Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Fraser declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5 (minute 23 refers) as a member of Unison.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2006.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Panel’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Friday 11 August at 10.00am.

It was reported that there had been three registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme on Agenda Item 5 (Confirmation of the arrangements for the In House restructure of Home Care services).

Liz Young, from Unison, addressed the committee regarding Unison’s outstanding concerns on the restructure. These concerns included the change to more variable shift pattern and the impact on home life, the removal of the Senior Home Care Assistant and Team Leader posts, and the effect on vulnerable customers.

Mr Jack Archer raised issues regarding the consultations with voluntary groups such as Age Concern. Mr Archer thanked officers for consulting with Age Concern but wanted reassurance that Age Concern would still be able to apply for funding from ward committees. Mr Archer raised questions about what support would be provided to older people who were unable to collect pensions or go shopping, and whether the Council’s scheme and Age Concern’s Neighbour Scheme would work alongside each other.

Mr James Player spoke on behalf of Age Concern. He highlighted that his primary concern was about the tendering exercise for the three locality providers, what processes were in place to monitor the contracts and that the providers selected were good reliable organisations. Mr Player also raised concerns about the impact on frail older people who would lose their regular carers.

This report advises the Executive Member of the governments mandatory requirement to conduct the three yearly tenant satisfaction survey during 2006 using a postal survey method.

Members received a report which advised the Executive Member of the governments mandatory requirement to conduct the three yearly tenant satisfaction survey during 2006 using a postal survey method.

The report advised that during 2006/7 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had made it a mandatory requirement for Local Authorities nationwide to use a postal survey methodology in conducting tenant satisfaction surveys. City of York Council had surveyed the satisfaction levels of it’s tenants, annually, via a face to face survey for the past 16 years. Unfortunately, despite appealing to the Audit Commission who were leading the tenant surveys to allow York to continue to carry out a face to face survey, which was believed to provide more qualitative data, this appeal had been denied due to the requirement for a consistent approach nationwide. There was no further opportunity for appeal. This survey would replace the Annual Housing Service Monitor during 2006/7.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for Housing be advised to note the contents of the report.

Decision of the Executive Member for Housing

Members received a report which advised the Executive Member of the governments mandatory requirement to conduct the three yearly tenant satisfaction survey during 2006 using a postal survey method.

The report advised that during 2006/7 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had made it a mandatory requirement for Local Authorities nationwide to use a postal survey methodology in conducting tenant satisfaction surveys. City of York Council had surveyed the satisfaction levels of it’s tenants, annually, via a face to face survey for the past 16 years. Unfortunately, despite appealing to the Audit Commission who were leading the tenant surveys to allow York to continue to carry out a face to face survey, which was believed to provide more qualitative data, this appeal had been denied due to the requirement for a consistent approach nationwide. There was no further opportunity for appeal. This survey would replace the Annual Housing Service Monitor during 2006/7.

Members expressed their disappointment that the Audit Commission had denied the appeal to continue the surveys face to face and stated that a more qualitative response was received face to face.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for Housing be advised to note the contents of the report.

Decision of the Executive Member for Housing

This report informs the Executive Member on the progress of the review of the In House home care service. The Executive Member agreed in June 2006 to receive a further report which detailed the consultation process with staff on the proposed restructure and contractual changes that have taken place with staff following that report.

Members received a report which informed the Executive Member on the progress of the review of the In House home care service. The Executive Member agreed in June 2006 to receive a further report which detailed the consultation process with staff on the proposed restructure and contractual changes that have taken place with staff following that report.

The report advised that a number of concerns were raised through the consultation which were summarised in a table under paragraph 21.2 along with the management’s response.

Two options were presented to Members:

Option1 – To endorse the proposals as laid out in the report.

Option 2 – To retain services in their current structures.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for Adult Social Services be advised to approve the proposal to establish the revised home care structure as described within the report.

Decision of the Executive Member for Adult Social Services

Members received a report which informed the Executive Member on the progress of the review of the In House home care service. The Executive Member agreed in June 2006 to receive a further report which detailed the consultation process with staff on the proposed restructure and contractual changes that have taken place with staff following that report. The report submitted to the Executive Member in June included a financial appraisal of the Review of Home Care Services.  Part of the review included the decision to award Locality Service Contracts to the Independent Sector.  A tendering exercise had been completed to identify the three locality providers. 

The report advised that a number of concerns were raised through the consultation which were summarised in a table under paragraph 21.2 along with the management’s response.

Two options were presented to Members:

Option1 – To endorse the proposals as laid out in the report.

Option 2 – To retain services in their current structures.

Officers updated Members that the Locality Service Contracts had not been awarded yet but that the tender documents were in and it was expected that the tenders would be well within the financial appraisal.

In response to some of the questions raised by the speakers, officers reported that there would not be an increase in the hours provided by the independent sector but the proportion would actually drop slightly. Officers further reported that there would be three main providers which had a good track record and there would be consistent quality control. 

Officers also confirmed that the in house service would complement Age Concern’s services and it would assist customers in relation to tasks such as shopping, collecting pensions and paying bills.

Members queried whether there would be a review of the contracts and whether a report would be brought back to members once the consultation period had been completed. Officers reported that the start date would be around November/December and agreed to bring a report back six months after implementation.

Members queried what work was being done to relieve customer anxieties. Officers reported that once staffing arrangements had been confirmed,  detailed work would be carried out regarding implications for customers. Officers were working with customers to ensure awareness of the implications and the changes that would occur for some of them.

The Executive Member for Adult Social Services thanked staff, officers and customers for their forbearance with the consultation and highlighted the need for a service that was fit for the future and purpose. She assured the speakers that officers would be looking very carefully at the contracts to ensure that the customers did not have different carers from one week to the next, and recognised that customers liked continuity.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member for Adult Social Services be advised to approve the proposal to establish the revised home care structure as described within the report.

Decision of the Executive Member for Adult Social Services