To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor PJ Watts.  Apologies were also received from Councillor JP French (Cabinet Member – Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources.)

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

The following declarations of interest were made:

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2009.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2009 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

There were no suggestions from members of the public.

(Councillors ME Cooper and AE Gray declared personal interests.)

The Committee considered the financing of the first extra care housing provision at Rose Gardens, Hereford following its completion and occupation during 2008/09.

The report had been requested by the Committee in March 2008 in considering the Draft Corporate Plan and the priority of achieving value for money.  Concern was expressed about the scheme’s value for money and a report requested reviewing this and whether there were any lessons to be learned for future schemes.

The Head of Strategic Housing presented the report.  He explained that the report had been produced on the virtual finalisation of the 2008/09 accounts, which had been subject to delay for contractual reasons.

He outlined the strategic rationale for the project, commenting that an inspection by the former Commission for Social Care had described the service as a two star, good service.  The first residents’ satisfaction survey had supported the quality of services, facilities and care provision.  He highlighted the following points:

·         The Department of Health’s (DoH) financial contribution to the scheme had been the highest grant award announced within the first found of funding programmes.  The bid had been assessed under the financial regulations of the then Housing Corporation to ensure that it represented value for money.

·         Subsidy in the form of DoH grant and other private/public subsidy had enabled the development of a high quality scheme with affordable rent levels.

·         The extra care provision represented a significant saving to the Council compared with the costs of residential care.  Residents were also eligible for benefits to which they were not entitled if they were in residential care.

·         A number of residents had reduced their support needs since the Scheme had opened.  At the moment it was hard to quantify the improved health and well-being costs to Adult Social Care and the Primary Care Trust.  However, the Extra Care Charitable Trust had advised that the annual well-being check suggested a 4% improvement across the Scheme.

·         A number of lessons had been learned as described in the report at paragraphs 40-43.  The overall assessment was that the scheme was beneficial to the residents and provided significant financial benefits to the Council compared with the provision of residential care.  However, further work needed to be done to evaluate the comparability of care levels in the extra care scheme to care levels in residential homes.  The view was that further extra care provision should form part of future care provision, the question was to what extent this should be the case.

He commented that the Chairman of the Rose Gardens Residents Association, who was present, had raised some questions relating to management issues to which it had been mutually agreed a written answer would be given.

In discussion the following principal points were made: 

·         The principal concern was that there was a clear need for extra care provision within the County.  However, the cost of the scheme at Rose Gardens, which was recognised as a good quality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The Committee considered performance for the period April-June 2009-10 against the Council’s key indicators and associated projects and programmes in its Annual Operating Statement.

The report to Cabinet on 24 September 2009 was appended.

The Corporate Policy and Research Manager (CPRM) presented the report.  He commented that this was the first time the Committee had received the performance report in its new format and would welcome any observations the Committee might have on that.

He highlighted the following points:

·         That, on the basis of provisional figures to the end of September, progress against target NI 59 (initial assessments for children’s’ social care carried out within seven working days of referral) was now ahead of target.

·         In relation to health and wellbeing target NI 131 (delayed transfers of care from hospitals) he drew attention to an addendum to the report which explained that the figure reported was lower than that which should have been reported.  The correct figure suggested a deterioration in performance rather than an improvement.  However, the method of calculation used to date by hospital staff, who were responsible for reporting the figure, was incorrect and over-stated the extent of delayed transfers in the County compared with other authorities.  The method of calculating the target had now been corrected by agreement, the impact of which would be able to be judged in future reports.

·         That whilst performance was behind target in relation to NI 130 (clients receiving self-directed support) and NI136 people supported to live independently a significant amount of work had been carried out, which was expected to lead to improved performance during the year. The position in respect of NI 130 was complicated by it comprising two different measures: individualised budgets and direct payments. In respect of individualised budgets the Council’s performance was comparable with that nationally. As regards direct payments previous performance had not been so good and was now impacting negatively on the combined figures.  The Associate Director of Integrated Commissioning said there were signs that the Government might be reviewing expectations in the light of the emerging financial implications.

·         The latest figures showed a slight improvement in the number of households in temporary accommodation compared with the end of first quarter position.

In discussion the following principal points were made (page references are to pages in the agenda):

·         It was suggested that the key to the appendices to the report should be moved from the back of the appendices to the front.

·         That the Cabinet report should make it clearer that the priorities, targets and commitments in the report in many cases depended on contributions from the Council’s partners.

·         There had been an increase in the number of people killed and injured in road accidents during the first quarter.  It was noted that the Environment Scrutiny Committee was due to receive a report on this matter at its next meeting.  The Committee expected this to include information about the age groups involved, the times at which accidents occurred and the role and working hours  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

To report July’s budget monitoring information and provide an indication of estimated outturn.

(Councillor AE Gray declared a personal interest.)

The Committee considered the budget monitoring position to the end of July 2009 and an indication of the estimated outturn.

It was noted that Cabinet had received and noted the report on 24 September 2009.

Revenue Budget

The Head of Financial Services presented the report.  She highlighted that the overall position on the revenue budget showed a projected overspend of £1.34 million representing 1% of the Council’s net revenue budget. 

She outlined the areas of projected overspend and underspend as detailed on page 65 of the agenda papers.  She noted the potential effect of reserves if they were used to meet the overspend.  She then commented on the financial position within each directorate as set out in the report highlighting the following points:

·         The largest projected overspend was on the Integrated Commissioning budget (£2.6 million).  She reported that a proposed recovery plan was being evaluated. 

      She drew attention to the 1.7% uplift in contracts that had been made in line with the Primary Care Trust (PCT).  However, this had not been reflected in service budgets and would need to be revisited in preparing the 2010/11 budget.  She also noted the potential financial implications of the reassessment of clients needing continuing healthcare, one case already having resulted in adult social care having to meet costs of £109,000 previously met by the PCT and the need to work with the PCT to ensure that PCT and Council funding was allocated appropriately.

·         In relation to Children’s Services which had a projected overspend of £755,000 she drew particular attention to the cost of foster placements. 

She reported that a recovery plan had been prepared.  However, it was possible that at this stage of the financial year it may not be possible to recoup the projected overspend which would have implications for the 2010/11 budget.

·         She expressed some concerns over the budget of the Deputy Chief Executive’s directorate now with a projected overspend of £230,000.  She noted that the key area of overspend was on legal and democratic services with four specific issues identified on pages 72/73 of the report. 

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed about the statement in relation to the Children and Young People’s Services Directorate that to achieve the level of savings required would require a reduction of 25-30 posts.  The Director of Resources assured the Committee that other options were being explored in particular the scope for reducing highly costly out of county placements.

·         Noting that by far the bulk of the overspend was attributable to additional expenditure on safeguarding and assessment, following the “Baby P” case in Haringey, a concern was expressed that this could indicate either that appropriate measures had not been in place beforehand or that there was now an overreaction.

·         Clarification was sought on the reference to an overspend in the audit section of the Resources Directorate which stated that additional costs were being incurred  on the Herefordshire Connects programme The Director of Resources  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

To consider the work programmes of the Scrutiny Committees.

The Committee considered the work programmes of the scrutiny committees.

The report proposed how to take forward the development of an external focus to the work programmes building on the externally facilitated scrutiny event on the 8th September and further discussion at an informal meeting of members of the Strategic Monitoring Committee on 21st September.  It also proposed that scrutiny committees re-examine the appropriateness of their current work programmes.

RESOLVED:

That    (a)        the current Work Programmes serve as a basis for further development;

(b)         the Adult Social Care and Strategic Housing Scrutiny Committee be requested to give priority to the scrutiny of housing related issues within its work programme, having regard to issues noted in appendix 1 to the report;

(c)         the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee be requested to give priority to the scrutiny of safeguarding issues and youth issues (in conjunction with nominated Members of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee), having regard to issues noted in appendix 1 to the report.

(d)         the Environment Scrutiny Committee be requested to give priority to the scrutiny of transport issues, having regard to issues noted in appendix 1 to the report; and

(e)         the Strategic Monitoring Committee give priority to Communication issues, having regard to issues noted in appendix 1 to the report; and

(f)           that all Scrutiny Committees be requested to re-examine their current work programmes to ensure that matters listed for future consideration remain appropriate subjects for scrutiny.