Minutes:
(A) Mr
Wright asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. Following
the transfer of Leicestershire's care homes into private ownership, does the
Leader support the idea of improving the regulation of care homes by introducing
corporate accountability?
2. In
what ways does this Council scrutinise the performance of those companies who
manage the care homes in which we fund placements for Leicestershire residents?
3. In
view of grave concern in the media regarding the levels of debt incurred by a
number of prominent companies running care homes, would the Leader support
further regulation of such companies in order to achieve greater transparency
with regard to both their financial stability and to their ownership?”
Mr Houseman
replied as follows:-
“1. The
statutory regulator of care homes in England is the Care Quality Commission
(CQC). The Council has responsibilities
for commissioning places in care homes where individuals are eligible for
publicly funded care and also has general responsibilities to ensure all
vulnerable adults are safeguarded via the multi-agency safeguarding
arrangements. The Council works closely
with the CQC to share information and to co-ordinate its monitoring activity.
The
primary responsibility for service quality lies with the provider of the
service. I would of course expect that
the directors and senior managers of all care providers would accept that they
are accountable for the welfare and safety of service users and staff.
2. The
Council uses a range of mechanisms to monitor the performance of care home
providers. It asks service users and
their families to provide it with feedback on the quality of care. The Council aims to review all placements
annually to ensure that residents’ needs are met and ensure complaints are
investigated. In addition, compliance
staff undertake both announced and unannounced monitoring visits to ensure the
services meet the contractual requirements outlined in the service
specification. Care home providers who
agree to accept placements are required to make an annual return detailing the
outcomes of their own quality assurances processes.
Where there are serious concerns the Council
will take immediate actions to safeguard the health, safety and wellbeing of
service users, which may include suspending new placements, and require
providers to agree to take remedial actions. As a last resort the Council can
terminate its contract and find alternative placements for residents.
3. The Council’s
primary focus is the quality of care provided within care homes, as this is the
key factor that it can influence. It is
also important that residents should receive continuity of care from providers
that are well managed and financially stable but this is something over which
the Council has much less control. The
ownership of private companies is a matter for directors and shareholders. Any consideration of further financial
regulation of companies owning care homes would be complex and is a matter for
national Government. Monitor (a
non-departmental public body) has been given a range of duties and
responsibilities for financial regulation of the publicly funded healthcare
market. The Health and Social Care Act
2012 allows for the option of these powers being extended at a later stage to
the social care market. Should the Government consider doing this, the Council
would want to offer support if it would improve transparency and offer
reassurance about continuity of care to residents and their families.”
(B) Mr
Miah asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Can
the Leader explain what is being done about the problems with drainage and the
subsequent flooding of properties in Loughborough East, including houses on
Bottleacre Lane and the industrial estate around Jubilee Drive/Pavilion Way?
2. Could
the Leader comment on how well the Preliminary Flood Assessment matched the
experience of the latest inundation in the north of the County?”
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
“1. 2012
has been the second wettest year in the last hundred years. Rainfall between Wednesday 21st
November and Sunday 25th November 2012 merely added to already high
water levels in Loughborough’s watercourses, including Wood Brook. The surface water drainage system in
Loughborough East relies upon road gullies discharging water into local surface
water sewers that, in turn, ordinarily discharge into those watercourses. Flooding at Bottleacre Lane was caused by an
inability of rain water to discharge to Wood Brook which was already at full
capacity. The County Council is
currently awaiting the completion of a surface water management plan (SWMP) for
Loughborough and is undertaking modelling of Grammar School Brook and Willow
Brook. The Environment Agency is undertaking
modelling of Wood Brook and Burleigh Brook.
2. One
of the maps in the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) identified the
locations where a 1 in 200 year storm event would affect more than 200 people,
more than 1 critical service or more than 20 residential properties. That map identified that Loughborough would
be affected due to the presence of the River Soar, a watercourse that elevates
the city of Leicester to the 16th most likely location in the
country to suffer flooding. There is reasonable
correlation between where flooding was experienced over the aforementioned five
day period and where the PFRA predicted that it would occur. Loughborough has a history of flooding and is
ranked 69th most likely location in the country to be subjected to
flooding. Its ranking has meant funds
being made available for SWMP work as it contains around 4,200 properties at
risk of flooding from surface water.”
(C) Mrs
Loydall asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Could the Leader
please explain what action is taken when either a member or officer is found
with inappropriate material on County Council computer equipment, in breach of
Council Policy?”
Mr Rushton
replied as follows:-
“It is important
that, whenever inappropriate material is found on County Council computer
equipment in breach of Council policy, this is treated seriously.
In the case of an
officer, consideration would have to be given to disciplinary proceedings. The precise nature of the response would
depend upon the circumstances but there have been instances of staff being
dismissed for accessing inappropriate material on County Council computers.
In relation to
members, it is likely that there will be a Code of Conduct issue. Under the new arrangements within the County
Council that would be considered by the Monitoring Officer and, dependent on
the circumstances, by the Member Conduct Panel.
However, the
Government has, in my view rightly, shifted the primary responsibility for
enforcing high standards in public life away from the previous Standards regime
to the political parties themselves. The
political parties must “step up to the plate” and I am determined to do
so. The Conservative Group will treat
any such cases seriously and, where a serious penalty is appropriate, will
impose it. I hope other parties will do
the same.”
Mrs Loydall asked the following
supplementary question:-
“In the light of
the recent reports and photographs in the national press, could the Leader
reassure this Council that all due processes are followed in order to uphold
the integrity of the County Council and that the County Council’s reputation is
not tarnished by these events?”
Mr Rushton replied as follows:-
“I can assure Mrs Loydall
that so far no official complaint has been received about the member in
question. I can also reassure Mrs
Loydall that, under the fourth paragraph, the Conservative Group take this
matter most seriously and are dealing with it in a proper manner through a
procedure which has been submitted to and agreed with the Chief Executive and
the County Solicitor and I urge the Liberal Democrat Group and the Labour Group
to adopt similar procedures as soon as possible.”
(D) Mr
Charlesworth asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Would the Leader
be prepared to consider delaying the proposed sale of Aberglaslyn Hall to
enable the “Friends of Aberglaslyn Hall” or another social enterprise to
develop a business case which is satisfactory to the County Council?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“The Cabinet made a
decision to cease operating Aberglaslyn Hall from 31st March 2013
and offered suitable social enterprise groups the opportunity to make a
business case for continued operation of the service. That opportunity was explored by the Friends
of Aberglaslyn who submitted their final business case in early October
2012. After careful consideration the
Director of Corporate Resources regrettably was unable to agree that a
sufficiently robust business case had been made. Therefore, in the overall interests of the
County Council, he had no option but to agree to proceed with the sale of the
property on the basis agreed by the Cabinet.
If the closure was
delayed any further it would create uncertainty for the staff. It will of course be possible for the Friends
of Aberglaslyn to bid to buy the premises if they can raise the funds.”
Mr Charlesworth asked the following
supplementary question:-
“We managed to defer
the payment on the care homes, why can’t we apply the same principle to
Aberglaslyn?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“I am not quite
sure what Mr Charlesworth means, we have not sold it yet.”
(E) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Does
the Leader agree with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE) (which will take over the NHS responsibility for public health) that,
taking into account personal mobility, cycling and walking should be the norm
for all short journeys?
2. What
is his reaction to the call of NICE for councils to introduce bicycle-hire
schemes, car-free events and better cycle-route signalling and maps?”
Mr White replied as follows:-
“1. NHS
responsibility for public health is being transferred to local authorities in
April 2013, as required by the Health and Social Care Act, and the County
Council is widely recognised as being a national leader in managing the
transition. One of the roles of
I would agree that cycling and walking should be encouraged by the
County Council, particularly for short journeys, taking into account personal
mobility and recognising the need for people to be safe on the road or
pavement.
2. The
The County Council’s Local Transport Plan and the work that is being
carried out supported by the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) both
promote cycling and walking for short journeys.
An important part of the approach to tackling obesity is recognising
that changes to the physical environment, such as more cycle paths, are
important in helping people to follow a more active, healthy lifestyle. Personal Travel Planning advice given through
the LSTF encourages people to walk and cycle and provides information about the
options and benefits, although there is little evidence that cycle hire schemes
and car-free events have a lasting impact in more rural areas such as
Leicestershire.
For people to be more active and maintain a healthy weight there needs
to be a wide range of opportunities, not just those based on the promotion of
cycling and walking. In Leicestershire
these include the Active Together programme jointly funded by the County
Council and NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland, support for school physical
activity networks and weight management programmes.”
(F) Ms
Newton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Two big changes
are planned to come into force together in April next year: one is substantial
changes to welfare benefits, such as Housing Benefit Cuts and the closure of
the Independent Living Fund; the other is the abolition of legal aid for social
and welfare cases, along with the Legal Services Commission. Legal Aid safeguards society’s most vulnerable
and disadvantaged people, ensuring access to justice by providing advice,
information and representation to some 2 million people each year. A recent Scope report tells us that more than
half of those receiving help for welfare benefit cases are disabled people.
In the light of this, can the Leader
indicate:-
1. How
many people in Leicestershire will be affected?
2. How
many disabled people in receipt of Social Care packages will be affected?
3. Where
will those people seek and find the advice, information and representation that
previously would have been provided through Legal Aid?”
Mr Rushton
replied as follows:-
“The County Council
is working with its partners in Leicestershire Together to review the Debts and
Benefits Advice services available within Leicestershire and, more widely, the
effect of the welfare reforms on vulnerable people and families.
The findings will
inform future commissioning of services in this area and they will be available
early in 2013.
Joint work is already
happening between the County and District Councils to agree arrangements for
the Social Fund replacement and the Council Tax Hardship Fund which provide the
best package of support for people in need.
There is no
comprehensive information available on the number of people in Leicestershire
who will be affected by the changes to the Independent Living Fund and the
Legal Aid arrangements. Information
currently available on the changes and their effect is as follows:
1. Independent
Living Fund (ILF): There is a proposal that the ILF close in 2015 and there
is a consultation underway as to how this should happen and how the effects of
the closure may be mitigated. The County
Council has responded to this consultation.
There are approximately 95 people in Leicestershire who receive funds
from the ILF, all of whom also receive social care from the County Council.
2. Changes
to Welfare Benefits: These changes will begin to take effect from April
2013 and implementation will continue for the next 4-5 years. People under pension age are the primary
group to be affected. Most of the people
under pension age in receipt of social care packages will be affected by the
changes.
3. The
Legal Services Commission holds contracts for Community Legal Advice services
across the country. Various contractors
provide a particular type of legal aid service.
As from April 2013, the Legal Services Commission will no longer
contract for legal aid services covering welfare benefits, housing or
debt. Legal aid for some family services
will also cease. The availability of
Legal Aid on welfare advice is already limited in Leicestershire.
Officers will be
able to provide more detail on the impact of the various welfare changes as
further work is completed.”
(G) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Would
the Leader outline the progress made to create a Local Transport Body for this
area which would have powers of decision over major local transport schemes
from 2015?
2. Will
the County Council be acting as the Accountable Body?
3. Given
that no single authority or public body will be responsible for decisions, how
will complaints be dealt with and how will public scrutiny be conducted?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. The
Department for Transport issued guidance on the setting up of Local Transport
Bodies on 16th November. The
guidance requires the submission of a proposed governance regime by the end of
February 2013 and a list of potential major schemes by July.
The
Local Transport Body for Leicestershire will be joint with Leicester City
Council.
2&3. No
decisions have been made as to which Authority should act as the accountable
body and the arrangements for public scrutiny will be set out in the governance
regime, once it is drafted.”
(H) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Would
the Leader confirm that the option to continue or discontinue traffic through
Swan Street, Loughborough remains open?
2. When
will a final decision to operate no, one, or two way traffic through Swan
Street be made?
3. What
improvements for long suffering bus passengers will be afforded by the scheme?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. An
objective of the scheme is to remove vehicles from Swan Street and other town
centre streets. Completion of the inner
relief road will allow Swan Street at the Market Place to be closed to all
traffic except buses and service vehicles accessing this area. The option to continue or discontinue these
vehicle movements through Swan Street remains open. The Cabinet, at a meeting in 2006, resolved
that the following elements should be included in the scheme upon completion:
a one year trial of one-way bus operation through the A6 Market Place
(Option B), as shown in Appendix B of the report, with a review at the end of
that period to decide whether to revert to full pedestrianisation (Option A).
2. Upon completion of the trial, the results will be considered and a
review of bus routing arrangements will be undertaken. A decision will be made at this time.
3. The
existing waiting facilities, that in some locations are cramped, overcrowded
and without shelter, will be improved by the provision of widened footways with
modern high quality clear aspect shelters.
There will be seating, lighting and timetable information provided at
each shelter. Individual stops will be
clearly and uniquely identified and town centre key plans will be used to
ensure passengers can easily find the departure point they require. The scheme will also raise the profile and
reliability of the bus services in the town centre.”
Mr Hunt asked a supplementary question on
the reply to question 3:-
“Increasingly my
colleagues who are County Councillors in the area served by the buses to and from
Loughborough Town Centre including, no doubt, those in Kegworth, are concerned
that the bus facilities won’t be up to the standard hoped for, given that the
Town and its surrounds are still widely disappointed by the absence of a bus
station. Would the Lead Member agree to
meet with the County Councillors in the area served by those buses to discuss
in more detail what will be offered and any particular alterations she might
make in view of their views?”
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
“Yes, I would be
pleased to.”
(I) Mr
Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Given
that the number of previous injury accidents are a major determinant when
prioritising our road safety schemes, does the Leader agree that accident
counts, like many natural phenomena, follow a regression to the mean and
therefore to obtain an accurate estimate of frequency of accidents taken into
consideration should normally be rather longer than three years in order to
obtain an accurate estimate?
2. Given
that information on collisions of any severity can also predict further and
more dangerous collisions, is there a practical way of including non-serious
injury collisions or no injury collisions into the assessment?”
Mrs Pendleton
replied as follows:-
“1. Regression
to the mean is not sensibly applied to the occurrence of injury accidents at
particular sites, as it implies that there is no contribution from the
environment to the frequency of accidents and that they are completely random, which
is not the case. There is much historic
evidence that in-depth studies of accident patterns can lead to the
identification of particular environmental conditions that increase the
likelihood of accidents occurring. These
can then be identified and addressed with the impact being monitored through
on-going studies of accident frequencies at the treated site. Well-established practice nationally has
settled on three years as providing a fair representation of current
conditions, which are those to be treated.
I would be happy to arrange for Mr Hunt to discuss these issues with
officers in the Department if he so wished.
2. All
injury road traffic collisions, of whatever severity, that are reported to the
police, are recorded according to a national standard, known as STATS19. This includes full information of the
circumstances surrounding the event and all this information is made available
to investigators. Non-injury information
is not collected by the police and is therefore not available.”
(J) Ms
Newton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Quality and Outcomes
payments reward Leicestershire GPs for screening people on the severe mental
illness register for alcohol problems, raised blood pressure, obesity,
diabetes, and high cholesterol and GPs are allowed to ‘exception report’
patients who do not attend screening or who they consider unsuitable. Can the Leader indicate:
1. What
proportion of patients with severe mental illness Leicestershire GPs excluded
from screening by ‘exception reporting’?
2. What
is the highest rate of exception reporting by practice?
3. Does
the Leader consider that it is suitably motivating for GPs to be rewarded full
payments if only a proportion of their mentally ill patients have actually
attended screening?”
Mr White replied as follows:-
“1. For
patients with severe mental illness, there are a number of potential
‘screening’ outcomes that are measured.
In 2011/12, 11.6% of patients with severe mental illness were excluded from
general screening/care planning by ‘exception reporting’. For other screening outcomes exception rates
in people with serious mental illness ranged from 14% to 29.8%.
2. In
2011/12, the highest rate of exception reporting by practice in Leicestershire
for general screening/care planning was 47%.
3. I
am aware that there are a variety of reasons why some patients in primary care
with serious mental illness are excluded from screening by exception
reporting. Comparative analysis of
practice-level exception reporting must also take into account underlying
social and demographic characteristics of the populations concerned.
I am also aware that both Leicestershire Clinical Commissioning Groups
have an on-going dedicated programme of work to improve quality in primary
care. This includes regular practice visits and other forms of active
engagement with each practice in Leicestershire to reduce general rates of
‘exception reporting’ and to reduce variability in reporting between
practices.”
Ms
Newton asked a supplementary question on the reply to question 3:-
“What role does the
Health and Wellbeing Board have in ensuring that GP-led Clinical Commissioning
Groups tackle perverse incentives around the quality and outcome framework that
benefit GP practices rather than the patients?”
Mr White replied as follows:-
“I would like to
say pass but I can’t. I will make some
enquiries and write to Ms Newton in due course.”
(K) Ms
Newton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“’Let’s Break the
Cycle’ is a third sector therapeutic service which meets the unmet emotional
needs of children in North West Leicestershire who have been seriously affected
by the domestic abuse they have witnessed.
Its funding is under threat and without a change of heart from
Leicestershire County Council or another body it will fold at the end of this
financial year. In the spirit of the
‘Supporting Families’ project will the Leader please take steps to ensure that
established grassroots interventions such as ‘Let’s Break the Cycle’ are not
washed away, leaving the Council’s top-down innovation nothing of substance to
build on?”
Mr Ould replied
as follows:-
“The Supporting
Leicestershire Families service is far from ‘top down’, as it is based on the findings
from extensive work with families and with front line workers. It is also being delivered in localities to
ensure that there are effective working relationships between the Family
Support Workers and the services that families will need to help change their
lives.
The need for
specific services to be available for families is recognised in the form of the
allocation of a family commissioning budget from the pooled budget and in the
responsibilities of the Supporting Leicestershire Families Board, which include
the need to monitor the relationship between the supply of and demand for the
wider services that the families will need.
‘Let’s Break the
Cycle’ is funded from a variety of sources, including the North West
Leicestershire Domestic Abuse Forum, the Police Partnership (
The North West
Leicestershire Children and Young People’s Locality Partnership Group
commissioned the organisation in 2011 to deliver support services for young
people aged 4-11 years who had been affected by domestic abuse. The work
was originally linked to the refuge in North West Leicestershire but is no
longer.
During 2012 the
budget available to the
The Children and
Young People’s Service, together with the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board
and the Domestic Abuse Strategy Board, is currently auditing interventions
available across the County that support children and young people affected by
domestic abuse. It is intended that this
work will provide the strategic approach needed to ensure that adequate and
appropriate support is in place.”
Ms Newton asked the following supplementary
question:-
“Will the Council’s
Governance Committee assess to what extent services for children and young
people set to fight domestic abuse follow the example of Let’s Break the Cycle
in the use of innovative use of child-friendly outcome measures that assess
whether the Council’s investment is making a difference that matters in
children’s lives?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“I can’t speak on
behalf of the Governance Committee. I
can speak on behalf of the Children and Young Peoples Service and the
Supporting Families Board, and it is very clear from the answer that we have
already refocused in line with the early intervention grant and the reductions
therein.”
(L) Mr
Liquorish asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Why do children in
Leicestershire only have a ‘fair chance’ of attending a good or outstanding
school?”
Mr Ould replied
as follows:-
“I believe that her
Majesty’s Chief Inspector was mistaken when he stated that children and young
people only stand a ‘fair chance’ of attending a good or outstanding primary
school in that he restricted his analysis to the academic year 2011-12.
In fact 76% of all
primary schools are judged to be good or outstanding by Ofsted. This means that Leicestershire children stand
a good chance of attending good or outstanding schools.
To be absolutely
clear the position in Leicestershire is that 68% of primary schools inspected
in the academic year 2011-2012 were judged to be good or outstanding. This was an expected outcome for these
schools. The figure of 68% refers only
to the academic year 2011–2012. If all
primary schools are taken into account, 76% are judged to be good or
outstanding.”
(M) Mr
Pain asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"Can the
Leader please comment on the ability of County Council transportation officers
to work closely with Harborough District Council on the delivery of its
proposed Strategic Development Area to the north-west of Market Harborough and
its proposed new Local Plan and in particular to ensure that future transport
conditions in the town are clearly understood by the District Council, local people
and businesses, and that appropriate mitigation measures are secured to ensure
that traffic can still move in the town."
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
"The Strategic
Development Area (SDA) is proposed in the Harborough District Core Strategy,
for which the District Council is responsible, including preparing for and
ensuring its delivery. Transportation
officers of the County Council worked closely with District Council officers on
the development of an evidence base to underpin the Core Strategy. Transportation evidence and statements
presented to an independent inspector at an Examination in Public in Summer
2011 set out, amongst other things, what transport conditions could be like in
Market Harborough in the future both without and within the proposed SDA. In very brief summary, the evidence showed
that traffic in the town is likely to increase in any event, due to growth
elsewhere in the County and beyond (natural traffic growth). In comparison, the
impacts of the SDA are predicted to be relatively limited, albeit it is still
important to ensure that measures are put in place to mitigate those
impacts. The evidence work identified a
package of measures that should do this and, in certain circumstances, they
could also offset some of the impacts of natural traffic growth. Following
changes to reflect the outcomes of the evidence work, the Core Strategy was
adopted by the District Council in November 2011. Since then, the District Council has sought to
take forward the SDA proposals and transportation offices have provided input
to this. It is understood that the
District Council is now considering a review of its Core Strategy. The nature
and timing of the review is not clear at this time but officers of the County
Council will provide input as necessary."