Issue - meetings

Changes to The Taxi Card Scheme

Meeting: 12/09/2013 - Cabinet (Item 689)

689 Concessionary Travel - Changes to the Taxicard Scheme - Reference from the Call-in Sub-Committee meeting held on 5 August 2013 pdf icon PDF 53 KB

Reference from the Call-in Sub-Committee meeting held on 5 August 2013.

Minutes:

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member asked what actions had been taken in regard to the Statement made by the Chairman of the Call-in Sub?Committee that the changes not be implemented until the Scheme users had been made aware of alternative arrangements with other transport providers, particularly in respect of transport for doctor and hospital appointments.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Adults Social Care, Health and Wellbeing replied that, within her wider remit, she was seeking meeting(s) with the hospital Chief Executive(s) to address aspects of this issue.

 

The Leader of the Council agreed to provide the Member with a written response on the actions taken in response to the Statement.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Statement, by the Call-in Sub-Committee Chairman, as set out in the reference report, be noted and that a response be provided on the actions taken.

Reason for Decision:  To identify actions taken.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

 

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.


Meeting: 05/08/2013 - Call-In Sub-Committee (Item 52)

52 Call-in of Cabinet Decision (18 July 2013) - Concessionary Travel - Changes to the Taxicard Scheme pdf icon PDF 53 KB

The following documents are attached:-

 

a)     Notice invoking the Call-in

 

b)     Draft Minute Extract of the Cabinet meeting held on 18 July 2013

 

c)      Report submitted to Cabinet on 18 July 2013

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee received papers in respect of a call-in notice submitted by over 150 members of the public.

 

The Chairman invited the representative of the signatories, Ms Angela Dias, to present the reasons for the call-in of the decision to the Sub-Committee.

 

Ms Dias explained that the action was disproportionate in that it would have an enormous impact on some lives, and particularly for those with complex needs who were unable to use public transport, regardless of discounts and passes available to them.  For people without family and friends to assist and support them it would mean the difference between being totally housebound and isolated, and being able to socialise and partake in ‘normal’ activities enjoyed by people without disabilities.  She also believed there was a potential human rights challenge, in that the right to participate in community life would be compromised.

 

She added that disabled people were already suffering cuts in services and benefits, and that this action compounded the hardship and distress being experienced by a vulnerable sector of the community.  Changes to the scheme would achieve minimal savings but at great cost to the quality of life of disabled people. 

 

Avril Coombs and Maureen McGrath made additional points:

 

·                     disabled people, often on low incomes, have higher expenses in carrying out normal activities;

 

·                     40 trips amounts to 20 trips in total as each outing will require a return journey;

 

·                     disabled people are already seriously disadvantaged in their lives and support should not be reduced.

 

Councillor Idaikkadar stated that while he was deeply sympathetic to the needs of service users, it was imperative to balance the Council’s budget.   He added that he had experience of disability in his own family and understood the impact the decision would have, but savings in this area were preferable to cuts in other services.  In reviewing the service, Cabinet had looked at practice in other boroughs and had decided to remove the subsidy, rather than lose the service altogether.  They had also analysed the available data, which demonstrated that 15% of scheme users would be adversely impacted, as not all users exceeded the proposed allowance.  He acknowledged that the service could be improved, and had asked officers to meet with London Councils to discuss this.  He was happy to liaise with Harrow Association of Disabled People (HAD) to look at issues raised.

 

He noted that disabled residents had recourse to other support, such as personal budgets, in managing their needs.  He commented that Cabinet had included transitional arrangements in their decision, and while they had taken no comfort in deciding on these changes, it was the right decision at this time.

 

Members discussed the points raised, and requested clarification on the following points:

 

·                     were there alternative income streams (e.g. interest on the underspend) which could fund the shortfall?;

 

·                     if alternative methods of transport were available for scheme members, how were these publicised and promoted?.

 

Members noted that interest accruing from an underspend would be available only in the short term and was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52


Meeting: 18/07/2013 - Cabinet (Item 676)

676 Concessionary Travel - Changes to the Taxicard Scheme pdf icon PDF 168 KB

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That

 

(1)               the scheme changes as recommended by officers in the body of the report, namely the adoption of Option (2), a maximum of 40 trips per annum for all users with effect from 1 October 2013 be agreed;

 

(2)               the scheduled review of all existing members during 2013/14 be noted;

 

(3)               it be noted that officers would be liaising with London Councils regarding the issues raised by users and HAD regarding the operation of the Taxicard Scheme;

 

(4)               the implementation of additional trips on top of the new scheme allowance for the period 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014 to support phasing from current scheme into new scheme be agreed; however

 

(i)                 for those users who were previously allocated 104 trips, an additional allocation of 20 trips for the year 2013/14 only for the period 1 October 2013 until 31 March 2014, be agreed so long as no more than 52 trips had been used by 30 September 2014, otherwise scheme holders would be given the balance of 72 trips minus their trip usage to 30 September 2013;

 

(ii)               for those users who were previously allocated 52 trips, an additional allocation of 20 trips for the year 2013/14 only for the period 1 October 2013 until 31 March 2014, so long as no more than 26 trips had been used by 30 September 2013, otherwise scheme holders would be given the balance of 46 trips minus their trip usage to 30 September 2013.

 

(5)               resolution (4) above would provide transitional arrangements and would ensure that all scheme members had at least some trips for the rest of the year and specifically to use during the winter months when bad weather and lack of transport facilities could lead to unnecessary isolation.

 

Reason for Decision:  The changes proposed to the Taxicard Scheme had been shaped as a result of feedback from a wide consultation with residents and users of the Taxicard Scheme.  Feedback from the consultation had influenced both the proposals that have been put to Cabinet for consideration and the Equality Impact Assessment showing the impacts of these changes. 

 

To implement the changes to the Taxicard on 1 October 2013 and provide transitional arrangements. 

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

 

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

Minutes:

Cabinet considered a report of the Corporate Director of Resources, which set out proposed changes to the Taxicard Scheme as a result of the need to make savings to balance the Council’s budget for the next financial year.  The report showed how feedback from the consultation had shaped the changes put forward.

 

The Leader of the Council, in his capacity as Portfolio Holder for Finance, stated that it was with a ‘heavy heart’ that he was introducing this report, which had been due to the need to eliminate a budget gap.  However, the Council had to make difficult decisions and the proposal to reduce the Taxi Card scheme trip to 40 for all Members with effect from October 2013 was being proposed to make a saving of £200,000.

 

The Leader added that a comprehensive consultation exercise had been undertaken and the feedback received had been carefully analysed.  The consultation had provided three options:

 

·                     an increase in the contribution to £5.00 for every individual trip a member of the Taxicard scheme took representing an increase of £2.50;

 

·                     a reduction in all trips to 40 a year;

 

·                     a combination of the two options above.

 

It was noted that users had, overwhelmingly, chosen the option of having the trips reduced to 40.  The Leader added that he was mindful of the impact of the proposals, as he was aware that there were approximately 450 users who currently had been allocated 104 trips per annum, rather than the usual 52 because they had no other travel concessions, who might be severely affected by the introduction of these changes mid-year when they may already have used more than the new allowance of 40 trips by the time of implementation.  As a result, he proposed an additional recommendation, which was duly seconded by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, which would provide transitional arrangements for users.

 

The Leader of the Council informed Members that the consultation had also brought to attention the many failings with the existing providers and it was intended to lobby London Councils in this regard.  A meeting date had been agreed where Officers, Members and representatives from Harrow Association of Disabled (HAD) people would put forward the findings with a view to ensuring a better service or the procurement of different contractors in the future.

 

In response to questions from the Portfolio Holders for Environment and Community Safety and Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing, the Leader agreed that the role of the NHS in this area needed to be investigated though the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Board.  The Leader also responded to additional questions from the non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members about the Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) which he was satisfied with, including that the consultation, which had received a high number of responses, had been thorough and inclusive.  He added that the Council needed to save money and a way of achieving this was by providing efficient services.  A non-voting non-Executive Member was pleased with the mitigation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 676