To agree the minutes of the previous meeting
as a true and accurate record of proceedings.
Minutes:
The minutes of the previous meeting were
approved as a true and accurate record of proceedings.
80/16
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter
(i)Any disclosable pecuniary interests and /
or
(ii)Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary
interest
·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Minutes:
There were no pecuniary interests
declared.
Nick Harrison declared a non-pecuniary interest of
being a Member of the Children’s Improvement
Board.
81/16
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
Share this item
To receive any questions or
petitions.
Notes:
1. The deadline for Member’s questions is
12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Monday 5
December).
2. The deadline for public
questions is seven days before the meeting (Friday 2
December)
3. The
deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no
petitions have been received.
Helen Atkinson, Strategic
Director for Adult Social Care and Public Health
Sonya Sellar, Area
Director
John Bangs, Carers Strategy
& Development Manager
Sarah Ferron, Senior Category
Specialist, Procurement Jason
Duncombe,Sourcing Team Leader
Mel Few,Cabinet Member for Adult Social
Care, Wellbeing and Independence
Tim Evans, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence
Declarations of interests:
None
Key
points of discussion:
Members raised concerns regarding procurement
arrangements, highlighting the lack of evidence, the criteria used
and the service delivery strategy. It was suggested by Members that
there was a lack of public engagement in the procurement process.
It was also suggested that there were insufficient impact
assessments undertaken with regards to the effects of the proposals
on carers.
Members requested more information regarding how the
contract was awarded to the successful contract awardee, Action for
Carers (AfC) and questioned whether the contract awardee had the
required experience to deliver the service.
TheCabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence highlighted that this was set in the context of an
ongoing grants and context review. It was also highlighted that
carers had been consulted as part of theSurrey Carers Commissioning Strategy.
Members questioned whether the quality of service
could be increased with an overall reduction in spend, also
questioning the robustness of the service’s business plan.
TheCabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence suggested that the service had undertaken a vigorous
procurement method and that the successful bid demonstrated
substantial relevant experience. Officers highlighted that the
Surrey Cares Commissioning Strategy was co-designed with
carers.
It was noted by officers that all of the bids for
the contract were evaluated in partnership by NHS Clinical
Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Surrey County Council.
The question of maintaining face-to-face support was
raised as a concern by Members, noting the possible reduction in
this form of support in favour of the digital offer. Officers noted
that the digital offer had been co-designed with Carers UK and that
it was one option of care delivery, highlighting that face-to-face
support would still be provided to those who require it.
Recommendations
On the basis of the
evidence heard and the documents received, the Board endorses the
decision made by Cabinet.
This
was put to a vote. The results of this were that six Members voted
in favour, with three Members against. There were two Members
abstaining.
It was agreed that the Board wouldendorse
the decision made by Cabinet.
84/16
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Share this item
That under Section 100(A) of the Local
Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during
consideration of the following items of business on the grounds
that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under
the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of the Schedule 12A of Act.
Minutes:
The Chairman informed the Board
that should any Member had wished to raise any matter relating to
the Part 2 Annex [Item 8], that the meeting needed to be taken into
a Part 2 session. The Board resolved for the item to be taken into
Part 2, by virtue of paragraph(s) 3, Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the
Local Government Act 1972 (information relating to the financial or
business affairs of any particular person including the authority
holding that information).
Purpose of the
report:
Scrutiny of Services and Budgets
The Board will scrutinise the
procurement process and subsequent decision to award a contract for
the provision of support services for carers.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Helen Atkinson, Strategic
Director for Adult Social Care and Public Health
Sonya Sellar, Area Director
John Bangs, Carers Strategy
& Development Manager
Sarah Ferron, Senior Category Specialist,
Procurement Jason Duncombe,Sourcing Team Leader
Mel Few,Cabinet Member for Adult Social
Care, Wellbeing and Independence
Tim Evans, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence
Declarations of interests:
None
Key
points of discussion:
1.The Board discussed in detail the financial factors,
contact details and procurement process of the Support Services for
Carers Contract.
87/16
PUBLICATION OF PART TWO ITEMS
Share this item
To consider whether any item considered under
Part Two of the agenda should be made available to the Press and
public.
Minutes:
The Board concluded that the items referred to in
the Part Two annex should not be made available to the public at
this time.
Purpose of
report:To provide an update on the Adult
Social Care Accommodation with Care & Support Strategy over the
past twelve months.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Mel Few,Cabinet Member for Adult Social
Care, Wellbeing and Independence
Tim Evans, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and
Independence
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families Helen Atkinson,Strategic Director for Adult Social Care and Public
Health
Matt Lamburn, Project
Manager
Declarations of interests:
None
Key
points of discussion:
TheCabinet Member
for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence noted frustration
with lack of resources and progress. It was highlighted that the
Cabinet Member considered that there was greater scope for improved
management of assets. However, the Cabinet Member noted positive
progress towards resolving these issues.
It was noted that there were two care homes managed
currently by the service. It was suggested by the Cabinet Member
that there was a strong business case for one of these to
transition into providing required Extra Care functions.
TheCabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Families
noted that there was a wide ranging engagement process in place
regarding asset usage.
Members noted their
support for the approach taken by the Cabinet Member and expressed
the wish that the service has Extra Care type accommodation in each
borough. Members also stressed that sufficient resource is
allocated to the service to effectively function.
The Board requested
that the service should consider hospice care as a key resource for
care in the community. It was highlighted that there was a trial
version of this idea in Frimley which could be examined a viable
option for the service.
The Board questioned
whether there was criteria on accommodation to evaluate schemes in
place.
The Board highlighted
the concern that residents in care accommodation do not become
isolated and suggested that there should be a provision for housing
within their home community.
TheCabinet Associate
for Children, Schools and Families and officershighlighted that new
developments could take into account some new provisions, noting
that some were built into community centres. It was also noted that
the service had a wide property portfolio with a baseline minimum
of 40 flats available. Members questioned whether it would be
feasible to invest in more property to reduce long term
expenditure.
Members questioned whether additional investments
with regard to the utilisation of assets could be undertaken in
future as a means of reducing pressure on the service.
The Board suggested that the provision of
accommodation with care and support should be taken into account
during future disposal of Surrey County Council assets.
Recommendations:
The Board strongly supports the
development of local partnerships and opportunities to enable
adults to live and age well. The Board recommends:
That the Cabinet ensure that the strategy is
prioritised by Property Services and appropriate resource allocated
to its delivery
That the Cabinet Member and service explore internal
or external opportunities around invest to save funding to support
the strategy, including when the council is intending to dispose of
land
That the outputs from the programme of engagement is
shared with the Board at a future date
Purpose of
report:To provide the Board with an
overview of the recent Counter Terrorism legislation, the duties
and role of the Council and the work that has been and will be
undertaken to implement the legislation and supporting
guidance.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families
Gordon Falconer, Community Safety Manager Sam Bushby, Assistant Director for Children’s
Services
Vernon Nosal, Head of QA &
Adults Strategic Safeguarding
Declarations of interests:
None
Key
points of discussion:
The Community Safety
Manager explained that the Prevent strategy was previously within
the purview of the security services and police within the terms of
Prevent Strategy of 2011. However it was noted that the Counter
Terrorism and Security Act 2015 had shifted responsibilities to
Local Authorities. It was highlighted that there was no resource
before the revision and that the service had developed from the
ground up. It was noted that the service used Surrey Police
guidelines initially, but were developing their own methods for
delivery as the service gains more experience.
Officers highlighted
that there were links with the newly established Multi-Agency
Safeguarding Hub (MASH) which provided a key pathway to acquire
information of a child or adult at risk. It was noted that the
service was also looking to link the risk of radicalisation with
exploitation.
Officers explained
that there were several key projects undertaken with schools,
including training programmes and the appointment of Prevent leads.
It was noted that all schools in Surrey were involved in this
process. However, it was highlighted that more work needed to be
undertaken with schools with relation to awareness programmes for
school pupils.
The Board questioned
how the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) were
involved in the process. Officers explained that there were several
links with CAMHS, but that the Prevent strategy allowed for several
different avenues of support for those at risk. The MASH ensured
that there were the correct personnel available at the Channel
Panels.
Recommendations:
The Board notes the report, and
recommends:
That the Prevent
action plan for Children’s Services is shared with the Board
when available.
That further detail
is provided with regard to engagement with schools on the Prevent
strategy.
The
meeting of the Board adjourned at 11.53am and continued at
12.04pm
Margaret Hicks and Ken Gulati left the meeting at
11.53am
This report relates to
the agreed Performance Management information created for both this
Board and the Improvement Board. It is
also utilised to satisfy other interested groups and parts of the
wider council. It is an attempt to keep
things targeted and focused and is the “one single vision of
the truth”.
Witnesses:
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families
Wellbeing
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families Sam Bushby, Assistant Director
for Children’s Services
Belinda Newth, Head of Quality
& Experience
Declarations of interests:
Nick Harrison declared a non-pecuniary interest of
being a Member of the Children’s Improvement
Board.
Key
points of discussion:
TheAssistant
Director of Children’s Services highlighted that the service
was developing and introducing into the service an effective and
independent quality assurance framework. It was highlighted that
the quality assurance framework was held within the Directorate but
was outside of service delivery, so offered independent scrutiny,
and indicated the overall position of quality within the service.
It was highlighted that the quality assurance framework was
developed with the Safer Surrey practice guide as a
guideline.
Officers explained that the quality assurance
framework was being implemented across the entire Directorate
equally.
The Board questioned
the role of Members in the implementation of the quality assurance
framework within the service. It was noted that the Cabinet Member
would be invited to shadow frontline service on several instances
per annum to gain an effective insight into service practice. It
was also noted that the Social Care Services Board would scrutinise
the quality assurance annual report. Officers highlighted the
Member role as corporate parents and suggested Members could have a
role in working with officers on Regulation 44 visits to
children’s homes. The Board expressed gratitude that the
service was open to Member interaction and welcomed the role of
corporate parent interaction.
The Board expressed
concerns regarding the high number of audit and self-assessment of
Children’s Services recommendations that were requiring
improvement. While the level of self-awareness was commended within
the service, Members requested assurance and a future update from
the service that work was being undertaken to resolve these
issues.
Members questioned
Child Protection Plan (CPP) timelines and the effects of cases
being left open for significant periods of time. Members noted that
there had been some improvements in reducing this, but queried if
any further improvements could be undertaken. Officers noted that
this was a key area of concern for the service.
Officers highlighted
that Area Heads were accountable for longstanding open cases. It
was also noted that cases open for more than 18 months would be
open for closer review, pointing out that the aim was to reduce the
threshold for review from 18 months to 12 months.
The Board expressed
concerns regarding the numbers of missing children and children at
risk of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE), noting an increase.
Officers explained that this was a result of better identification
and data changes. It was noted that the service was working to
create consistent data models within the service.
It was noted that the
service was setting up a Signs of Safety implementation group, to
plan and oversee the roll out of Signs of Safety across the
service. This was a key area for improving practice.
Witnesses:
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families
Wellbeing
Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and
Families Jessica Brooke,
Children’s Rights Manager (Complaints)
Belinda Newth, Head of Quality
and Experience
Sam Bushby, Assistant Director
for Children’s Services
Declarations of
interests: None
Key
points of discussion:
TheChildren’s Rights
Manager (Complaints) noted that the volume of complaints was
increasing. It was suggested that this was a result of increased
awareness of the complaints procedure. It was noted that there were
increasing numbers of children involved in the complaints process
as a means of alleviating concerns.
Members queried the reasons why significant numbers
of complaints had not been actioned. Officers explained that the
majority of these complaints were advocacy or support related and
required no further action.
Members queried the concerns that Care Leavers had
in the complaints process. Officers noted that a key issue was the
change in the level of support during the transition period. It was
noted that complaints from this group were generally less formal
and more likely to be seeking advice or advocacy.
It was highlighted by officers that there was a
decrease in the volume of complaints regarding quality of service
and communications.
PDF 384 KB