The Scrutiny Panel

The Scrutiny Panel is the Conservative (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

Destination Kingston - A Medium-term Service and Financial Plan 2011-2015, Detailed Capital Programme, Revenue Budget & Council Tax 2011/12

Tuesday 15th February 2011-

Minutes:

The Panel considered the recommendations of the Executive from 8 February on the approval of the medium term service and financial plan for 2011-15 and the budget and Council Tax for 2011-12

To assist the Panel the following attended

Councillor Rolson Davies Executive Member for Finance and One Council, the Leader of the Council Councillor Derek Osbourne and all other Executive Members

The Strategic Leadership Team together with the following other officers, Simon Pearce, Scott Herbertson Jeremy Randall and Anne Redparth

The format of the meeting was that Councillor Rolson Davies and Leigh Whitehouse - Director Finance were asked to give an introduction to the budget, with any additional comments from the Leader of Council and/or the Chief Executive and the topic was then open to questions from the Panel.

In introducing the Budget Councillor Davies felt that all Members were aware from the report of the background to the Budget and he did not propose to go over in detail the events which led to the current position. There were however a number of things to highlight

The Budget provides for a contribution of £1m to Reserves. Because of the predicted overspend in 2010/11, which will draw on reserves, this need to be rebuilt.

The Budget reduction of £13m has largely been achieved by the One Council Programme; if this was not in place then large reductions would have been necessary in some areas.

The predicted savings that will be realised by One Council by 2014/15 are £11m, £1m over target

Doing some things less or not all some services will be scaled back and some will cease altogether

The needs of high users of Adult and Children’s Care Services will be dealt with on a case by case basis

Staffing reductions are inevitable and there are also likely to be changes to the grading of some posts as structural changes continue.

To make this year’s Budget work and continue the work on finding savings for 2012/2013, where £5.75m has still to be identified will require a great deal of effort by officers and Members. The savings to be made over the 4 years are £30m with the bulk of this in 2011-2013.

Leigh Whitehouse reflected on the rapid change in public finances, the budget proposals had been drawn in part from a request to managers across the Council to consider ways to manage their services with a reduction of 20% over 4 years. This produced a range of approaches on how to continue to provide services but in a different way. The One Council programme is also bringing in new ways of working. RBK has none of the horror stories seen in the media on other authorities’ approaches to cuts. The budget proposals deliver the best outcomes from a difficult set of circumstances.

Councillor Osbourne referred to the inevitability of there being a reduced grant settlement regardless of the outcome of the General election, however the feeling had been that as RBK receives so little grant this might have been a slight advantage, but this has not been the case.

In exploring ways to make the further savings needed (2012/13 and beyond) discussions are being held with the South London Partnership (SLP)- Richmond, Merton, Sutton - on the possibility of shared services. An initial discussion has also been held with Surrey, but there appears less common ground than with the SLP.

Questions

Whilst there were some points of detail raised on individual savings items the focus of questions/discussion was on the following areas

1. The robustness of the income predictions on increases in charges, e.g. the on and off street parking charges (responded to by Councillors Rolson Davies and Simon James, with additional comments by Roy Thompson)

2. These are robust and are based on 70% of the actual predicted income from increases in charges. There will inevitably be some people who will choose not to pay increased charges. Reductions in employee costs are from increased use of technology and different ways of working. Other efficiency improvements being looked at include cashless parking with payment by credit card or phone.

3. What alternatives have been considered on some charging proposals in particular Adult Care charges? Would looking at what other Boroughs have done on payment for staff parking be less distasteful than increasing charges to disabled people? How will the £1.5m identified as funding from NHS Kingston (NKSK) and another £1m less identifiable be used for care services? How will organisations such as Age Concern Kingston and other voluntary sector organisations, some of which receive grants be supported?

There appears to be a reliance on personal budgets being used, but individuals may not have very much personal budget and may use them differently (Responded to by Councillor Rolson Davies, David Smith and Leigh Whitehouse)

4. In considering the charges for Adult Care Services other authority approaches have been looked at some have a cap on charges but on the other hand take account of 100% of unearned income. A balance has been sought so that people on low incomes are not penalised to subsidise people with high levels of capital and occupational pensions. The point on staff parking charges will be looked at.

5. On additional funding £1.5m is being transferred from NHSK and will be used towards the pressures from the demands for care services. The Government has announced an additional £1bn for social care nationally but Kingston has lost £800,000 of funding and will get back £1m from this.

A different model for providing some services is needed, this is being worked on and discussions will then be held with potential alternative providers such as Age Concern Kingston.

6. What will happen if predicted savings are not realised and the shortfall is not available from reserves? There is a predicted overspend of £1.7m in the 2010/11 budget so what faith is there that a much more stringent budget can be delivered?

This linked to questions submitted from a resident on the level of risk in the budget and the level of reserves (responded to by Councillors Rolson Davies, Derek Osbourne and Leigh Whitehouse)

7. There will be continuous monitoring to measure the achievement of savings, if these appear not be as predicted the expectation is that alternatives can be identified. In this year a range of other measures, such as expenditure restraint, have been shown to be effective and the Closing the Gap exercise has achieved permanent cost reductions which will be a continuing benefit.

If it had not been for the Government requirement for £2.3m in-year savings, which couldn’t have been predicted, the budget would be under spent by over £600,000.

£1m is being put back into reserves in this budget and the target over the 4 years is to rebuild reserves to £5m.

There is an inevitable concentration on the reductions in the Budget, but there is also some growth provided, largely for Adult and Children’s care services, reflecting the increasing demand for these services.

8. The impact of higher inflation and higher interest rates (responded to by Councillor Rolson Davies and Leigh Whitehouse)

9. The Council can benefit from increased returns on its cash investments e.g. a ½% increase in interest would at present give an additional £65,000. Borrowing costs would rise.

10. When might the outcome of work on shared services be seen? (Responded to by Councillor Derek Osbourne)

11.The approach is to look at what services can be shared which give the best benefit to RBK. More concrete proposals may emerge in the run up to the 2012/13 budget. It is too early to say what these services may be, some may be around contract arrangements and discussions with boroughs involve some areas of education and adult care services. There will be briefing sessions for members as progress is made.

12. Contract Based services do the proposed efficiency savings on Street Cleaning mean less cleaning? (Responded to by Councillors Rolson Davies and Derek Osbourne, with additional comments by Rob Dickson)

13. There are options being considered for a report in May/June, the frequency of cleaning in quiet domestic streets with little traffic or litter may be possible to reduce. An assessment of all streets will take some time.

14. Changes in staff numbers arising from One Council and the Closing the Gap exercise (responded to by Councillor Derek Osbourne and Sheila West)

15. The estimate is a likely further loss of 200 jobs; however budget proposals and completion of One Council reviews do not always coincide. The presentation of staff reductions as in budget styles of some time ago is no longer as simple. There are also fluctuations from transfer in of staff increases in staff. The reduction in headcount from December 2009 is around 60 posts.

16. What is the approach to progress Phase 2 of the provision of additional school places, given the short time to put them in place before they will be needed? (Responded to by Councillor Liz Green and Duncan Clark)

17. Work is being done to identify places needed in addition to those provided in Phase 1. Lord Hill has been written to on the Councils concerns on this element of funding, a response is awaited but it is hoped that a cross party delegation can meet with him and lobby on the settlement.

18. The review of certain grants indicated in 2009, appears to still be awaited, and is the Executive comfortable on the position on third year of awards of grant? (Responded to by Councillors Rolson Davies and Derek Osbourne)

19. This may have been the intention of a previous portfolio holder but now rests within OCP3. There are the questions of what is the voluntary sector for; what does it need in the way of support from the Council to do the things it can do better than the Council?

There are areas where the Voluntary sector needs to grow but there is also the historical basis for some organisations receiving grants, which may crowd out others.

(It was agreed that this was something to discuss further between Leaders and the Executive and Shadow Executive members.)

20. Support to the Rose Theatre is this at the right level? Should the Council be supporting it at all? What is the position if the University cease to contribute? is the support a grant or payment for services?

Several users- International Youth Festival, Global Arts and Sekoba Dance, pay very substantial amounts to hire the Theatre but are also funded by grants from the Council. What impact has the economic situation had? (Responded to by Councillor Derek Osbourne)

21. Arts and culture are seen as easy targets for cuts but support to arts organisations is a very small percentage of the budget. The largest extension of volunteering in the community in recent years has been the Rose Theatre and the International Youth Festival.

The Theatre funding is not a grant but an extension of the New Deal, £200,000 returns to the Council in rent and loan /equipment lease repayments. The Theatre has an important economic benefit with the theatre effectively estimated as £11m. There is nothing to indicate that the Kingston University arrangement will change but the new Vice Chancellor is awaited.

All of this helps with supporting the Theatres application for Arts Council funding, however the Arts Council will not fund for the things which the Council supports.

Whilst there is an issue on the Theatre charges for hire to some groups there is no symbiotic relationship between it and groups which receive Council funding.

Until recently the Theatre has not been greatly affected by the economic situation in terms of bookings but there may have been changes in funds they receive from the business community and elsewhere. A copy of the Theatre LLP accounts is included in the Councils annual accounts.

(It was agreed that further discussion around the theatre finances and support would be held between Leaders and appropriate officers/Theatre representatives)

Other specific points of detail were raised on

22. Ceasing the Libraries IT Training Programme this seems counter to the wish to increase electronic communication between residents and the Council

This was a programme started 10 years ago for which there is now very little demand. The equipment will remain available for use and d library staff will provide help.

23. Efficiency savings from reducing conditions on planning consents

The intention is that applications will be submitted in more detail so that they will not need to come back for matters such as approval of details of landscaping.

24. Asset Management - proposals for use of the Magistrates Court and Beaconsfields

The £120,000 loss of income from the closure of the courts is included in the budget and a number of options are being looked at for the use of the space, there are limitations as parts of it are listed, but possibilities include some of the services at the

North Kingston centre or Museum or use by the local History Society. Staff from Beaconsfield has been relocated to Guildhall and the use of the building will be considered within the Asset Management Strategy.

25. Efficiency savings on the Inspection and Advisory service and savings on reducing subsidies to Schools

These are savings associated with the changing roles of the Council and schools, as envisaged in the Education Bill. £60,000 of the saving is the deletion of a vacant post. There is no effect on school meals.

26. Library proposals - do these involve closure?

There are no proposals to close libraries, but different approaches to running them are being looked at.

27. What use is to be made of money being returned from London Councils?

Following changes to the London Boroughs Grants Scheme an expected £268,000 will be returned to the Council and this is included in the budget for support to the voluntary sector. Discussions will be held with the voluntary sector on the use of this

28. Transparency of the budget process, this was a written question from a resident and the Chair offered to discuss this with her outside the meeting as it did not really fit within the budget scrutiny.

Conclusions

The Panel

1. is conscious of the difficult financial circumstances in which the Budget has been drawn up;

2. is disappointed with the pace of the shared services process and looks forward to increasing activity in this area to include Borough initiatives and those of other partners in the voluntary and private sectors;

3. recognises that that the Council has choices between competing services and is disappointed that the results of the last Scrutiny Panel on the Social Care Charges Policy were not taken on board;

4. Asks the Administration to look favourably at the requirements and needs within the voluntary sector and community care services generally.

The Chair thanked Executive Members, Directors and other officers for their attendance and contributions to the Panel

Financial Contribution Policy for Social Care

Tuesday 25th January 2011-

Minutes:

The Panel met to consider the proposals for a new financial contributions policy for adults receiving non residential care.

1. The format for the meeting was an introduction from Councillor Penny Shelton Executive Member for Healthy Living and Adult Support with additional comments from Councillor Rolson Davies Executive Member for One Council and Finance and Simon Pearce Executive Head of Adult Care.

Executive Members, officers and service users then responded to questions from the Panel.

2. Councillor Shelton stated that after discussion with Councillor Rolson Davies the budget proposal would be to assess the contribution to support costs on 75% of peoples available income not 100%. This would apply to new users from 1 April 2011 and to existing users from 1 October 2011. The issues raised in the consultation had been looked at very carefully, but in view of the Councils financial position it is not possible to make any other proposals. The proposal to pay personal budgets net of contributions will be considered on a case by case basis.

3. Simon Pearce added that the additional report on the outcome seeks to give a flavour of responses and would be updated for Executive to reflect the two meetings held last week. The 4 case studies included are representative of the majority of service users circumstances but do not cover every individual circumstance.

4. Jane Youngs presentation highlighted the human rights and equalities issues, on which she had spoken at the Council meeting the previous week, as well as the practical effects on peoples lives. Further illustrations on the effects on peoples lives were given by Baroness Campbell and Ali Kashmiri.

The full text of Janes presentation is available on the web site with the Scrutiny agendawww.kingston.gov.uk/CommitteeMinutes

The points made are:

(i) The basics of human rights and equality - The higher the charges for independent living support the greater the inequality, as disabled people have no choice but to pay to do what others take for granted, such as having a shower, using the toilet, washing, dressing, eating and drinking

(ii) Charging up to 100%, or even 75%, of a persons available income leaves disabled people in relative poverty, with little more than the basic income support level plus 25%, after housing costs, which for the 2010/11 financial year equals £165.75 per week. Most residents of Kingston live above these levels of poverty

(iii) Charging the full cost of care to those with more than £23,250 in savings - will have a devastating effect on severely disabled people who have built their savings to meet the cost of expensive items, to give them some security in later life and to fulfil their aspirations. A disabled person needing independent living support costing, perhaps, £600 per week, will never be able to save for anything costing more than £23,250,

(iv) Removing the cap on care charges - will have a catastrophic effect on the finances of people with high care needs, particularly those who have saved for the future. The current cap is £151.41 per week; if this is removed, people who have been prudent and need their savings and income to cope with their complex lives could be forced to pay several hundred pounds per week merely to carry on living.

(v) Charging people the full amount of their personal budget - is a strong disincentive to accepting services, as for a disabled person to take a personal budget in these circumstances will result in them having to agree with Kingston how to spend their own money. People will fall out of the system and no-one will check they're receiving appropriate support.

(vi) Paying peoples personal budgets net of charges, or contributions - an appalling proposal, albeit suggested by the Department of Health, means that the penalty for non-payment is the removal of basic care to sustain life. If someone refuses to pay their Council Tax, they are not denied the right to go to the toilet, get out of bed or have a shower - so why should people who refuse to pay their care charges be denied these rights? Charges, if they are levied despite their contravention of the principles of human rights, equality and fairness should be subject to civil enforcement procedures in the same way as for any other charge or tax.

(vii) Final thoughts some quotes from the public out on the streets:

· We would be happy to pay more tax

· Why did we not know about the consultation?

· All the residents of the borough should have been asked for their views and involved in the consultation process

.Draft EQIA this should look at all possible effects, including those which are uncomfortable for the Council.

.Reducing the contribution to 75% rather than 100% will raise an additional £800,000 in income for the Council, in terms of the Councils budget overall this is not a large amount.

Case Studies

5. Lady Campbell spoke eloquently to illustrate the potential effects of the charging regime on the life chances of young people. They will never be able to have the kind of life which she has been able to have as a disabled person. They will never be able to have a house, a holiday or provide for their families, they will always live in poverty as they cannot have savings of more than £23,250 and those will be needed to pay for the many things a disabled person needs to help with their life and which they have to pay for themselves. Looking at an email from a concerned parent shows that saving for necessary communication aids and a replacement suitable vehicle would put the savings above the limit.

She added that the Council does not have to charge, this is not a Government edict and disabled people do make their own contributions.

6. Ali Kashmiri presented a video diary which was a snapshot of 36 hours in his life and illustrated the aids he uses to maintain a daily working life as well as having a personal carer. To maintain his life and various equipment costs him £40,000 annually. The charging proposals would prevent saving to replace a vehicle, wheelchairs and various other essentials, for which statutory funding is not available. They would also prevent saving for a time when it will no longer be possible to work. His support needs would remain, likely increase, and the real cost of maintaining his life would be passed to the Council.

Response from Councillors Penny Shelton and Rolson Davies

7. Councillor Shelton responded indicating her understanding, but also that the issues are not confined to Kingston, but are national. The Council is expected to follow Government guidance and virtually all comparative authorities have charging regimes. The choice of not charging is not available, the Council does not have the resources to meet the costs. The grant settlement is 14% lower for 2011/12 and the cost cannot be met by raising Council Tax.

8. Councillor Davies referred to the difficulty of balancing what the Council is able to do against what it would like to do. Charges are currently at 50% of disposable income and the proposal is to move to 75%. It may be possible to change some elements such as the cap on weekly charges and the savings limit. To meet the 25% increase from Council Tax would be a 1% increase, but Government grant would then be lost requiring a 2% increase.

9. The Budget is a package of proposals and will have effects on a range of services. Whilst sympathising greatly with the views expressed this is a national issue which the Government needs to look at.

Questions and comments from the Panel

10. These covered the capital which is taken into account; the amount of deemed income; the additional costs to the Council when people have exhausted their capital; why an increase to 75% had been decided upon; possible other sources of funding and budget choices; the possibility of flexibility on some savings; the consultation process and the questionnaire.

11. In response to the question of what capital is taken into account, Simon Pearce explained that this is all liquid capital. Salaries and mortgages are discounted and people must be left with not less than basic income support +25%, after housing cost. But assets such as shares, bonds, pension funds, other assets from which an income can be obtained and can be realised are all eligible for assessment.

12. It was pointed out that the current assumption of a return of £1 on every £500 of capital is totally unrealistic in the current financial climate and to propose to deem an income of £1 from every £250 is in effect confiscation and a form of very high Capital gains Tax by the back door. The effect will be that many peoples savings will be quickly wiped out.

13. Social care services is an area where reductions have not been as severe as in others , but users still seem to be being penalised. Is the increase to 75% an arbitrary figure?

Councillor Davies indicated that it is not an arbitrary figure; as part of balancing the budget all charges across the Council have been looked at. The Council is in an extremely difficult position because of the grant settlement which means a reduction of 24.1% over the next 2 years, with 14% in 2011/12, this means removing £13m of spending from the Councils budget in 2011/12 and more in following years. Undoubtedly this and many other issues will be raised when the Panel is scrutinising the Budget

14. Members referred to the reality of there being choices within the budget on where cuts can be made. In this instance £800,000 in income is being raised by this increase in charges. How strictly does the Council have to adhere to the guidelines and how many people are affected?

Simon Pearce explained that of the £800,000 the largest amounts of income will come from setting the capital limit at £23,250 £300,000 and

Increasing chargeable income to 75% £270,000

At present of around 900 users, 80 pay the maximum charge of £151.41, having no upper limit would affect more people. Overall the proposals will have some effect on 600 people.

15. How are utility costs treated, and how much flexibility can there be on some savings eg those intended for a deposit for a home, a replacement vehicle etc?

Simon Pearce explained that Government guidance allows disability related expenditure to be taken into account and the Council has always considered requests, eg people whose conditions require extra heating. For other utility cost these would have to considered on the basis of why there was a need for them to be higher than normal levels. In the case of savings for a particular item these can be looked at within disability related expenditure, but it is difficult to do this equitably.

16. In looking at budget reductions have charges been looked at first instead of looking at efficiency savings/ reductions within the department/

Simon Pearce referred to a phased review programme within the department which to date had realised savings of £750,000 and by the end of Phase 3 in October would have achieved just over £1m.

17. How do Kingstons charges compare to those in other Boroughs?

Some London Boroughs are consulting on charges at the moment but on present figures Kingston is among the most generous of Boroughs. As an example in Boroughs with a maximum charge this ranges from £200 - £510.

18. What will the additional costs of 900 reassessments be?

The officer time will be contained within existing costs. The reassessments will be carried out by the existing small finance team which cost about £200,000 p.a.

19. What consideration has been given to other possible sources of funding are available to offset these increases. The Government is putting £1bn into social care; Kingston will receive some of this. It is also known that around £1m is being transferred from NHS Kingston (NHSK) and there is another £1m elsewhere, but unspecified, in the budget?

Councillor Davies stated that there would be around an additional £1m in the Budget for social care placements. The money from NHSK is also being taken account of but there are strict guidelines on how this can be used.

David Smith added that just over £1.5m is to be transferred to the Council there are more people needing Adult Social Care this is in part the transition from childhood, and this is posing a very demanding set of challenges.

20. Several Members expressed dismay at the consultation process and the way in which some questions had been phrased which could be viewed as attempting to manipulate the process - eg the reference in question 4 to packages of care costly to the public purse. The way in which the consultation had been carried out was also felt to have left people feeling exasperated and not consulted properly. Members frequently hear that lessons will be learnt from how consultations are carried out, but there is a need to put in place some standard operating procedures.

Conclusions

21. A lot has been heard about the financial contributions policy but not much about care. What is the vision for care if these charges go ahead? The answer is in the consultation document, people will go into residential care earlier, yet the strategy is supposed to be to enable people to live at home as long as possible.

22. Of course there are budget priorities but the Council has a moral responsibility here and the cost is not that great. There are other things which can be delayed for a year or two to enable this money to be found.

23. The Department of Health guidelines, some of which are historic, must be looked at in detail. Do they require the Council to do anything? It seems that elements of charging for residential care, which does involve an assessment of capital, have been transferred to domiciliary care charges. The Government is reviewing the residential care charging system and more may be known in the autumn. If changes are made to the residential care system there will also be changes on domiciliary care. Zac Goldsmith has written to Andrew Lansley on how much flexibility there is in current arrangements for domiciliary care (He had intended to be at the Panel but had had to remain at Parliament).

24. There should be no attack on capital made for domiciliary care with a confiscatory assumption of returns on £500 or £250 which bear no relation to the possible return. These assumptions will wipe out capital within 5 or 10 years. This is a Capital Gains Tax at a very high rate; the Council shouldn't be doing this at all and is not obliged to. It is hoped that both MPs will tell the Government that the method of dealing with capital is totally unacceptable

25. How to have a fair system should be being looked at, although it is difficult, of assessing ability to pay care charges, not confiscating money and making it impossible to save for necessities. The situation in Kingston is different to other parts of the country with higher accommodation and other costs. These need to be taken into account with differential rates and allowances. Things could be done which would make a difference to people.

26. Wherever savings need to be made in the budget to find the £800,000 they shouldn't come from the savings of people already disadvantaged.

27. Lady Campbell thanked the Chair and Panel for their generosity in receiving representations on behalf of disabled people and for listening. For the first time people felt they had been heard. She urged members to tell colleagues of the long term consequences of the charging proposals.

28. The Chair thanked Lady Campbell, Jane Young, Ann Macfarlane and Ali Kashmiri for their contributions, and the carers, personal assistants and others who attended

Comments to the Executive

29. The Panel noted the statement from the Executive Member that the Budget proposal on the percentage of disposable income to be contributed would be 75% and not 100% as originally proposed.

30. The Panel

1. urges the Executive to:

(i) Increase the level of savings at which the full charge is levied so that fewer people find that the policy disadvantages them if they have been prudent and saved

(ii) Find ways to mitigate the effects for those with greater care needs

(iii) Publish guidelines on what will be exempted, specifically to include costs of vehicles, wheelchairs and necessary equipment, and include allowances for savings for a deposit for a home, recognising that young disabled people have a right to realise the same ambitions as the rest of the community

2. Would like to see greater vision in the long term policy for disabled care and consideration of the effects on full time residential care costs which would result from the increases in home care costs;

3. Formulate some standard operating procedures for consultations to achieve a better outcome and avoid leading questions;

4. The Panel has reflected on the examples of daily life and the difficulties, which it heard at meeting, and the affect on individuals that will arise from increases in care costs. These have impressed on the Panel the importance of providing essential care and a reminder that all as a society will be judged on how we deal with these matters

These comments were agreed with Councillors Tim Dennen, Mary Heathcote, Umesh Parekh and Malcolm Self abstaining from voting.

Annual Performance Assessment of Adult Social Care 2010

Tuesday 14th December 2010-

Minutes:

The Panel met to examine the outcome of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) Performance Assessment of Kingstons Adult Social Care Services and the Improvement Plan responding to the areas of improvement identified from the assessment.

The Executive had noted the outcome of the Performance Assessment, approved the Improvement Plan and invited the Panel to consider these.

This is the last year in which an assessment will be done in this format. The CQC is carrying out a consultation on an assessment frame work from 2012, for 2011 it is likely that local authorities will submit some form of self assessment.

Ian Davey introduced the Assessment Report and commented that in 3 of the 7 areas the Council had gone from a grade of Performing Well to Performing Excellently, had it achieved a 4th it would have had an overall rating of Excellent.

The areas graded excellent are: 2 improved quality of life; 3 making a positive contribution and 5 freedom from discrimination or harassment. The intention had been to aim to achieve Excellent in the 2011 assessment in areas 1 improved health and well being and 4 increased choice and control.

The assessment is a rigorous process and on the three outcomes where new evidence was submitted to improve the grading these, were detailed documents demonstrating the improvement in outcomes and quality of life. The CQC team had spent a day in Kingston visiting a range of facilities and meeting service users and carers, as well as representatives of the Learning Disability Parliament.

The overall assessment is a positive result which is a credit to the people working in the service and the Borough is the second highest performer in the South London Partnership. Areas positively commented on in the report include engagement with service users; the work with the Learning Disability Parliament; support for carers; and that a higher than average number of the care homes in Kingston are rated either good or excellent and none are rated poor.

Questions from the Panel were responded to by Ian Davey and Simon Pearce and covered.

In an era of legislative and other change and changes in staffing numbers, how confident can the Council be that it is providing the best services to those needing them?

A lot of work has been done as part of the Transforming Social Care programme, services have been remodelled to respond to changes in legislation and to meet financial challenges. There will be a period of transition for people who are used to the existing service model

Will the Improvement Board be robust enough?

Yes, it is essential that it has teeth to make sure that services are right and improvement plans are followed.

Joint Commissioning with the NHS, have there been discussions on this already to get things started? What capacity is there in the Council for social innovation? At present it seems rather inward looking

The assessment report points to the need to carry on the work started. There have been discussions with partners and this will be easier with the integrated Health and Adult Services management structure. There is also a Transformation project board which will involve Executive and Shadow members.

The Kingston GP Consortium which is part of the Pathfinder programme will also bring change and innovation to service provision and delivery. Kingston also has a Social Entrepreneur in Residence this is a post sponsored and co funded by the Young Foundation to look at/for new ideas for services in health and social care and ways of realising these. (There are just 2 of these posts nationally at present)

Care providers and how safeguarding training will be provided and put into practice

There is a programme of learning lunches for care providers and safeguarding will be promoted at these. A mechanism to monitor the take up of training and that it is being put into practice is needed.

Awareness of abuse of older people, how is performance on raising awareness of this being measured?

There are some positive comments in the assessment report on this, reflecting the considerable effort being put into raising awareness. An Adult Safeguarding system is also being developed with case recording and a system of visits at regular intervals where there is a potential risk to individuals.

Adult Safeguarding will be retained as an element of the future assessment process.

Personal budgets, autonomy, will this work for everyone and what are the practical differences between different age groups?

Personal budgets are used in different ways. At present there are about 30% of service users who hare active personal budget users and are content to use these independently. In some instances people may club together to get a particular service. There are approximately another third of users where the Council or an agency such as Age Concern Kingston act on their behalf and another third who tell the Council what their service priorities are but are happy for the Council to source this for them. This is a complicated and contested area to change from care services being paid for by the Council to people using their own budget to pay for care.

Carers are being encouraged to take on the personal budgeting role and it is acknowledged that this needs to be done in a controlled way.

In terms of different age groups the proposed welfare reforms will bring changes for some groups and may in turn affect personal budgets. The two main age groups of service users are young people with learning disabilities, this is a growing group and they are also living longer. The other group is an ageing population with higher numbers affected by dementia

Marginalised communities, who are being referred to?

This refers not only to minority communities being able to access services but to reaching all the people who need services. The assessment rating for freedom from discrimination and harassment is excellent with the refugee and migrant strategy being highlighted. There are however groups of people who are isolated and may need services, these are often older men, in all communities, who are living alone.

The format of the Improvement Plan and how practical it is to use to assess achievement of the Plan or for measuring performance and outcomes. It was suggested that the language on measures/evidence and outcomes achieved was not clear.

It was accepted that the Plan did include some jargon, the aim was to have definitions of an activity, a measure and an outcome and to use the Plan as a tool to learn from service users experiences to improve services. The Plan was not yet finalised and there was a further meeting with CQC and the Improvement Board on this at which it could be generally ‘sharpened up’ and the readability improved.

In conclusion the Chair commented that it had been a very useful look at the detail of the assessment report and the further look at the Improvement Plan on the lines indicated would be helpful.

Congratulations were due to all Adult Services staff for their contribution to the services which had resulted in such a positive assessment.

The Panel also thanked Ian Davey for his work at the Council during his term as Interim Director of Community Services and wished him well for the future.

South London Waste Paternship - Funding options for Waste Procurement Facilities

Tuesday 16th November 2010-

Minutes

The Panel considered the intention to continue the existing procurement negotiations through the Waste Partnership for new waste treatment facilities despite the withdrawal of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funding.

The Leader referred to the Defra decision, sent to the Council on the day of the Comprehensive Spending Review, withdrawing the provisional allocation of PFI credits to this project. The reasoning being that the UK would meet the EU landfill and recycling targets for 2020 so projects for waste treatment infrastructure weren’t needed.

However Kingston will not achieve the 2020 targets without this project and the landfill tax is set to continue to rise by £8 per tonne per year.

PFI has always been viewed as an expensive way of funding but, given the size of this project, was the available option. The withdrawal of PFI leaves a range of options open to the Partnership to explore with bidding companies to achieve an arrangement which is sustainable and financially advantageous. If the procurement stopped and then restarted a lot of time and money would be spent redoing things.

Elsewhere in Europe, Oldenburg is an example, it is the private sector which funds the building of facilities and then charges a ‘gate fee’ per tonne for the waste treatment

Questions posed covered - the difference between PFI and other approaches; does the PFI announcement change things at this stage in the procurement process; is there potentially more risk for bidders and would this restrict their funding options.

These were responded to by Rob Dickson , Leigh Whitehouse and the Leader.

PFI operates basically as a leasing arrangement over 25- 30 years, the private sector fund, and provide a facility; the public sector pay back over the length of the term, including a risk premium and interest costs, and the asset is returned to them at the end of the term.

Without PFI it would no longer necessary for the asset to revert to the Partnership at the end of the contract term and a number of other restrictions are also removed allowing more negotiating freedom.

The procurement process is currently reaching the stage of inviting refined submissions. The list of potential bidders has reduced from the initial stages as some have withdrawn. The expectation was that refined submissions would be received in January but bidders may now need more time to reflect the fact that the asset does not need to be handed back after 25 years. The transfer of risk is not significant but bidders will price the risk differently as there is the option of retaining the facility and charging fees. Their funding options are unlikely to be more restricted as major companies are not considering funding on the basis of bank finance and are familiar, from operation in other countries, with private financing models.

The Chair thanked everyone for attending and for the explanations and responses to questions.

The Panel expressed its support for the approach being taken by the Waste Partnership and confidence in the officers seeking the best solutions to the procurement of this facility. It looks forward to an opportunity to review the solution decided upon.