Agenda and minutes

(A)  JOINT DISABILITY EQUALITY SCHEME (JDES)

Further to Minute No. 125 of the meeting of this Panel held on 28 February 2008, the Chair welcomed Sayed Ahmed from the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Kath Atkinson from the Rotherham PCT and Stuart Carr Facilities Manager, Rotherham MBC who their organisations’ position on funding for the co-ordinator’s post and other for delivering the JDES.

Sayed Ahmed, reported that the Trust wanted to continue having the post of co-ordinator and confirmed that it had been put aside for this. He added that a meeting had been arranged to discuss the future plans and the service to be delivered.

Kath Atkinson, reported that the PCT was currently reviewing the process and deciding whether it felt the co-ordinator post was the best way forward.

Stuart Carr, confirmed that the Corporate Management Team had recently received information on the JDES and fully supported it.  However it had deferred the decision about funding for the co-ordinator post.  The Counci was discussing the matter with the other two partners, and were planning to look again at the job description and outcomes.

A discussion and a question and answer session then took place covering the following issues:-

• More disabled people needed to be involved in discussions to make sure targets were met

• More regular consultation with disabled people

• All three partners needed to work together towards a joint formula and to keep the panel updated of progress/problems.

Resolved:-  That the information be noted.

(B)  CO-OPTEES

The Chair announced that the current term of office for co-optees was coming to an end and this would be the last meeting in the municipal year.  He wished to place on record his thanks to all the co-optees for their contribution to the work of the Panel.  He advised that the format for recruiting co-optees was changing and that an application system was to be introduced.  Application forms would be sent out to the various organisations and individuals shortly. 

The Chair referred to the end of the PPI Forums and wished to place on record his particular thanks to PPI Forum representatives.

Ann Clough responded on behalf of the co-optees. 

Janet Mullins declared a personal interest in item 134 below (Annual Health Check Responses), and Vicky Farnsworth and Jonathan Evans declared personal interests in item 133 below (Adult Services Impact Assessment of Service Level Agreements).

There were no members of the public and press present.

Steve Turnbull, Head of Public Health, gave a presentation about the Local Involvement Network (LINk) for Rotherham.

The presentation covered:

• The progress made to date
• Details of the Consultation Event held on 25 February 2008
• The role of the Steering Group
• The Procurement Timeline

Discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were covered:

• What effort had been made to include young people and hard to reach groups in the process
• The type of organisations interested in hosting LINks – would they be profit making or non profit making?
• Whether LINks would have the power to enforce a decision and if so how
• Not being enough funding to enable the host to deliver all that was required of them
• What the funding would be used for
• What would happen at the end of the 3 year period if the government refused to continue funding – would RMBC have to to find future funding?
• Whether the accounts would be audited

Resolved:-  That the information be noted and Steve Turnbull be thanked for his informative presentation.

Steve Turnbull, Head of Public Health, gave a presentation on the report on the Local Area Agreement 2008-2011.  It covered:

The process

• Agree priorities
• Refresh and align key strategies and plans
• Role of scrutiny panel
• June 2008 deadline for completion

Picking the right measures

• Existing commitments
• Do-able and sustainable
• Competing incentives
• Quality assurance
• Evidence base
• What reward will we get for doing it?
• Target setting

The new Agreement would bring some major changes, make the relationship between local and national priorities more clear, reduce national performance monitoring and give greater financial flexibilities at a local level. 

Members considered the list of potential Indicators, which had been chosen following extensive work and negotiation between partners, the Council and Chief Executive Officers’ Group, Government Office, Cabinet and members.

Discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were covered:-

• Indicator 151 (overall employment rate) this was a very important indicator, but could be difficult to achieve in the current economic climate.
• Indicator 136 should be included in the chosen final list of indicators.
• Indicator 17 as an achievable target.  Perception of crime was considered to be a difficult issue to measure.
• Indicator 152, which related to working age people on out of work benefits.  It was felt that this was an important issue for Rotherham, many more people claimed Incapacity Benefit.
• It was suggested that Indicator 173 should be considered to replace Indicator 152 as this covered “people falling out of work and onto incapacity benefits.  However, it was also pointed out that people on Incapacity Benefit would often like to work, but found there were many barriers to this.
• The need for the LAA to be written in “plain English” to make it easy for anyone to read and understand it.  It was suggested that “Speak up” be consulted when dealing with this issue.
• It was suggested that Indicator 137 (healthy life expectancy at 65) be included as there was no reference to general health in adults in the suggested indicators.  However, it was pointed out that there were difficulties with this measure and Indicator 120 (All-age all cause mortality rate) did, in fact, indirectly measure actions to improve health in older years.

Resolved:-  (1)  That subject to the above comments and inclusion of Indicator 136 (People Supported to live independently through Social Services (all ages)), the emerging list of potential indicators be supported

(2)  That the direction in negotiating the Local Area Agreement 2008-2011 and further steps to completing the work be supported

(3)  That a further report be submitted on the final list of indicators.

Shona McFarlane, Director of Health and Wellbeing, gave a presentation relating to Adult Services Impact Assessment of Service Level Agreements.

The presentation covered:

• Reductions in funding to community and voluntary sector organisations (organisations listed below)
  • Yemeni Community Association – Advocacy Service
  • Age Concern Rotherham – Day Care Services
  • Physical Disability & Sensory Impairment Services - Talking Books
  • Physical Disability & Sensory Impairment Services – Green Lane Resource Centre – Transport Budget
  • Lost Chord – Interactive Arts Sessions
  • Rotherham Ethnic Elderly Group / Asian Information Group (REEG)
  • United Multicultural Centre
  • Mental Health Services – Rotherham MIND Drop in Service
  • Mental Health Services – ROCC Resource Centre - RETHINK
  • Mental Health Services – Innovations Employment Service
  • Physical Disability & Sensory Impairment Services – SENSE Supported Living Scheme
  • Physical Disability & Sensory Impairment Services – Talking Newspapers
  • Physical Disability & Sensory Impairment Services – Rotherham Disability Information Service (RDIS)
  • Learning Disability Services – Speak Up Self Advocacy
  • Learning Disability Services – Rotherham Advocacy Partnership
  • Learning Disability Services – MENCAP Holiday Service

Discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were covered:

• Whether older people were in a position to pay for some of the services which were affected, ie Age Concern Rotherham – Day Care Services
• Concerns were raised about the “talking books” as it was felt that it was not always practical for older people to go to the library
• Where the savings made were being transferred to

Resolved:- That the information be noted and Shona be thanked for her presentation.

(Jonathan Evans, Vicky Farnsworth and Hayley Wilcock declared a personal interest in the ‘Speak Up’ element of the above item being representatives from that organisation).

Delia Watts, Scrutiny Advisor, presented the report submitted which explained the Annual Health Check process and gave the Overview and Scrutiny responses to the local health trusts’ declarations.

The Annual Health Check had replaced the old ‘star ratings’ assessment system and its overall aim was to promote improvements in healthcare.

During April 2008, each health trust was required to provide a declaration of its compliance against the Department of Health’s 24 core standards, together with comments from Overview and Scrutiny Committees and patient and public involvement forums and strategic health authorities.

The four South Yorkshire local authorities worked together on comments for Sheffield Children’s Hospital Foundation Trust and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.  The draft commentary for the Children’s Hospital Trust had been reported to the Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel. 

The South Yorkshire Joint Health Scrutiny Committee met with senior management from the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and a draft response, combining comments made by representative of each Authority had been drafted.  This was attached at appendix A to the report, for Members to note.

A joint meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees had taken place with the Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS) to discuss issues of shared interests.  As a joint health scrutiny protocol had not yet been agreed by the individual councils, it was agreed that for this year each council would present their comments individually.  The draft commentary for YAS was given at appendix B to the report.

An Annual Health Check Working Group had been set up, comprising members of the Children and Young People’s and Adult Services and Health Scrutiny Panels to draw up draft responses for Rotherham PCT, Rotherham and Doncaster and South Humberside NHS Foundation Trust (RDASH) and Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust.  These responses were given at Appedices C to E.

Discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were covered:

• The problem of excessive waiting times for patients who travelled via ambulance to appointments.  Some members felt that this had been addressed and improvements had been made, but others had still been experiencing problems.  It was suggested that, where waiting times of over an hour were experienced, a formal complaint should be made.
• Concerns were raised about the effect closing the Rotherham call centre would have on the nurse practitioners who were currently based there.
• The possibility of introducing patient liaison panels in all areas as it was felt that they were beneficial.
• Praise was given to the Rotherham Trust for the improvements made to the hospitals in Rotherham.
• The PCT’s revised Patient and Public Engagement Strategy

Resolved:-  (1)  That the response for Sheffield Teaching Hospitals drafted by the South Yorkshire Joint Health Scrutiny Committee be noted.

(2)  That the draft responses in respect of Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Rotherham PCT, Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust and Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust be agreed.

A discussion and a question and answer session on the Forward Plan of Key Decisions covered the following issues:-

• Commissioning Strategy
• Individual budgets and impact on pay for personal carer assistants
• Main changes to the carers’ Strategy

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Forward Plan of Key Decisions be noted

(2)  That a further report on individual budgets be submitted to a future meeting of the Panel.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the minutes of the meeting of this Panel held on 28 February 2008 be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chair.

(2)  That George Hewitt’s substitution on the Annual Health Check Working Group be endorsed.

Resolved:-  That the minutes the meetings of the Cabinet Member and Advisors for Adult Social Care and Health held on the 10 March and 31 March 2008 be received and their content noted.

The following item is likely to be considered in the absence of the press and public as being exempt under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (business/financial affairs)

Resolved:-  That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council)).

Doug Parkes, Business Development Manager, presented the report submitted, which detailed the proposals for setting the interim maximum charge (full cost) to service users for the provision of in-house residential care for 2008/09 financial year.

The Council had a statutory duty to set a “full cost” charge for residential accommodation it provided in Local Authority Homes for

• Those residents who refused to provide details of their financial circumstances
• Those service users who had been able to pay.
• Those service users who were placed and financially supported by another Local Authority.

Charges for the two new homes would only be determined using CIPFA guidance once the full staffing/running costs were known. 

Details of the proposed charges were set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

Discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were covered:

• Whether there were any implications in not following the CIPFA guidance. 
• Costs of private and local authority residential care

Resolved:-  (1)  That the information be noted

(2)      That, as far as this Panel was concerned, support be given to:

(a)     the charges set out  in the Appendix to the report

(b)     the interim charges being effective from 6 April 2008

(3)     That a further report be submitted to Members setting out the maximum charges for the two new residential care homes.