To confirm the record of the meeting of the People (Adults & Health) Scrutiny Panel held on 14 April 2016 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the meeting of the People (Adults & Health) Scrutiny Panel held on the 14^th April 2016, copies of which had been previously circulated, on which four points of information were raised by Miss G Waller:

• Minute 741 (c) – more details were requested on “community groups” what they were and the sustainability of services in the future, was there an omission in the minutes or have the details not yet been circulated.  Officers advised that these had not yet been circulated but agreed to do so.
• Minute 742 (h) – members asked to be advised whether the Oral Health report had been sent to all Rutland schools.  Officers advised that on contacting schools the opinion was that to send the report on its own with the school holidays being imminent was not ideal as this may have resulted in the findings being overlooked.  The timing of the report should be at a point when the most impact can be made and it was felt that adopting a proper engagement plan after the school summer holidays would be a better way to achieve this.  Miss Waller expressed her disappointment at the panel’s suggestion not being followed at this time.  The Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care and Health clarified that the decision was not to withhold the report from schools but that a proper engagement with schools would be more effective than just circulating the report for information.
• Minute 744 (2) - members asked to be advised if the Adult Social Care Strategy had been sent to Stamford and Peterborough hospitals.  Officers confirmed that it had been distributed.  Members asked if feedback from previous minutes or action points could be provided to the panel.  It was agreed that a Matters Arising item be added to the agenda and this would comprise an appendix with such updates as a standing item.
• Minute 745 (c) – members asked why, when requested in the minutes of the previous meeting, were homecare providers not present at the meeting?  Councillor Clifton advised that following discussion with the Chairman of the panel the decision was not to look at this area in isolation at one meeting as it was considered to be too large a topic.  It was already included in the future topics for the panel and care home providers would be present at those meetings.

The minutes of the meeting of the People (Adults & Health) Scrutiny Panel held on the 14^th April 2016, copies of which had been previously circulated, were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests in respect of items on this Agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

No Declarations of Interest were received.

To receive any petitions, deputations and questions received from Members of the Public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 217.

The total time allowed for this item shall be 30 minutes.  Petitions, declarations and questions shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received.  Questions may also be submitted at short notice by giving a written copy to the Committee Administrator 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.

The total time allowed for questions at short notice is 15 minutes out of the total time of 30 minutes.  Any petitions, deputations and questions that have been submitted with prior formal notice will take precedence over questions submitted at short notice.  Any questions that are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting and be the subject of a report to the next meeting.

No petitions, deputations or questions were received from members of the public.

To consider any questions with notice from Members received in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule No 219 and No 219A.

No questions were received from members.

To consider any Notices of Motion from Members submitted in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule No 220.

No notices of motion were received from members.

To consider any matter referred to the Panel for a decision in relation to call in of a decision in accordance with Procedure Rule 206.

No matter was referred to the Panel for a decision in relation to call-in of a decision in accordance with Procedure Rule 206.

To receive Report No. 132/2016 from the Chief Executive

Report No. 132/2016 was received.

During discussion the following points were noted:

a)    Members raised an issue about the future vision for Rutland and what this would look like. In particular, it was felt that if village expansion was limited then there would be no way to support sustainable growth, such as village shops, members suggested that this wording should be revised or not included in the report.

b)    Members noted that this and another of the reports being considered had differing figures for Children in care (33 in the Corporate Plan and 40 in the Quarter 4 Outturn Report).  Officers agreed that there was a need to ensure that the most up to date information was checked before publication of the reports.

c)    Members also questioned wording around Primary Care provision, it was felt this should be clarified so as to allow anyone reading the report to understand what it entailed, it was suggested that many readers may assume that this is the place they will attend to seek care in the first instance.  There should be a greater element of clarity in reports and not using too much council “jargon”.

d)    It was noted by members that although the council had spent a lot of time looking at sexual health policy this had not been incorporated into the report.  The Portfolio Holder agreed that this should be included.

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel NOTED the content of the Report.

To receive Report No. 104/2016 from the Chief Executive

(previously circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 104/2016 was received. 

During discussion the following points were noted:

a)     The statistics for the People Directorate Freedom of Information requests were the least in number received but the highest percentage for those answered outside of the 21 day deadline.  The Director for People advised that this was in part due to the complexity of the requests pertaining to the People Directorate and in part due to the need for multi departmental responses to requests.  Members stated that an improvement in this area was required.

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel NOTED the Report.

To receive Report No. 109/2016 from the Director of Resources

(previously circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 109/2016 was received.  The Chairman introduced the report and stated that the most work and bearing on the report should come from the Resources Scrutiny panel, however, it should still be received by all Scrutiny Panels.

During discussion the following points were noted:

a)    The overall directorate variance to current budget was low, but there were a number of departments where there were high variances (over 20%).  The Director for People advised the panel that those areas with a high budget variance were put under a great deal of scrutiny, an example being the Home Care budget, where a detailed discussion had taken place with officers and directors.  The Deputy Director for People also clarified that some areas of budgetary control were demand led, the care need can be commissioned in advance and budgeted for, but an actual charge is not made if the service was not taken up, effectively creating an underspend if take up of the service was not forthcoming.

AGREED:

1.    That the Panel NOTED the content of the Report.

To receive Report No. 131/2016 from Mark Andrews, Deputy Director for People

Report No. 131/2016 was received and introduced by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care and Health.

During discussion the following points were noted:

a)    This service area is due to be re-commissioned, the report had been brought to scrutiny to allow the panel to become part of the planning process.  As there had been an increase in demand for home care and a decrease in demand for residential care it gave the opportunity to look at different ways to deliver the service.

b)    Members asked how the authority estimated the elderly population within the county.  The Deputy Director for People advised that it was based on the latest census figures (2011) which were relatively accurate for predicting long term growth.  The over 65 and over 85 age groups were predicted to grow quickly and the need and demand for those groups could be predicted.

c)    Preventative measures were in place for those using the reablement services, there were four falls groups in Rutland, exercise classes were being held by Active Rutland, Inspire2Tri in Manton and a meet and greet session.  Falls Fetes were being held to allow people to network with others and join groups.

d)    Public awareness of the financial pressures in this area was being increased through an Adult Care Strategy, the launch of which was well attended.  The Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care and Health had attended sessions in Oakham and Uppingham on the First Contact bus, several parishes had also accepted the offer of sessions within their parish.  Councillor Clifton had also done radio interviews to increase awareness.

e)    The decrease in demand for residential care was due to more people wishing to stay in their own homes, there was no evidence of people being refused residential care due to lack of places.

f)     Members commended the paper but commented on the use of “jargon” within it, without the explanations provided by officers at the meeting the paper would not have been as useful.

AGREED:

That the Panel NOTED the content of the Report.

To consider Scrutiny issues to review. 

Copies of the Forward Plan will be available at the meeting.

The panel reviewed the Forward Plan and noted the forthcoming reports.

During discussion the following points were noted:

a)    That the finance manager attended all meetings when the Quarterly Finance Reports were being considered and in many instances was not called upon to contribute to the meeting.  It was suggested by members that any technical questions in regard to this report be submitted ahead of the meeting, this would mean that if there were no questions to be asked then the Officer would not need to attend the meeting.

AGREED:

1.    In response to a request for the panel to be provided with all Care Quality Commission reports, the Director for People agreed that a direct link to these would be provided to allow members to access the reports when published.

To receive any other items of urgent business which have been previously notified to the person presiding.

There was no urgent business.

Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 7 pm

Proposed Agenda Items: 

1.    Home (Domiciliary) Care: provider and service user prospective     

Feedback report from Mark Andrews, Deputy Director for People           

2.    Local Safeguarding Children's Board and Safeguarding Adults Board: ANNUAL REPORTS 

Presentation of the finalised annual report for information and discussion from Mr Paul Burnett, Chair of the Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children and Adults Boards

3.    BUDGET: Q1 Performance and Monitoring         

Reports from the Chief Executive and the Director for Resources          

Thursday 22 September 2016 at 7pm

AGREED:

Agenda items for the next meeting should include:

1.    Home (Domicillary) Care: provider and service user prospective

Feedback from Mr M Andrews, Deputy Director for People

2.    Local Safeguarding Children’s Board and Safeguarding Adults Board: ANNUAL REPORTS

Presentation of the finalised annual report from Mr P Burnett, Chair of the Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children and Adults Board

3.    BUDGET: Q1 Performance and Monitoring

Reports from the Chief Executive and the Director for Resources