Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2014 and 20 May 2014 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no declarations of interest received.

The Commission received an update on the actions from the previous minutes.

Item 2.3, Affordable Housing: The Chairman explained that the item was postponed in order to allow negotiations to continue between the Council and the developers. Councillor Jeff Brooks stressed that the discussions should take place at a suitable time and therefore supported the view that the item should be postponed.

Councillor Brooks proposed that the item was deferred until September/ October 2014 in order to ensure the item was revisited promptly, irrespective of the progress of negotiations.

Councillor Webster proposed that if negotiations were still underway then it would not obstruct the Commission from discussing the topic which looked to review access to affordable housing in general.

Resolved that

·         The topic for Affordable Housing would be deferred until September/ October 2014.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from 18 June 2014 to 30 September 2014 and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan (Agenda Item 5) for the period covering 18 June 2014 to 30 September 2014.

David Lowe advised that a matter had arisen that necessitated the consideration by the Executive of an urgent decision. The matter related to recruitment and retention of staff in Children’s Services.

David Lowe quoted the following from the Constitution: the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 in September 2012 included a requirement to publish 28 clear days’ notice of any intended key decision. On occasions, however, situations arise where an urgent decision needs to be made in respect of an item that does not appear on the Forward Plan.

The Commission heard that as notice of the need to include the urgent item was received within the 28 working day period but before five clear working days before the meeting, the authority needed to give notice to all Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission about the decision and the reasons why it was deemed to be urgent.

The report would set out a strategy to address recruitment and retention issues in Children’s Services and the investment required to implement the strategy. The item was considered urgent as delays in implementing the strategy could compromise the Council’s position.

Councillor Jeff Brooks questioned whether the item related to Agenda item 7. Rachael Wardell advised that the matters were unrelated, the urgent item for consideration related to the proposal to introduce a three tier foster care system and specifically the communications and marketing of the model. By contrast the proposal for urgent consideration was developed in response to the increased level of agency staff employed and turnover in key front line teams and the risk this posed to children and young adults. The proposal sought to respond specifically to the issue of staff recruitment and retention and was felt that the matter required urgent attention.

The Commission heard that a special Management Board meeting was scheduled for 17 July 2014 in order to consider the item and accelerate it through the Executive cycle in order that it could be considered at the Executive meeting of 24 July.

Councillor Brook asked whether the item would be subject to Call-In. Nick Carter advised that it would not.(Note added post meeting)

The call-in procedure shall not apply where the decision taken by the Executive has to be implemented before the expiry of the call-in period. This will only be the case if one of the following applies:

·         The item is deemed an Urgent Key Decision as set out in Rule 5.4.7 (Special Urgency – Key Decision).

David Lowe explained that the Commission could have sight of the report prior to discussion at the Executive and subsequently provide their recommendations. As such, a special OSMC meeting would be required before 24 July 2014.

Councillor Brooks stressed that the time available for the Commission to meet and consider the report ahead of the Executive meeting was impracticable.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Commission considered its work programme 2013/14.

Councillor Peter Argyle advised that the initial Children Service Governance Task Group was due on 18 July 2014.

Resolved that the work programme be noted.

Councillor Jeff Brooks introduced the item, Children’s Services External Placements which he and Councillors David Allen, Tony Vickers, Roger Hunneman, Alan Macro had called in. The report had been agreed at the 08 May 2014 Executive meeting.

Councillor Brooks stated that whilst he supported the ‘invest to save’ concept in relation to the proposals, he asked that the decision to employ a Social Media Administrator and an increased advertising budget, together totalling £200,000 over 4 years, be scrutinised.

Mark Evans explained that the proposal was part of a larger project which aimed to increase the number of local foster carers thereby enabling children to remain local. The current arrangements relied upon the service of independent foster carers, which was expensive and involved the child being located far from their school.

The Commission heard that currently 99 children were placed with local foster carers at a cost of £1.5 million and 27 children were placed with independent foster carers at a cost of £1.2 million. Mark Evans highlighted the vast difference between placement costs and stated that the project also aimed to provide better quality care.

Mark Evans stressed that the foster care market was extremely competitive. The Fostering Network, a charity representing foster carers’ and children in foster care’s interests, issued a press release on the 25 May 2014 reemphasising the need to recruit younger foster carers as many existing foster carers were reaching the end of their foster care career. The marketing campaign aimed to encourage a wider demographic of local foster carers with a specific set of skills in order to support more challenging foster care cases. Mark Evans stated that the most effective way to reach potential new foster careers was via social media. Advertising via social media was proven to be successful as demonstrated within Hampshire County Council and other local authorities.

Mark Evans explained that the cost of £200,000 over the course of 4 years should be considered in the wider context of the £4 million budget to deliver care.

Councillor Irene Neill explained that the paper detailed the launch of the project and that currently it was not possible to provide the job description for the Social Media Administrator. The process for developing the specific job description would take place in due course.

Councillor Jeff Brook felt that the proposal over looked the current skills available within the Council‘s Communications Team and encouraged isolated working between the two. He felt that the item could be considered in more detail if the job descriptions were available.

Councillor Emma Webster advised that she researched the item in advance of the meeting. In her opinion the placement of a Social Media Administrator within the service enabled detailed and informative responses to enquiries, as it was often the case that the Officer had a greater understanding of the team and service.

Councillor Webster proposed that the details of the call-in did not require further scrutiny. Councillor Quentin Webb concurred with Councillor Webster, the intention of the role was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Purpose: To assess the intent and scope of the Fairer Contributions policy.

Councillor Gwen Mason introduced a report detailing the Fairer Contributions Policy and thanked the Commission for postponing the item in order that a representative from the Disability External Scrutiny (DES) Board could contribute towards the discussion.

Councillor Mason explained that feedback provided via the DES Board suggested that overall the Fairer Contributions Policy was difficult to understand and therefore required simplification. However, the suggested topic for scrutiny sought to review the Disability Related Expenditure of the Fairer Contributions Policy in particular.

Jo England introduced the report to the Commission. The current Fairer Contribution Policy had been in place since April 2012, the Policy’s purpose was to provide a mechanism to establish how much an individual receiving an adult social care service would be required to contribute towards the cost of their care.

On 21 July 2003 the Council introduced the Fairer Contribution Policy which was broadly in line with the Department of Health’s (DH) 2001 guidance. As the previous policy had only charged individuals 50% of any Attendance Allowance or care component of Disability Living Allowance in payment, the new policy dramatically increased the amount that individuals had to pay.

To alleviate the financial impact additional elements of expenditure were also included in the 2003 policy that was over and above the DH guidance.  These included the inclusion of water rates, an element for building maintenance for owner occupiers and not charging for a second carer.  A decision to charge an individual 90% of their chargeable income was also made to alleviate the financial impact.

The Policy was reviewed on an annual basis to take account of new DH capital thresholds and benefit rates.  The next major change to the Policy was on 7 April 2008 when the Policy was amended to charge individuals 100% of their chargeable income in line with the DH guidance.

In response to budget reduction proposals for 2012/13 the Policy was reviewed and following wide consultation a decision was made to remove the concessions included in the 2003 Policy.  This included charging for second carers and removing expenditure items from the policy that should be covered by general living expenses i.e. water rates and building maintenance. 

Jo England stated that Disability Related Expenditure, allowable as part of the financial assessment, was also reviewed to bring it in line with the DH guidance and neighbouring authorities.

The Chairman welcomed Alan Fleming from the DES Board to comment on the report and explain why they requested the item for scrutiny.

Alan Fleming thanked the Commission for inviting him to the meeting and stated that he was the Deputy Chairman of the DES Board. He proceeded to explain that the DES Board were concerned that the current DRE policy was inadequate and resulted in a negative financial challenge for  those in need.

The Commission heard that on occasion service users had to prioritise living related expenditure in order to meet care costs. Alan Fleming provided examples of the types of additional support residents required around the home  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Purpose: To monitor quarterly the performance levels across the Council and to consider, where appropriate, any remedial action.

Nick Carter introduced the item to the Commission, he highlighted that item 1.4 illustrated areas of over performance which should be noted. Nick Carter stated that in some cases Red items were outside the control of the Council and it was considered realistic to see some areas reported as red due to the challenging targets set.

Councillor Emma Webster asked whether there should be any concern regarding the reported status of the grants allocated, Rachael Wardell explained that the status was representative of one case above the targeted number of cases to be concluded within the set timescale.

Councillor Paul Bryant asked why the number of Performance Indicators (PI) had increased. Nick Carter explained that PI’s were locally determined, the Executive and Commission were involved in the development of the indicators but overall they were produced by Officers. Officer’s focused on areas of high risk, under performance or strategic priority.

Indicator were reviewed in a yearly basis, decided by the Council and not mandated by Government. It was considered appropriate to set roughly 50 PI’s.

Councillor Roger Hunneman stated that the Target Setting Task Group was due to meet later in the month, considering the report retrospectively. Nick Carer explained that in order to set the indicators consideration was given to the outturn from the previous year and therefore it was expected that the information would be delayed.

Councillor Hunneman suggested that the PI’s included cross border measures in order that the Council could compare performance against other Local Authorities. Nick Carter highlighted that where possible national comparisons were reflected within the report.

Councillor Jeff Brooks suggested that concern should be given to the trend of some items were previously reported as amber and then deteriorated to red. He stated that it could be assumed that the service had sufficient warning to manage the performance. Councillor Brooks highlighted areas where targets had been adjusted and whether they were justified.

Councillor Brian Bedwell stated that if the Commission required then an Officer could be asked to attend the meeting in order to expand on items contained within the report.

Resolved that

·         The report was noted.

Purpose: To agree the Task Group’s terms of reference.

David Lowe introduced the Severe Weather report to the Commission. The report illustrated the methodology of the review and sought to receive the Commission’s approval prior to commencement of the Task Group.

The scope of the review would consider the Council’s preparedness and response to recent severe weather along with ongoing maintenance within communities.

Councillor Brian Bedwell stressed that the review involved numerous meetings through the course of September, he encouraged Members to make necessary arrangements in advance to ensure they were available.

Resolved that

·         The report was noted         

Purpose: To receive the draft Scrutiny Annual Report 2013/14

David Lowe introduced the item and stated that the report would be submitted to full Council on 22 July 2014.

Resolved that

·         The report was noted