Apologies were received from Alan Young,
Robert Evans, Ramon Gray and Jan Mason. Chris Norman is
substituting for Alan Young and Margaret Hicks is substituting for
Ramon Gray.
2/16
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
Share this item
The minutes of the extraordinary Board meeting
on Thursday 30 June will be tabled at the next meeting.
The minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting on 30
June will be tabled at the next meeting on Thursday 22 September
2016.
3/16
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
To receive any
declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in
respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes:
·
In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary
Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the
interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil
partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or
wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were
civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.
·
Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the
Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
·
Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests
disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.
·
Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item
where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
The
Chairman of the Board informed Members that Democratic Services had
run a Twitter poll. Social media users voted on questions that they
wished the Resident Experience Board Chairman to answer. The poll
was to encourage engagement on social media between the Board and
Surrey’s residents. The Chairman answered all three questions
that were successful in the vote.
Question 1-
What sparked your passion for resident engagement and what do you
see as the future for resident engagement over the coming
years?
The
Chairman responded that everything the Board did centred on serving
Surrey’s residents, including engagement with residents
before, during and after decisions are made. Unfortunately, in many
cases residents provide feedback at a time when something had gone
wrong. The Chairman went on to say that residents needed to be
encouraged to give input to the decision making process earlier so
that decisions made by the Council are focused on what the needs of
the residents are and not what the Council believe they
are.
Question 2 -What are the primary benefits/challenges of moving to a digital
delivery model for Council Services?
The
Chairman explained that the benefits of using a digital delivery
model could make Council services more accessible to a larger
percentage of Surrey’s population, particularly for younger
generation. The Chairman conceded that a big challenge would be
communicating the availability of these online services, and making
sure what was communicated was relevant and interesting.
Question 3-
How can the public influence and engage in the work of the Resident
Experience Board?
The
Chairman replied, the Resident Experience Board’s purpose is
to scrutinise any department within the County Council that
directly engages with Surrey residents. He explained that in doing
this, the Board was keen to look at Services’ engagement
processes and assessing what can be improved. This could be
supported by residents sending in questions, informing the Board of
their experiences; in doing so, residents would help set agendas
and work programmes for future meetings.
In response
to these answers, a Member emphasised that resident needs and
wishes can be two different things and differentiating between them
was important. Members also added that the older generation should
not be forgotten and every avenue should be explored and opened up
in terms of the digital delivery model. Furthermore, a Member
shared the view that working alongside Local Committees would
promote putting items in the right context.
6/16
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE BOARD
The Chairman
thanked the Cabinet Member’s response regarding
recommendation REB 17/2016, in relation to community engagement in
the local decision making process.
A Member
queried whether the Resident Experience Board was the right Board
for Community Recycling Centre related issues. The Chairman
clarified that it would be a matter for Economic Prosperity,
Environment and Highways Board.
There was a
discussion around the flooding and community engagement item which
is scheduled to come to the Board on 17 November 2016. Members
encouraged residents who were affected by the flooding to attend
the meeting to share their experience.
The
Strategic Director for Customer and Communities informed the Board
that the Reforms to the Death Certification Process &
Introduction of the Medical Examiner item would be better served
when further information on the reforms was available; therefore it
was suggested the item was unsuitable to come to the Board meeting
on 17 November 2016. It was agreed by the Board to defer the item
to 2017.
To update the Board
regarding the current impact of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
on Surrey County Council’s Adult Social Care and Coroner
Services.
Yvonne Rees, Strategic Director
for Customer and Communities
Jim Poyser, Senior Manager, Mental Capacity Act and
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
Andy Butler, Principal Social
Worker
Andy Tink, Senior Principal Accountant
Key
points raised during discussion:
The Chairman briefed the Board that it was essential
to understand the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) before understanding the impact and the
purpose of the report.
Officers introduced the report by informing the
Board that a dedicated team within Adult Social Care was in place
which gave advice to the applicant families and carers, ensuring
that procedures were followed. Training involved a full five day
programme to cover the complexities surrounding the area and level
of detail.
Officers explained that in essence DoLS are there to ensure the protection of
individuals that are dependent on third party treatment because
they are vulnerable. The legislation in place aimed to ensure the
prevention of harm to vulnerable people through requiring carers
and medical professionals to and act in the best interest of those
in their care.
The Board were informed that under the Mental
Capacity Act 2009 (MCA), an application to restrict and restrain a
person was made through the Court of Protection. Although a system
was in place, central Government was still seeking to install a
more efficient system for managing DoLS
applications. Due to changes in legislation, statistics had shown a
sharp increase in applications being submitted, which in turn
created other issues and concerns around demand on the
Coroner’s Service.
The Chairman of the Board sought clarification on
the average time a DoLS application was
completed and authorised. Officers indicated two types of
authorisations, standard and urgent. Due to financial pressures,
applications were prioritised, Officers explained that there was
over 5000 outstanding applications awaiting approval.
Surrey County Council supports the Coroner Service
financially, with some additional funding from Surrey Police.
Surrey has a busy coronial district including 5 prisons, a
significant highways network, and these factors bring considerable
work for the County Coroner, alongside DoLS.
Members expressed concern over the backlog of 5037
DoLS applications and queried whether
plans were in place to reduce this. Officers explained that they
didn’t anticipate a reduction because a number of points in
the process cause delays. Officers also outlined that if Adult
Social Care Officers were able to process the outstanding
applications, this could cause a significant increase in demand for
DoLS inquiries for the Coroner
Service.
The Board indicated whether any funding could be
sought to help ease the pressures on the Service. Officers informed
Members that the Council had been actively lobbying for additional
funding and that the Department of Health gave initial funding to
councils as the additional burden came through the Courts and not
through the legislation change.
The Cabinet Member for Localities and Community
Wellbeing acknowledged that significant additional funding would be
required to deal with the potential pressure on the Coroner’s
Service.,
The Officer introduced the report by reminding the
Board that there was a requirement to annually review the County
Council’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000 (RIPA).
The report outlined the background of RIPA, focused
on the types of activity that RIPA could be used for and summarised
how Trading Standards had used RIPA over the last
year.
The Officer also mentioned that although the Trading
Standards were the sole Council user of RIPA, in the period
covered, in future and in appropriate circumstances, other
services, could utilise RIPA when investigating serious
crime.
The Board were advised that the Investigatory Powers
Bill was beginning to go through the Parliamentary process and once
law, updates to the RIPA process may need to be made accordingly.
Officers conceded that it was not yet clear what changes may be
made.
In addition the report mentioned that the last audit
byThe Office of Surveillance Commissionerstook place in November 2014. The feedback received from the
report indicated an efficient and robust system was in place. Some
minor recommendations came out of the review and had been
implemented subsequently.
Members sought clarification on the Covert Human
Intelligence Source authorisations; whether such operations
included the use of secret shoppers to tackle under age sales. The
Officer clarified that the report focused primarily on RIPA,
however, covert operations were often conducted by the Police. The
Officer was not aware of any Covert Human Intelligence Source
authorisations exercised by the Trading Standard in the period the
report covers. The Chairman of the Board advised that further
information needed to be provided to understand which services were
carrying out the different kinds of investigative
operations.
With the new Bill coming in, Members wanted to know
the possible effects on RIPA regulations. The Officer advised the
Board that the main change will be to modernise legislation to make
it more fit for the digital age, to tackle problems which did not
exist when legislation was originally written.
Recommendations:
The Board
agreed to the recommendations outlined in the report.
Actions:
The Board
notedthe summary of the Council’s use
of RIPA.
At
the January meeting of the Residents Experience Board the Trading
Standards Service was asked for further information on how
residents access consumer advice, on how residents can be protected
from scams, and on the use of Proceeds of Crime legislation. This
report provides that information..
The Officer outlined the main themes that were
contained within the report, including:, how residents access could
consumer advice; how residents could be protected from scams, and
Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards’ use of Proceeds
of Crime legislation. The Board were asked to help continue the
development of new approaches and partnerships to better protect
residents, especially the most vulnerable people in the
community.
The Board were informed that residents were
signposted to contact the Citizen Advice Consumer Services
(CiTACS) for consumer advice and
assistance. Trading Standards analyse the complaints and
information received via CiTACS and
other sources and use the intelligence to determine which cases to
investigation further.
The Officer also highlighted some key points from
the report with regards to tackling scams and financial abuse. Some
examples of this were: lonely older people are more likely to be at
risk of being scammed; dementia causes a fluctuation of mental
capacity; technology facilitates the issue of scams, and scams can
be a major factor in the decline of health in older people, and
undermines wellbeing and quality of life.
The Board were also addressed on how Trading
Standards communicated with residents, the officer was keen to
demonstrate the balance used to tailor information to all
audiences. For example for those who do not have access to social
media, material is distributed via doorstep or in places where
vulnerable people go such as libraries and pharmacies. Trading
Standards utilised social media sources such as Facebook, Instagram,
Linkedin and Twitter, and have achieved
a large number of followers.
The Officers made reference to Checkatrade and Trustmark who Trading Standards
work in partnership with in promoting approved, accredited traders
that residents may use confidently. The two schemes were designed
to help drive out rogue traders in both counties.
There was a discussion around call blocking services
and the Board were addressed on a device which had been fitted in
homes to accommodate those who were victims of scam calls. Since
starting this provision, around 11,500 calls had been blocked and
feedback had shown positive results.
Members were briefed on Trading Standards’ use
of Proceeds of Crime legislation; how criminal assets were
reallocated and compensated back to victims.
Members expressed the importance for simple and
understandable information to be circulated and available to all
different types of audience, in particular for people with special
education needs and disabilities. The Officer assured the Board
that information was already tailored and produced for all
audiences was readily available.
Officers informed the Board of a recent successful
prosecution in Guildford, where residents were a victim of
deceptive sales, Trading Standards were in the process of
discussing compensation for the victims.
Members referred back to RIPA, in particular with
regards to communication and whether there was a network of sharing
information and promote using those resources to identify problems
pro-actively. Officers explained that joint checks are taken
...
view the full minutes text for item 10/16
11/16
PERFORMANCE & FINANCE SUB GROUP VERBAL UPDATE
Share this item
To received an update of findings from the
recent Performance & Finance Sub-Group meeting with Cultural
Services.
The Chairman of the Performance and Finance
Sub-Group gave the Board an overview of the findings from the
recent Performance and Finance Sub-Group meeting.
The Board endorsed recommendations raised from the
meeting.
Recommendations:
The Board requests that IMT officers
provide Cultural Services with an update on the MARS
system.
The Board requests that IMT officers set
a launch date for Weybridge so that the ceremonies team can be
integrated in Leatherhead.
The Board requests that IMT officers
provide CulturalServices with an update as to when improvements
will be made to ORBIT.
The Board requests that Cultural Services
and IMT Officers to investigate commercial opportunities of the
online registration and ceremonies booking system (ORBIT and
MARS).
The Board requests that Cultural Services
explore further alternative and sustainable income streams or
service models for Surrey Arts and Adult Learning.
In view of the potential savings in staff
time and the opportunity for income generation, the Board
recommends that the two relevant Cabinet Members work together to
help support Cultural Services and IMT Officers achieve the
recommendations outlined.
12/16
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The next meeting of the Committee will be held
at County Hall on Thursday 22 September 2016.
PDF 180 KB