and one where the Council lacks specific powers; however the range of powers available to other partners and agencies is proving helpful.

For looked after children, Children’s Services retain responsibility for them until they are 25 but there are challenges to safeguarding arrangements from young people once they reach 18. Safeguarding standards will be set in contracts for housing maintenance etc., contractors will have carried out employee referencing checks but CRB checks are not required.

The Panel

1 noted the Safeguarding report (Appendix B) and is very pleased with the progress made so far in implementing the Safeguarding Strategy and Action Plan;

2 thanked the officers for responding positively to the range of questions posed and for informing and updating the Panel;

3 welcomed the improvements made in Adult Social Care Services (Appendix B) and that many of the issues discussed at the Panel in 2008 in considering the 2007-08 external assessment have been addressed, the ultimate inspectors are RBK residents receiving these services and it was noted that the two categories where the grade was adequate are now graded performing well in line with the other five;

4 recommends to the Executive that future Action Plans include measures to address the following concerns

(i) that the numbers of people being cared for by Young Carers are known and that they are receiving appropriate care;

(ii) that work across departments providing, or contributing to the provision of services is co-ordinated, an example where processes may not be as well connected as they could be is the provision of disabled parking bays.

Note Councillor Mama did not support the recommendation on the grounds that he needs to know more about the Safeguarding ‘machinery’, mentioned in the report, and how it works.