Apologies were received from Councillor Palmer.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter.  Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Elected members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

Mr Martyn Kingsford declared a personal interest by virtue of his membership of Paragon Development Committee.

Mrs Margaret Dangoor declared a personal interest by virtue of her role as carer to her husband and related use of local care services.

To consider and approve the minutes of the last ordinary meeting of the Committee held on 16 September 2010 and the extraordinary meeting held on 25 October 2010.

The minutes of the meeting of the 16^th September were agreed as a correct record of events and the Chairman was authorised to sign them.

The action and decision sheet from the extraordinary meeting of 25^th October was agreed as an accurate record of the meeting and subject to the following changes:

(i)      That decision 1. be clarified further to read “That the staggering of opening hours at intensive day care centres as a possible alternative to closure be investigated”

(ii)    That decision 9. ‘Health professional’ be replaced by ‘psycho geriatrician’

the Chairman was authorised to sign them on the understanding that full minutes come to the next ordinary meeting for approval.

The Chairman reported that a letter had been received from a local resident regarding the lack of Health items on the November agenda.  Although the committee could not discuss items not on the agenda, the Chairman confirmed that she would reply on behalf of the committee.

To consider and determine the validity of the call-in of the Cabinet decision on the Adult Social Care Resource Allocation System (RAS), based on the reasons submitted by Councillors Jaeger and Langhorne.

In accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16, of the Council's Constitution, the Chief Executive (as Proper Officer) had called in the decision of the Cabinet to make changes to the Adult Social Care Services, Resource Allocation System, having been requested to do so by two Members of the Health, Housing and Adult Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Jaeger and Councillor Langhorne.

Introduction by members calling in the decision

Councillor Jaeger addressed the committee.  She reminded the Committee of the three reasons that the call in had been made: 

(i)      That the changes to the RAS appeared to be financially driven and would result in service users having their funding reduced.

(ii)    That there had been insufficient evidence of consultation with service users and their carers.

(iii)   That there had been insufficient explanation of the likely impact of the changes on the affordability of care services, such as day centres.  Charges had dramatically increased in recent years and in light of new financial assessments many people would be unable to attend.

Councillor Langhorne confirmed that she and Councillor Jaeger had worked together on the reasons for call in and reiterated the concerns for call in.

Councillor Jaeger went on to assure the committee and Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing that she felt that Self Directed Support was a good thing and that it should not be undermined by a RAS that was inhibitive.

Councillor Urquhart responded to the reason for call in.  She informed the committee that the introduction of the new system was not an exercise in budget reduction but an attempt to make assessments more accurate and tailored to a persons needs. 

Cathy Kerr, Director of Adult and Community Services explained to the committee that the RAS was a small part of the overall Self Directed Support (SDS)process.  It was used to calculate an indicative financial allocation using scores from the Self Assessment Questionnaire. The current RAS was not providing sufficiently accurate allocations and in 48% of cases the actual budget a person finally received differed from the indicative financial allocation.  It was considered that the new RAS would be correct in 80% of cases.  The RAS would continue to be reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure that it was working effectively and accurately.

In response to the particular reasons for call – in Ms Kerr set out the following points:

(i)      That the move was not financially driven:

o        Care management staff would still make the final decisions on resource allocation for individuals based on their assessed eligible needs.

o        There would be no arbitrary reduction of care funding for individuals.  Where the current level of funding was considered to be over above need, the individual and care manager would work together to ensure the appropriate level of support was provided.

(ii)        Consultation had taken place with stakeholders and individual service users and as a result changes had been made to the Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

The Committee will receive an overview report of Housing in the Borough, including the key facts and figures, the issues and challenges facing the Borough and where known, how the emerging government policy in relation to housing will impact locally.  

The Committee will also receive an additional report regarding the scope and membership of the Housing Task Group.

Councillors Bouchier and Jones had previously declared personal interests as Board members of SPEAR

The Committee considered a report and received a presentation of Brian Castle, Assistant Director of Housing and Mandy Skinner, Assistant Director, Corporate Policy and Strategy the purpose of which was to provide members with an overview of housing in the Borough.  The report and presentation focused on the key facts and figures pertaining to the housing situation art present and also how the emerging government policy might impact locally.

In particular the presentation referred to the following:

(i)      The number of households currently on the housing register and the number of Social Housing allocations in 2009/10.

(ii)    The distribution of Social Housing by Ward.

(iii)   Affordability in the Borough and the amount of new affordable housing being created over the last five years.

(iv)  Homelessness by category and by cause.

(v)    The levels of overcrowding, condition of housing being occupied and vacant properties.

(vi)  Possible changes to the Local Housing Allowance and the future supply of affordable housing

(vii)Possible combined affects of (vi) and other policy changes such as Work Programme and Welfare Reform. 

The presentation would be circulated to members of the committee.

The Committee received the following responses in relation to questions raised and comments made:

(a)   That the number of 16-17yr olds registered as vulnerable had gone up due to changes in classification.

(b)   That the overcrowding benchmark used was a national figure.
That there was one hostel in the Borough which specifically catered for the needs of young people.

(c)   That some mapping of rents in the Borough had taken place and these figures would be used to try to predict the impact of policy changes such as benefit caps.  While it may displace families here it may also encourage migration to the Borough from Central London.

(d)   That at present there were no figures for those who would be affected by the raise in age from 25-35 of those subject to the shared room rate

(e)   That it was not feasible in the current economic climate for the Council to consider building properties despite new powers being available to do so.  In addition the Council no longer had the capacity to undertake duties as a landlord.

(f)     That issues had been overcome through liaison with local landlords with regard to the acceptance of tenants on benefits.  This may be affected by the proposed policy changes and the council would work with landlords to try to avoid any loss in available property.

It was resolved:

1.                    That the report be noted.

2.                    That the challenges facing the council and those seeking or living in affordable or social housing be noted.

3.                    That a visit to the young people’s hostel by a representative of the committee be arranged.

This report provides details of the performance of the Adult and Community Services Directorate, in relation to projects and indicators that monitor the council priorities for Adult Social Care, Health and Housing for the period June to September 2010

The Committee considered a report of the Director and Adult and Community Services providing details of areas of underperformance within the Adult Services Directorate which have been underperforming (rated ‘red’) for at least six months.

The Committee heard that there were currently three areas of performance that met these criteria:

(i)      Delayed transfers of Care

The number of people delayed per week had been consistently below target.  However it was reported that performance in this area was steadily improving owing to actions taken both by the Council, the Primary Care Trust and the West Middlesex hospital and it was hoped this would have moved to ‘amber’ status in the near future.

(ii)    Learning Disabilities – people in settled accommodation

It was reported that Richmond would not be able to perform well in this indicator due to the high number of people with learning disabilities living in residential care settings following the closure of a long stay hospital in the borough a few years ago.  Under the definition of this indicator, people living in residential care are not deemed to be living in “settled accommodation”.  It also relied on service users being reviewed in a timely fashion.  New targets had been set for the team and an improvement had been noted already.

and

(iii)   Safeguarding Timescales

This indicator related to the time between referral and the progression to a safeguarding protection meeting and the percentage of these completed within 31 days.  It should be noted that the numbers involved in creating this performance indicator were small, 4 cases in the last 2 quarters.  Delays were often caused by waiting for information from the police where a criminal investigation was pending.

The committee discussed the information and considered the actions being taken.  In particular it was confirmed that during any delay in safeguarding timescales the vulnerable individual immediate action was always taken to ensure an individual at risk was protected.

It was RESOLVED that the information in the report be noted, and that a progress report be provided at the next meeting.

The report gives details of the proposed work programme for the remainder of the municipal year 2010/11.

The Committee considered the work programme for the next municipal year including possible task group work and the document provided by the Senior Scrutiny Officer on the scope of the Housing Task Group.

There were no changes to the work programme but it was considered that some of the items for the January meeting may slip due to external deadlines.

The Committee discussed the Housing Task group scoping document.  It was considered timely and relevant and the committee was pleased by the suggestions.  It also asked that the committee consider whether it could add value to the local process through the consideration of national changes and expressed the view that this be part of the groups considerations at its next meeting.

During the discussion that followed the Committee expressed the view that a task group on the ACS Budget review would be beneficial.  It was considered that the group should try to meet over the course of the next 8 weeks in order to link into the Cabinet decision making process.  On reflection and further consideration the committee felt that this remit was too wide and that it would be prudent to consider only the Day Care Centre element of the review due to time constraints. Should the committee agree to its creation it was agreed that the Task Group would be charged with considering the proposed closures and attempting to find the same financial savings without the need for the closure of Tangley hall or Twickenham Day Centres.  It was considered that the group should report back to the full committee at a special meeting in January in order that any report could be considered in time to be presented at the same Cabinet meeting at which the Budget Review decisions would be taken by Cabinet.

Several witnesses were suggested by members of the committee but final authority for invitations to witnesses would lie with the Task Group.

I was agreed that the Task group be charged with

It was RESOLVED

1.                  That the work programme be noted

2.                  That the Housing Task Group scope be agreed

3.                  That a seat on the Housing Task Group be offered to a member of the Environment, Sustainably and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee

4.                  That a Task group on the closure of Intensive Day Care Centres be established

5.                  That the Group be tasked with considering the proposed closures and attempting to find the same financial savings without the need for those closures

6.                  That the membership of the group be as follows:

Councillor Bouchier
Councillor Bond
Margaret Dangoor
Councillor Jaeger

[On consideration Margaret Dangoor did not take up her nominated place owing to a prejudicial interest]

7.                  That the Task Group report to a special meeting of the Committee to be arranged for early January 2011

To provide verbal updates on any consultation information received since the last meeting of the Committee

There was no consultation information to report.

To allow Members to feedback to the Committee attendance at other relevant events.

There was no member feedback