Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the Meeting.

No apologies were received.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by e-mail indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 5 December 2017).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address below.

None.

(previously circulated)

At its last meeting on 7 November 2017, the Board discussed the Local Transport Plan 4.  A summary of the points made during the meeting was circulated to those present at tabled at Council on 9 November 2017. Councillor Adams suggested that in future it may be helpful if all members present agreed the comments during the meeting where any points of disagreement could be discussed.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 November 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

In accordance with the Constitution, the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board (OSPB) was asked to consider a decision made taken by the Cabinet on 2 November 2017 in relation to Engagement on Options for Future Delivery - Connect Short-Term Service and Council - Provided Day Services for Adults with a Learning Disability.  This decision was called-in by the required number of Members and was attached to the Agenda.

In accordance with the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Rules, the following had been invited to attend the meeting:

·       Signatories to the call-in

·       Mr A I Hardman, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care

·       The Director of Adult Services

The following order of proceedings was suggested:

·       Presentation by Members of the reasons for calling-in the decision

·       Questions and clarification

·       Response by the Cabinet Member/Officer

·       Questions and clarification

·       Any closing remarks by the Cabinet Member/Officer

·       Any closing remarks by those calling-in the decision.

Once it had heard from all parties and considered the decision called-in, the OSPB would need to consider whether to:

a)     Accept the decision without qualification or comment (in which case it could be implemented immediately without being considered again by Cabinet); or

b)     Accept the decision (in which case it could be implemented immediately without being considered again by Cabinet) but with qualification or comment which the relevant Cabinet Member with Responsibility must consider and respond to: or

c)     Propose modifications to the decision or require a reconsideration of the decision (in which case the implementation of the decision was delayed until the Cabinet had received and considered a report of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board); or

d)     In exceptional circumstances ask the Council to consider whether option (a), (b) or (c) is appropriate (in which case the implementation would be delayed until after the meeting of the Council to which it had been referred and, if Council resolves option (c), Cabinet had reconsidered the matter having regard to the Council's view).

Members were reminded that the debate should focus on the decision making process.

Presentation of the reasons for calling-in the decision – Councillor McDonald

Councillor McDonald, one of the signatories to the call-in presented the case for the call-in and in doing so made the following main points:

·       The Cabinet Report was seriously flawed and had elements of presumption and predetermination

·       The current service was second to none, which was not recognised in the Report. There was no mention or recognition of the dedication of staff or the respect given to them by service users or their carers

·       There was no explanation about how well the current service was working for the service users or the impact of the changes on their social or personal development

·       Recommendation 1a) failed to recognise the needs or demands of the service. Financial sustainability was at the heart of the recommendation as well as pushing forward the Council's political agenda to become a commissioning authority, which it was suggested the Council's had a poor track record of

·       Recommendations1b) and 1c)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1012.

Economy & Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Overall, the Panel recognised the complexity of the budget plans, but for future scrutiny, the OSPB was urged to look at the quality of information provided at the initial finance development meetings, and the delay in responding to requests for further information. Comparison with previous years' figures was also essential to enable effective analysis.

The Services where a variance was projected were:

Waste Services which were forecast to overspend by £1.3m. This was due to increased tonnages and as a direct result of the energy to waste plant working more efficiently and producing less process residues and incinerator bottom ash. Having asked about the situation and work to mitigate this overspend, it was understood that this was not a concern moving forward and would reduce next year. Overall, the energy to waste plant was a good news story.

Scientific Services were forecasting a variance of approximately £500k, due to loss of a contract in Northern Ireland which was beyond the service's control.  Of more concern to the Panel was the loss of business from asbestos removal, arising from the Place Partnership agreement. The Panel was extremely disappointed that entering into the Place Partnership had taken business away from Scientific Services, which had also affected the resilience of the asbestos removal service.

A variance of £132k was forecast for the Archives and Archaeology Service, which was contributed to by allocation to the service of the accommodation costs of The Hive, which the Panel strongly recommended should be reviewed.

County Enterprises (a service which employed people with learning disabilities) was forecast not to achieve the target to become self-financed in 2017/18 by £114k. In discussing the role of County Enterprises, and whether it would fit more appropriately with Adult Services, the Director was happy to continue the operation which greatly enhanced the lives and needs of those employed, which would otherwise need to be addressed elsewhere. The Panel commended this initiative.

The Panel was surprised by the forecast variance of £236k for Trading Standards.  Although the figure was projected to reduce by the end of year, this pointed to a perceived lack of transparency around the original case to bring the service back in house. Nonetheless, the rationale behind the transition costs were explained and the co-location of the Council's 12 Trading Standards staff alongside Worcestershire Regulatory Services was a good result.

In October 2017, the Panel looked at the Council's plans for delivering on and enabling cycling, and was surprised that there was no budget for cycling. Cycle ways were an important part of Worcestershire's infrastructure and the Panel therefore recommended that there should be a dedicated budget. Cycling representatives suggested to the Panel that this should be set at a minimum of £10 per resident.

Adult Care and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Panel

The net budget for Adult Services for 2017-2018 was £131.1m, with services for older people and learning disability taking up £124.2m in total and covering 4,856 service users. There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1013.