Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 21 February 2012.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2012 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Item 11, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

The Commission received an update on actions following the previous meeting.  Comments were received regarding the following items:

2.2 – The Chairman noted that only 12 Councillors were school governors at the time of the meeting.  Reports were received from several members of the Commission that they had previously been school governors but had been asked to leave, or had applied but not been considered.  Councillor Jeff Brooks suggested that the Commission could raise awareness amongst schools of what could be offered to them by Members appointed as school governors by providing information to the chairman of each governing body.

David Lowe informed the Commission that Central Government were currently reviewing the role of school governing bodies as it was considered that they did not appear to be properly accountable.

Councillor Emma Webster suggested that all Members could be contacted to find out who had been a school governor, and the reasons why they had left.

The Chairman confirmed that the letter to academies agreed at the Commissions meeting in February would be composed and sent.  He further agreed that the Education Service would be consulted regarding how to encourage school governing bodies to include Councillors in their membership.

2.10 – David Lowe informed the Commission that a meeting had been arranged to begin the process of amending the Housing Allocation Policy.  Members who would take part included Councillors Tony Vickers and Dominic Boeck.  Work would begin shortly.

RESOLVED that the Education Service would consider how to encourage school governing bodies to include Councillors in their membership.

To consider any items called-in by the requisite number of Members following the previous Executive meeting.

The Commission considered a supplementary report concerning the Call In Item EX2320 – Funding Arrangements Framework for Domiciliary Care and Non Residential Services which was submitted to Special Executive on 12 April 2012.

Councillor Jeff Brooks presented the reasons for calling in this item

1.      The decision was contrary to the views expressed by those responding to the public consultation;

2.      The decision contradicted the Council’s Strategy 2012-16;

3.      There was no evidence that the cost to the Council of managing this policy had been evaluated. 

Councillor Jeff Brooks expanded on these points, stating that he was concerned that a high level of officer time would be required to process the 26 people who had been identified in the report.  He believed that this cost would negate the expected savings.  Councillor Jeff Brooks further stated that the savings that were expected to be achieved by the introduction of this policy were not significant in relation to the Council’s total savings target and he was therefore not convinced that the introduction of this policy was appropriate.

Jan Evans provided the following responses to the points raised by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

1.      A summary of the consultation responses had been provided in the report.  The majority of respondents were concerned about the proposed changes, but most accepted that it would be unfair to expect the Council to pay significantly more to keep people in their own homes, if they were happy to take a place in residential care.  Further responses indicated that some people would be happy to pay to ‘top up’ their allowance.  Jan Evans explained that the proposals had been made with a clear priority not to affect front line services.

2.      There were four key priority areas within the Council Strategy 2012-16 including ‘Caring for and protecting the vulnerable’.  Jan Evans explained that the proposal would not take services away but would provide alternative options.

3.      The savings stated in the report were based on a current level of 26 people who were currently in the community and who had care packages in excess of £35,000.  Extending the savings into the future to include individuals falling into this category at a later date could see far greater savings.

Jan Evans went on to stress that the 26 individuals highlighted in the report were intended to be indicative of the possible savings.  It should not be inferred that these people would all be moved to care homes.  All cases would be assessed on an individual basis to ensure the most appropriate care was provided.  However the policy would allow care managers to recommend that an individual’s care needs could be better met in a care home.

Councillor Paul Bryant asked whether the 26 individuals had been asked whether they would like to stay at home or move to a care home.

Jan Evans reminded the Commission that the 26 individuals noted in the report were only indicative of savings, and that no changes would be made to their care package  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Purpose: To consider any items proposed for a Councillor Call for Action.

There were no Councillor Call for Action.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose: To scrutinise the planning performance data reported for quarter three 2011/12.

The Commission considered an update report (Agenda Item 8) on key accountable measures and activites for quarter three of the 2011/12 year.

The Chairman noted that the number of Amber reports had reduced in quarter three, but the number of Red reports had increased.  He went on to comment that he was satisfied with the information shared in the exception reports for most activities noted as Red, and was happy that corrective action was being taken, but had invited Jan Evans to provide further details of activities within Adult Social Care.

Councillor David Rendel commented that it would be of more use to the Commission to receive the most up to date information, as quarter three returns were now four months out of date.  Nick Carter explained that the year end information had not yet been finalised, however he would provide a verbal update to the Commission during discussion of the item where the result was known.

During discussion of the measures, the following clarifications were received:

·        Jan Evans noted that whilst figures were still provisional, she was confident that ‘Care assessments completed within 28 days’ would be Green for year end.

·        Jan Evans referred the Commission to the exception report for ‘service users and carers receiving self directed support (including personal budgets) and explained that the implementation of personal budgets had been particularly complicated with little guidance provided by central government.  However a recent review of the process in West Berkshire had resulted in a simpler approach and would allow all individuals being assessed or reviewed from May 2012 to be allocated a personal budget.  The original, national target for full implementation by 2013 had been found to be unrealistic and would be revised.  Following questioning, Jan Evans provided the following information:

o       Personal budgets could be controlled by the individual, or the Council could retain control of the budget at the individuals request;

o       Some individuals managed their personal budgets with the support of a family member.

·        Councillor Tony Vickers was concerned by the measure for ‘People presenting as homeless who are prevented from being homeless’ as this concealed a significant increase in the number of people presenting as homeless.  He raised a particular concern for those who scored lowest when assessed.  Nick Carter informed the Commission that some contextual information would be introduced in next years measures to help provide a clearer picture.  The Chairman asked if the issue would be picked up in the scrutiny review into the changes to the Housing Allocation Policy.  Councillor Tony Vickers was unsure if the terms of reference for the review would extend to this particular issue, and requested that all relevant stakeholders were invited to meet to deal with the issue urgently.  The Chairman agreed to write to the Portfolio Holder to register the concerns of the Commission.

RESOLVED that the Commission would write to the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport Policy, Housing, and Economic Development to register concerns around the increase in people presenting as homeless.

Purpose: To receive a report examining the facilities in place for younger people.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning a scrutiny review into the facilities available for young people.

The Chairman invited the Commission to comment on the recommendations presented.

Councillor Sheila Ellison noted that although many of the recommendations were already being acted on, formal approval of the recommendations by the Commission would strengthen the need for activity to be carried out and progress monitored.

Following questioning, Councillor Sheila Ellison provided the following information:

·        Currently few schools or Council owned properties were available for use by the community out of hours;

·        The Berkshire Association of Clubs for Young People (BACYP) contributed to funding and training for leaders of youth clubs.  It might be necessary for Parish and Town Councils to fund clubs in their area, and this would be an opportunity for communities to provide what was needed locally.

·        It had been recognised that very few people were interested in volunteering to help run youth clubs and activities;

·        There was an online register of facilities available to young people;

·        Of 16 youth clubs that had closed, 9 had reopened.

Councillor Emma Webster conjectured that it would be useful to understand why 7 former youth clubs had not reopened.  She continued by stating that youth clubs would not satisfy all young people and requested information on what else was available.  Councillor Sheila Ellison replied that youth clubs were intended to provide a safe environment with planned and managed activities for young people to meet.

Councillor David Rendel requested to know what was currently being run at the Waterside Building.

Councillor David Rendel asked whether the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) had been involved in the review.  Councillor Sheila Ellison responded that they had not, however she had been made aware of activities where young people who could have been targeted through the PRU had been involved.  She believed that individual youth clubs should involve the PRU as appropriate, as the community would be better placed to understand what was required in the area.

The Chairman agreed that the recommendations should be circulated to all Members, but requested a preface be drafted as an introduction.  The preface might include information to direct people to the online register of facilities.

The Chairman suggested that it might be appropriate to request an annual update on performance against the recommendations submitted. 

The Chairman proposed that the recommendations be agreed subject to the actions agreed during the discussion.

When put to the vote, the proposal was carried.

Resolved that:

(1)       The recommendations from the scrutiny review be circulated to all Members with the inclusion of a preface

(2)       The Youth Service Operation Manager to provide Councillor David Rendel with information explaining how the Waterside Centre was currently being used.

Purpose: To consider and agree the proposed terms of reference for reviewing the processes for the management of domestic abuse in the District.

The Commission reviewed the proposed terms of reference for a scrutiny review into the response to domestic abuse.

Councillor David Rendel proposed the following amendments:

·        That the first item be amended to read ‘The extent or prevalence of actual and reported domestic abuse in the district’;

·        That the fourth item be amended to read ‘Consider what might be done further to improve how domestic abuse is dealt with including cooperation with neighbouring authorities’.

Councillor Emma Webster clarified that it would be possible to obtain estimates of unreported domestic abuse, for example through anonymous telephone help lines.  She further volunteered to participate in this piece of work.

The Commission agreed to adopt the terms of reference subject to the suggested amendments being included.

RESOLVED that the terms of reference be adopted subject to the inclusion of the following amendments:

·        That the first item be amended to read ‘The extent or prevalence of actual and reported domestic abuse in the district’;

·        That the fourth item be amended to read ‘Consider what might be done further to improve how domestic abuse is dealt with including cooperation with neighbouring authorities’.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel and provide information on the meeting held on 27 March 2012.

(Councillor David Rendell declared an interest in Agenda Item 11 by virtue of the fact that his wife was a GP in West Berkshire.  As his interest was personal but not prejudicial, he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) on the work of the Health Scrutiny Panel (HSP).

Councillor Quentin Webb reported that at the meeting of the Health Scrutiny Panel held on 27 March 2012 the following topics had been discussed:

·        An update on the progress of the NHS Continuing Health Care (CHC) Programme;

·        An interim report on Dignity and Nutrition at the Royal Berkshire Hospital (RBH).

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To provide an update on the work of the Resource Management Working Group and provide information on the meeting held on 28 February 2012.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 12) on the work of the Resource Management Working Group (RMWG).

Councillor Tony Vickers reported that at the meeting of the Resource Management Working Group; held on 28 February 2012 the following topics had been discussed:

·        An update on the development of the Highways Asset Management Plan;

·        The Council’s month 9 Financial Report;

·        The establishment report;

·        The closure report on the Timelord Programme.

Councillor Tony Vickers provided an amended work programme for the Resource Management Working Group’s next meeting.  The Group had decided that it would no longer review the first months of the Parkway Centre, as it would be more beneficial to wait until the second phase of the development was complete.  Instead the Group would consider the Council’s policies on energy saving, and the current status of day services.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from April 2012 to July 2012 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 13) for the period covering March 2012 to June 2012.

Resolved that the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive, agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission, the Health Scrutiny Panel and the Resource Management Working Group for the remainder of 2011/12.

The Commission considered its work programme and that of the Health Scrutiny Panel and Resource Management Working Group for 2011/12.

Councillor Jeff Brooks proposed that an item be added to the work programme to consider the effectiveness of consultations undertaken by the Council.  He expanded his proposal to request that the review included other organisations and how they felt they had been consulted.  This would be beneficial to residents as it would provide reassurance that responses were being used appropriately.

Councillor Emma Webster suggested including both public and private sector case studies, and would be able to submit these.

Members discussed their experiences of poor consultation and consultation that might be biased by outside groups.

The Commission agreed to add this item to the work programme.

Resolved that a review into the effectiveness of consultation undertaken by the Council be added to the Commission’s work programme.