Agenda and minutes
PDF 220 KBVenue: Ashcombe, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2DN
Contact: Ross Pike or Andy Spragg 020 8541 7368 or 020 8213 2673
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Marisa Heath and Adrian Page.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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.
Minutes: None |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (3 July 2015). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (2 July 2015) 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: None |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SCRUTINY BOARD
There are no responses to report. Minutes: None |
|
|
ADULT SOCIAL CARE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR'S UPDATE
The Strategic Director for Adult Social Care will update the Committee on important news and announcements.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Witnesses: Dave Sargeant, Strategic Director for Adult Social Care Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Board was informed by the Strategic Director that Adult Social Care (ASC) was awaiting clarification from Central Government in relation to the cap on care costs set to be introduced in April 2016. Indications were given that the introduction of this cap may be deferred beyond the second phase of the Care Act. Members of the Board were told that a briefing would be distributed to them once this clarification had been provided by Central Government.
2. The Strategic Director advised Members that the signing of the Section 75 agreements for the Better Care Fund (BCF) between Surrey County Council (SCC) and Surrey’s six Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) had been delayed due to details on some of the legal elements of the contracts. Discussions were close to being finalised, however, meaning that the Section 75 agreements would be signed in the near future.
3. Attention was drawn to the Learning Disability Partnership which was doing some great work in supporting people with disabilities in Surrey. Members were invited to visit the Learning Disability Partnership in Leatherhead to see for themselves some of the good work done here.
4. An update was provided on the introduction of new software for ASC following approval by the Cabinet. Members were apprised that the software, provided by LiquidLogic, was being piloted through a model office set up in County Hall. The aim of the pilot scheme was to uncover any issues or challenges before the system is rolled out. The Strategic Director highlighted that the hope was to have the programme embedded across ASC by the end of the financial year.
5. Information was provided on initiatives by ASC designed to encourage social capital across the county. In particular, the Board were informed of a workstream that was conducted by ASC which explored how companies can promote their corporate social responsibility through schemes such as time-banking.
6. The Board expressed concern that the concept of the Family, Friends and Community Support initiative (FFC) wasn’t being advertised effectively to Surrey residents preventing more widespread involvement across the county. It was stipulated that more needed to be done to get this message out to communities. The Strategic Director agreed that the message getting out to residents did need some refinement as there appears to be some confusion around what type of support an individual involved with FFC might be expected to provide. The Strategic Director stressed that people would not be expected to provide intimate personal care.
7. The role that Members could play in helping to embed FFC by forging greater connections between SCC officers and Surrey’s communities was highlighted by the Board as an under utilised resource. The Strategic Director agreed with this view and suggested that both heads of service and officers should meet with Members to find ... view the full minutes text for item 14. |
|
|
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS (DOLS)
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets
To highlight the implications and challenges for Adult Social Care following the Supreme Court Judgement involving Surrey County Council Council [P v Cheshire West and P and Q v Surrey County Council] : March 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Witnesses: Jim Poyser, Practice Development Manager, MCA and DOLS
Dave Sargeant, Strategic Director for Adult Social Care
Key points raised during the discussions:
1. The Practice Development Manager apprised the Board of the changes which came into force regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) due to a Supreme Court judgement which had effectively lowered the threshold for what constitutes deprivation of liberty. The Board was informed that the Directorate was supportive of the changes but that the ruling has made, in that the safeguards are now expanded to safeguard more vulnerable adults but that this has created a national problem in keeping up with the subsequent increase in DOLS work required. The Law Commission has just published their proposals for amending the DOLS regime for consultation with a view to making the scheme more flexible and proportionate whilst still safeguarding people’s human rights. They have been charged with reporting back to government after their consultation, with a new draft bill.
2. Further information was requested on the number of assessments being completed by the DOLS Team and how this workload was being managed. The Practice Development Manager advised the Board that the Supreme Court judgement had led to a significant increase in the number of assessment request, the number rising from just over 100 in 2013-2014, to 3,045 in 2014-2015. It was highlighted that a Best Interest Assessor (BIA) is a highly qualified role, with social workers being required to have at least two years post-qualified experience before they can undergo training to become a BIA which had presented resourcing challenges. Members were informed, however, that the number of BIAs had been increased through a variety of measures including recruiting BIAs, training eligible locality staff and beginning a dialogue with Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SABP) about training more of their staff as BIAs.
3. A Member asked whether consideration had been given to restructuring the way in which work is allocated to ensure that social workers which are qualified as BIAs are freed up to focus on assessments. The Practice Development Manager indicated that changes had been made to ensure that BIAs can prioritise the completion of assessments but that this had to be balanced alongside an already heavy workload. The Strategic Director advised Members that this work chimes with changes introduced across ASC aimed at prioritising workloads so that experienced social workers are freed up to take on the most complicated cases.
4. Attention was drawn to the £400,000 received from Central Government and asked whether this was enough to cover the additional costs which had arisen from the dramatic increase in the number DOLS assessments that SCC was being asked to conduct. The Practice Development Manager advised Members that, in terms of per capita allocation, Surrey had received a fair amount of money from the £25 million made available by the Government in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement. It was, however, stressed, that £400,000 would not come ... view the full minutes text for item 15. |
|
|
LEARNING DISABILITY PUBLIC VALUE REVIEW
Purpose of the report: Policy review and Development
In 2012 the learning disability public value review was identified as being appropriate to address the need for personalised services for individuals who were being supported by Adult Social Care. The three year project has now ended and this report details the outcomes. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Witnesses: Jo Poynter, Area Director (East) Debbie Taylor, Co-Chair, Learning Disability Partnership Board Mary Hendrick, Partnership Manager for Disabilities Jen Fookes, Parent Carer Gaynor Gibbins, Parent Carer
Key points raised during the discussions:
1. The Area Director provided the Board with an introduction to the work of the Learning Disability Public Value Review (PVR) and how it had improved services for people with learning disabilities and their families. It was developed on the principle of personalisation which informed the FFC work. The PVR has also driven improvement in the delivery of out of county support provision as well as in transition services.
2. Both parent carers gave Members their perspective on the PVR and how it had improved the services available to them and their children. The Positive Behaviour Support Network was singled out as being particularly important in helping those with learning disabilities and additional needs to foster new skills through the partnerships with providers.
3. The Co-Chair of the Learning Disability Partnership Board (PB) apprised Members of some of PB’s recent projects including the work that it had been doing to raise awareness of and tackle hate crime against people with learning disabilities. The Partnership Manager stressed the importance for people with learning disabilities to feel safe in their community and highlighted the work PB had done with Surrey Police in order to highlight this issue.
4. The Board expressed their support for the PVR and the important work that it had facilitated in helping people with learning disabilities to live more independent lives and to integrate into their communities. The Area Director was asked to provide details of how the Council would continue to improve service provision now that the PVR had reached its conclusion. It was highlighted that ASC would work with health partners to develop a follow up strategy. The implementation of this strategy would be underpinned by targets that would then be monitored by the PB to ensure that ASC and its partner agencies continued to meet targets and embed the person-centred approach to the delivery of services for people.
5. Members inquired about the extent to which Neighbourhood Support Officers had been involved in the work that the PVR had done with Surrey Police as these officers often know their communities extremely well. The Partnership Manager confirmed that Neighbourhood Support Officers had been involved as a result of the PVR. It was highlighted that involvement from chief officers had also actively been encouraged as a means of embedding this community centred approach amongst officers ensuring that they would get to know residents with learning disabilities and developing an understanding of their needs.
Recommendations:
1. The Board thanks the witnesses for their contributions today and notes the achievements of the PVR.
2. Recommends that it receives a report in 12 months to provide an update on the work started by the LD PVR with particular focus on the integration of commissioning with East Surrey CCG including ... view the full minutes text for item 16. |
|
|
ADULT SOCIAL CARE DEBT
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Policy Development & Review
The Adult Social Care Select Committee requested an annual report on the Adult Social Care debt position. This report has been prepared for the newly formed Social Care Services Board. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: Dorothy Ross-Tomlin declared that she is the Trustee of a residential care home in Surrey.
Witnesses: Wil House, Finance Manager Toni Carney, Head of Resources Jacky Edwards, Principal Lawyer
Key points raised during the discussions:
· The Head of Resources informed the Board that ASC’s social care debt position had remained relatively static since it was last considered by the Adult Social Care Select Committee, with ASC being owed around £14 million for the delivery of care services to residents.
· Concern was expressed that the issue of money outstanding for the delivery of social care services had been ongoing for several years and that there appears to have been little headway made in really addressing this problem especially given that the reason for many of the debts was that many people simply aren’t aware that they owe money to SCC. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence highlighted that the amount of money outstanding was actually around £4.5 million - unsecured debt over a month old. It was stressed that ASC had significantly reduced its level of social care debt over the years and a great deal of work would be done to reduce this further.
· The Board agreed that measures introduced by ASC had been successful in reducing the level of social care debt but stated that more would need to be done to decrease this further. It was suggested that ASC introduce a policy of initiating early conversations about finances with the individual receiving the care package and their families to encourage awareness of how much the services they receive from SCC would cost.
· Members drew attention to the format in which the social care debt figures were presented to the Board and requested that reports clearly stipulate the amount of money owed to SCC in relation to secured and unsecured debt as well as details of the amount payable to ASC over a defined period of time.
· The Principal Lawyer informed Members that ASC worked closely with the Behavioural Insights Team to revise the language of the letters issued to fee-paying service users in order to encourage payment by Direct Debit. Furthermore, ASC had also instituted a policy of phoning individuals with outstanding debts to ask for the reasons for non-payment to get an idea of why people weren’t paying and how this can be addressed.
· The Board inquired about how SCC’s level of social care debt compared to other local authorities and whether information about best practice for encouraging people to pay for the services they receive was shared between authorities. The Head of Resources advised that SCC compared quite favourably as it had a lower level of debt write off than at many other authorities. Members were told that Councils didn’t generally share much information about levels of social care debt but that a meeting had been scheduled with East Sussex County Council to discuss this and comparing best practice and strategies for social care debt reduction.
Recommendations:
The Board ... view the full minutes text for item 17. |
|
|
SURREY SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD: CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION UPDATE
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To update on the activities currently being undertaken within the partnership to address Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in Surrey led by the Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB). Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Witnesses: Caroline Budden, Deputy Director of Children, Schools and Families Linda Kemeny, Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement Mary Angell, Cabinet Associate for Children and Families Wellbeing
Key points raised during the discussions:
1. Members drew attention to the large number of boards dedicated to tackling Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in the County. It was suggested that collaboration between SCC and its partner agencies could be improved in this arena by amalgamating the various boards and committees allowing a more centralised response to CSE. The Deputy Director of Children, Schools and Families advised that there were four multi-agency groups covering the four different areas of the county. It was felt that one group would not allow the individual areas to be overseen in sufficient detail. The information from these meetings was then fed into a strategic overview board which looked at the countywide response to CSE. The Deputy Director acknowledged that the partnership working model was developing, but expressed the view that great strides had been to forge good working relationships with partner agencies across the county.
2. The Deputy Director was asked to elaborate on the steps being taken to identify the number of children and young people at risk of CSE in Surrey. The Board was advised that increased awareness of CSE had created certain challenges around making an accurate prediction of the number of children that could be subject to CSE in the county. A list of the children which are considered to be at risk of CSE in Surrey had been compiled and was being reviewed and updated monthly to assess those children which were considered to be at the greatest risk. All partners, including the police, had the same list to facilitate collaborative working and to ensure that the appropriate safeguarding structures were in place for children at risk.
3. Information was requested on the measures being taken to disrupt activity and challenge those who were engaging in CSE in Surrey. The Deputy Director indicated that details of police operations and activities to disrupt CSE were confidential, but confirmed that action was being taken to identify and stop individuals who engaged in CSE. The Board was informed that processes had been implemented to look at actions taken by the police and other agencies to make sure that they are effective at safeguarding children. There was a discussion about the need to have a single-point of contact for matters to CSE related to each agency.
4. The Board asked whether the discovery of an incident of CSE in Surrey would result in the establishment of a Serious Case Review. The Deputy Director indicated that Serious Case Reviews were conducted in instances when certain agencies or organisations were considered not to have discharged their duty by failing to take appropriate action to protect a child. Where partners were not deemed to be specifically at fault then it is generally considered that a best practice review would be more suitable. ... view the full minutes text for item 18. |
|
|
CHILDREN'S SAFEGUARDING QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) PROCESS
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To review the summary of audit findings and Management Action Plan produced as a result of an internal audit review of the Children’s Safeguarding Quality Assurance (QA) Process. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest:
None
Witnesses:
Caroline Budden, Deputy Director of Children, Schools and Families David John, Audit Performance Manager, Internal Audit Linda Kemeny, Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement Mary Angell, Cabinet Associate for Children and Families Wellbeing
Key points raised during the discussions:
1. The Audit Performance Manager introduced the report, advising the Board that the most aspects of Children’s Services Quality Assurance (QA) process operated effectively but there were some challenges related to the allocation and ownership of actions. It was felt by the auditor that this could have quite significant implications arising from actions either being neglected or duplicated.
2. The Board was further informed that the internal audit had uncovered issues with file retention and the preservation of evidence which had led to recommendations in respect of these as well. It was advised that a follow up piece of work would be conducted by the Internal Audit Team to ensure that the appropriate steps have been taken to address the problems identified in the report.
3. The Deputy Director provided the Board with some context around the findings of the Internal Audit Report. It was highlighted that some of the issues identified were related to wider challenges facing Children’s Services, such as the recruitment and retention of staff which the Service was working to address. The QA process would be considered as part of the improvement plan which was being presented to the Department of Education (DfE).
4. The Board expressed concern that the QA process should be robust in order to identify areas for improvement and act accordingly. The Deputy Director drew attention to the action plan published with the report which outlined the steps being taken by Children’s Services to improve its QA processes and which had been informed by the Ofsted inspection and the Internal Audit report.
5. The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement expressed concern that there was a general confusion amongst Members about who should receive Internal Audit reports and requested that they be sent directly to relevant Cabinet Members . Officers advised that Internal Audit reports were emailed to the relevant Cabinet Member and that of a list audit reports issued was circulated to all Members including a link to the repository of audit reports on the internal Council website. The reporting mechanisms to Scrutiny Boards was highlighted as an area of good practice.
6. The Board expressed concern about the findings of the internal audit report, and discussed whether there were wider risks about how the Council sought to identify and address issues through audit and quality assurance processes.
Ken Gulati entered the meeting at 12.25 pm.
Recommendations:
1. The Board endorses the Management Action Plan and welcomes the work officers are undertaking to make the improvements required.
2. It strongly supports the QA reporting arrangements to the Scrutiny Board as set out in the Internal Audit Management Action Plan.
3. The Board recommends that the Chief Executive ... view the full minutes text for item 19. |
|
|
FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER
The Board is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme.
Additional documents: Minutes: FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [Item 11]
Declarations of Interest: None
Witnesses: None
Key points raised during the discussions: · Set up task group for transition.
Recommendations:
None
Actions/ further information to be provided:
None
Board next steps:
None
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.00 am on 7 September 2015.
Minutes:
The Board noted that its next meeting will be at 10.00 am on Monday 7 September 2015.
|