Meeting documents

Adult, Community Services and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Monday 14 June 2010

UADULT, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND HEALTH OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

14 JUNE 2010


PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Endacott (Chairman), Baskerville, Mrs Kemp, Lenton, Majeed, Mrs Napier, Mrs Proctor and D Wilson (substituting for Councillor Mrs Evans).

Non-Members: Councillors Dudley and Maxwell

Also Present: Julie Burgess (Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust); Carolyn Finlay (Berkshire East Primary Care Trust); Lindsay Todd (Radian); Nick Fry, Peter Coleman & Rae Addison (Windsor Housing)

Officers: Mr A Scott and Mr Thomas
Upart i

01/10 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN

    Resolved: That Councillor Mrs Endacott and Councillor Mrs Evans be appointed Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of the Panel for the 2010/2011 Municipal year.

02/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Evans and Mrs Yong.

03/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTU

Councillor Lenton declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in agenda item 5 – Governance Review of Windsor Housing and a Personal Interest in agenda item 6 – Service Charges – Sheltered Accommodation as a Director of Windsor Housing.

Councillor Wilson declared a Personal Interest in agenda item 5 – Governance Review of Windsor Housing as a Director of Housing Solutions.

Councillor Mrs Proctor declared a Personal Interest in agenda item 7 - Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: Update on Financial Situation – as her daughter-in-law worked for the Trust.

04/10 MINUTESU
    RESOLVED: That the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 11 May 2010 be approved as a correct record.

05/10 GOVERNANCE REVIEW OF WINDSOR HOUSING

Members received a presentation from Lindsay Todd – Chief Executive of Radian, Peter Coleman – Chair of Windsor Housing Board and Rae Addison - resident member of Windsor Housing Board on the proposed changes in Radian Group‘s governance affecting Windsor Housing.

Mr Coleman referred to Radian Group’s investment in Windsor Housing and commented upon the additional new homes that had been delivered in Windsor following Windsor Housing’s merger with the Radian Group. He commented upon the structure of the Group and explained the rational behind the Group’s aim to create a Combined Board. He referred to the drivers for the proposed change in the governance arrangements, which he claimed would improve clarity of roles, communication and consistency of approach and would also reduce the number of meetings by 30% and officer time supporting them. He advised that the new governance structure would ensure that residents would be at the heart of the organisation and outlined the role of the Area Panels, which would be established with majority resident membership to scrutinise and advise on local services. Mr Rae Addison provided the Panel with an overview of his involvement on Radian’s residents’ committee and advised that he had been a member of Windsor Housing’s Board since 2007 and had recently been appointed to the Radian Board.

Councillor Lenton had declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in the item, but had requested to speak. He addressed the meeting and then left the room for the duration of the item. Councillor Lenton commented upon the Deed Of Covenant that had been entered into following the housing stock transfer in 1995 that gave the Royal Borough the right to sit on the Board of Windsor Housing. He expressed concern that the Royal Borough would not be represented on the new Combined Board and would therefore loose its power and influence at Board level. He stated that, although it was proposed that the Borough would have representation on the Area Panels, he explained that the Area Panels and the proposed Residents Council would have no executive powers.

In response to a number of questions/comments, Mr Coleman advised that members of Area Panels could be represented on the Combined Board and explained that, as there were 23 local authorities within the Radian Group area, there was a need for equality of approach when dealing with all the local authorities. In particular, he highlighted the impracticality of all local authorities sending a representative to meetings of the Combined Board.

Members were advised that the Lead Member for Adult and Community Services would be submitting a report on the proposal to the June Cabinet meeting. The report would be seeking an assurance from Radian by way of a Deed of Covenant that, under the new governance arrangements, the Royal Borough would have no less representation on the Thames Area Panel or Radian Board than any other Local Authority and that if the governance arrangements were to be reversed the Royal Borough’s right to sit on the Board of Windsor Housing would be reinstated.

Arising from the general debate, Members of the Panel generally supported the approach being proposed by the Lead Member. It was agreed that a copy of the report be forwarded to Members of the Panel for comment prior to its submission to Cabinet.

    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the report on the Cabinet’s response to Radian Group on their proposed changes to the Group’s Governance arrangements be circulated to Members of the Panel for comment prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 24 June 2010
06/10 SERVICE CHARGES – SHELTERED ACCOMMODATION

Members received an update on the issue relating to the overcharging of residents in Windsor Housing's sheltered accommodation. Mrs Marie Thompson, a resident in a sheltered housing scheme in Windsor, addressed the Panel. She commented upon the complaint that she had made to Windsor Housing in July 2009 about the apportionment of the Warden’s cost following the decision to split the Warden’s time between Leslie Dunne House and Clifton Lodge. She questioned the length of time that it had taken following her complaint for residents that had been overcharged to be reimbursed.

Mr Coleman, Chair of Windsor Housing Board, advised that the initial response from Windsor Housing to Mrs Thompson complaint had been inadequate and that Windsor Housing had issued an apology to Mrs Thompson as part of the Appeal process. It was noted that, due to the complexity of the complaint, Windsor Housing’s Appeals Panel had requested a full audit of service charges in all of Windsor Housing’s sheltered schemes to assist it in dealing with the complaint. The review, which had unfortunately taken some time to complete, had revealed an error in the way that sheltered scheme manager costs had been apportioned across the different schemes. However, it was stressed that the error in the calculation of the service charges only related to the 2007/8 financial year.

As a result of the error, a total of 282 residents in nine of the schemes had been overcharged whilst those in other schemes had been undercharged. Of those that had been overcharged, 227 residents had been in receipt of housing benefit. The total overpayment for those residents amounted to £42,573, an average of £187 per person. As those residents had been in receipt of housing benefit, Windsor Housing were proposing to repay that sum direct to the Royal Borough, who paid the housing benefit initially. Windsor Housing had written to the Royal Borough outlining the error and seeking the Royal Borough’s agreement for the refund to be dealt with in that way. Refunds of overpayments would then be made direct to those tenants who had not been in receipt of housing benefit. It was confirmed that Windsor Housing were not intending to recover any service charges that had been undercharged.

Arising from the debate, Mr Coleman and Mr Fry, Interim Director of Windsor Housing, responded to a number of questions/comments raised by Members on the Appeal process, the length of time that it had taken to resolve the issue and the robustness of the accountancy procedures. Mr Coleman reiterated that Mrs Thompson had been issued with a full apology for the inadequacy of the initial response that she had received to her complaint and commented upon the revisions that had been made to Appeals procedure in the light of the way her complaint had been dealt with. It was noted that all complaints were now reported to the Board. Members were advised that the housing management software had been changed and new procedures had been introduced to ensure that an error of that kind was not repeated. With regard to a question as to whether Windsor Housing’s Auditors had been informed of the error, Mr Todd stated that he would seek clarification and would advise the Member accordingly.

Nick Fry confirmed that Windsor Housing would repay all reasonable costs incurred by the Royal Borough in relation to the reimbursement of the housing benefit element of the overcharge. He also commented upon the length of time it had taken to undertake the thorough and complete audit and the investigation to identify all those residents affected but gave an assurance that residents would be informed and reimbursed as soon as possible.

07/10 HEATHERWOOD AND WEXHAM PARK HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST - UPDATE ON FINANCIAL SITUATION

The Panel received an update on Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s proposals to reduce staffing levels as part of the improvements to clinical service efficiency.

Ms Burgess, Chief Executive of the Trust advised that the Trust had delivered savings of over £10M in 2009/2010 as planned and that in 2010/2011 the Trust would be undertaking a fundamental review of services and changes would be made to increase efficiency, with the Trust becoming a leaner organisation with strong clinical leadership.

Ms Burgess commented upon seven workstreams launched by the Trust to redesign the way services were delivered in order to make them more cost effective and efficient. She explained that as services became more efficient fewer posts would be required and that 470 posts had been identified as at risk. As the Trust did not want to lose experienced staff the aim would be to redeploy people wherever possible, with compulsory redundancies only as a last resort. In the areas where the posts were at risk there were currently 320 vacancies. A redeployment bureau had been set up to help staff find alternative employment within Trust or the wider NHS.

Ms Burgess advised that on 27 May 2010 a 90-day staff consultation had been launched in Finance and Divisional Management sections and that staff briefings had been held to present the proposed new structures. She explained that the process would begin for other service areas as soon as new structures were available for consultation.

In response to a number of questions, Ms Burgess commented upon the Trust’s new contract with the PCT and outlined the services that were currently being provided. She explained that the 470 posts to be lost represented 12% of the Trust’s establishment. She stressed that the Trust had been working closely with partner organisations to ensure that clinical pathways were all joined up. Members also received an assurance from the Trust that the Council would be notified of any future changes once proposals had been drawn up for the next group of employees.

08/10 HINDU COMMUNITY CENTRE - PETITION

Members considered the report that was due to be submitted to Cabinet on the 24 June 2010 on the petition urging the Borough to provide a community centre for the Hindu Community in the Borough to use for religious, cultural and social occasions.

The Panel were addressed by Mr Subhash Chandar and members of the Hindu Society on the contents of the petition. Mr Chandar explained that for the past five years the Society had met once a month at St Piran’s school. However he explained that the infrequency of those meetings did not fulfil the Society’s religious, social or cultural needs and that a more permanent centre would enable the Society to provide more day centre activities. This would be of particular benefit for the elderly members of the community and would also encourage greater participation from younger members of the community if there was a more regular timetabled activity programme. He explained that, although the society had been fundraising for five years, it was difficult to sustain the momentum without a permanent facility. He recognised the financial constraints local authorities were facing but welcomed the proposal that the Borough explore with the society all available options to assist it to fulfil its aspirations. The potential of establishing a shared facility that would be of maximum benefit for the whole community was also welcomed.

Arising from the general discussion, the Panel made the following comments on the report. Members of the Panel were of the opinion that the proposed meeting between the Officers and representatives from the Hindu community to discuss the options available should be arranged as soon as possible and that an Officer from the Council’s Property Team and the Windsor and Maidenhead Voluntary Action’s funding advisor should also be invited to attend the meeting(s).
      RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised that the Panel supports the proposal that Officers meet with representatives from the Hindu community to discuss the options available to assist them in their aspirations to have a community centre, subject to the inclusion of the comments as outlined above.

09/10 ULOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
      RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 10 - 11 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.