Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed the representative from Harrow Primary Care Trust.

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2009 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2009 be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

·                     The wording of minute 599, paragraph 8, second sentence, be changed to read: “She recommended that the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Services provide an update to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in Spring in order to reassess the situation”.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8.

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 9.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received.

(if any).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no references.

Verbal report by the Acting Director of Development & System Management for NHS Harrow.

A representative for Harrow Primary Care Trust (PCT) provided a verbal update on the future configuration of healthcare services in East Harrow.  The PCT representative informed the Committee that in November 2008 Harrow PCT had published its Primary and Community Care Strategy which outlined plans to transform primary and community care services.  The vision was to improve choice, quality and access for patients across borough, although East Harrow had been identified as a priority area.  The proposed new model of healthcare was to be based on a polysystem hub and spoke model, with one central Community Health Centre (hub) supported by two GP-led Health Centres (spokes). Mollison Way Health Centre had already been identified as a suitable GP-led Health Centre, providing services from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, seven days a week.  The contract was expected to be mobilised in December 2009.  In deciding upon the site to act as the hub of the polyclinic system, Belmont Health Centre had been identified as the most appropriate option.  Consultation was due to take place to help identify the most appropriate location to place a second GP-led Health Centre.  The two proposed options identified were Honeypot Lane Clinic and Kenmore Clinic.  Bacon Lane Surgery had initially been identified as a possible site, but such plans were no longer considered viable due to planning restrictions, a lack of parking and its border location.

The Committee was informed that the public consultation on the proposed polysystem had initially been scheduled to commence on 1 October 2009.  However, due to the financial challenges facing the NHS, the consultation had been pulled back.  However, it was hoped that consultation would still commence in 2009. In concluding, the PCT representative informed the Committee that the proposed polysystem was in line with Healthcare for London’s vision to increase the services offered by primary care providers.  The ambition was to have up to 60% of healthcare provided in a primary care setting.

A Member requested that the difference between a polysystem and a Polyclinic be explained.  The PCT representative informed Members that a polysystem referred to a model of care that had a central Polyclinic at its centre, supported by GP-led Health Centres.  The central Polyclinic, often referred to as a Community Health Centre, offered additional services typically found in hospitals that could be utilised by the GP-led Health Centres.  Such a system ensured that patients had quick access to services with no requirement to visit a hospital.

A Member queried whether the ambition to have up to 60% of health care provided in a primary care setting meant that the quality of the service would decline.  The PCT representative assured the Committee that the PCT was working closely with GPs to ensure that they had the opportunity to raise concerns.  In addition, he informed Members that the PCT was working with Northwick Park Hospital to ensure that hospital consultants would regularly oversee the provision of certain services.  The PCT representative added that Belmont Health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 613.

Verbal report by the Supporting People Team Manager.

The Chairman informed Members that at the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 September 2009, Members had raised concern over the level of training received by Care UK staff.  The issue had come to light during consideration of Adult Services’ Annual Complaint Report and, in order to clarify the situation, an officer had been invited to attend the meeting to provide a verbal report and answer questions.

The officer informed the Committee that the data included in the complaints report had been for the period 2008/09.  More recent data indicated that complaints against Care UK were declining, with only 22 complaints received in quarter 4 of 2008/09 and 21 complaints received in quarter 1 of 2009/10.  This was down from 64 complaints in quarter 3 of 2008/09 and indicated a significant and sustained improvement.  The officer added that although all complaints were taken seriously, Care UK undertook approximately 30,000 visits per quarter and, in this context, 21 complaints were within expected levels and indicated a functioning complaints system.  The officer added that all health care providers worked to Council targets and that performance was monitored.

In regards to staff training, the officer reported that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulated care providers in the UK, including Care UK.  All staff members received full training and were subject to CRB checks.  Staff records were also carefully monitored.  Members were informed that less experienced staff were regularly supervised and that refresher training was provided when necessary.  When recruiting, Care UK did not insist on formal qualifications, but individuals were expected to demonstrate a high level of competency and provide adequate references.  Once employed, new staff members were required to study towards a formal care related qualification.

The officer informed the Committee that all care agencies were required to submit regular operational reports to the Council and that a robust quality assurance system was in place.  In addition, Age Concern Harrow carried out a survey every 6 months to monitor the experiences of care users and the data indicated that, overall, the service offered by Care UK was of a high quality.

A Member asked how much training individuals received and whether the results of CRB checks were obtained prior to deployment.  The officer stated that training typically lasted two weeks and that newly trained staff were closely monitored to ensure that they were suitable for the role.  The individual training records of staff were monitored by Care UK although these were regularly checked by CQC.  The officer stated that, to the best of his knowledge, CRB checks were carried out on all staff before they were deployed.  A Member queried how background checks were conducted on individuals that had only recently arrived in the UK.  The officer stated that whilst he could confirm that CRB checks were carried out on all staff, he would need to clarify the situation in regards to recent arrivals to the UK.  It was agreed that he would investigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 614.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment.

An officer introduced the report and informed Members that under s.349 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Council had an obligation to prepare and publish a Gambling Policy.  He explained that the draft policy had been under consultation and had since been considered and approved by the Licensing and General Purposes Committee on 7 September 2009.  The Policy was now awaiting approval by Council before being implemented.  As a statutory policy, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was required to consider the Gambling Policy and, if necessary, make comments.

A Member queried whether the new Gambling Policy would mean that Harrow would never have a casino.  The officer informed the Committee that central government ultimately determined where casino licences could be granted, although local authorities were able to impose their own restrictions.  He explained that following public consultation, the Council had resolved in December 2006 not to issue casino premises licences pursuant to s.166 of the Gambing Act 2005.  The new Gambling Policy, if approved by Council, would result in the same resolution continuing for a further three years.  However, the officer explained that a premises could still apply for an ‘occasional licence’ which would allow the venue to, in effect, operate as a casino on a temporary basis.  The Council was unable to block such applications, although the primary use of the venue applying would be considered.  In response to a question concerning the possibility of holding a charity casino, the officer explained that the legality of such an event would depend on the prizes and payouts being offered.

A Member asked whether the Council was able to prevent arcades being established in close proximity to places of worship.  The officer explained that though planning laws could be invoked, it was difficult to prevent such establishments setting up.  A Member asked how the Council ensured that arcades in the borough operated responsibly.  The officer explained that the Council worked closely with trading standards but that, on the whole, the establishments were well managed and the Council rarely had to take enforcement action.

Members noted that response to the consultation had been limited and questioned how well the consultation exercise had been publicised.  The officer informed the Committee that the Council had followed Government guidelines and that the consultation document was sent to all regulated premises, resident associations and individuals that had made complaints against licensed premises.  In addition, the consultation had been advertised on the Council’s website.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Which the Chairman has decided is urgent and cannot otherwise be dealt with.

(i)                   Use of the Call-in Sub-Committee

In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, this item was admitted late to the agenda to allow Members to be briefed on the recent use of the Call-in Sub-Committee.  This item had not been available at the time the agenda was dispatched and circulated.

A Member informed the Committee that UNISON had recently approached the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding a decision due to be taken by the Portfolio Holder for Performance, Communication and Corporate Services. UNISON were unhappy with the recommendation that had been made to the Portfolio Holder and had requested that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider the matter.  On the advice of officers, the Chairman had recommended that UNISON make use of the Council’s Call-in Sub-committee as the only practicable option available through the scrutiny process with regard to the particular concerns raised.  The Member stated that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should have had an opportunity to consider the issue before it was made and that Call-in should not have been used as an alternative.  She recommended that a letter be sent to Portfolio Holders and Corporate Directors in order to highlight the way in which the Scrutiny could aid the decision making process.

A number of Members commented that it would be difficult to regularly convene meetings or Challenge Panels at short notice in order to consider unexpected issues.  A Member added that, whilst it was not practical to hold a meeting to consider every decision due to be made by the executive, he was concerned by the way in which UNISON had used a public call-in to challenge a decision that would have little impact on residents.

An officer stated that the Scrutiny Department would closely monitor the forward plan in order to highlight upcoming key issues and, when necessary, advise the Chairman and Vice-Chairman that these should be considered for inclusion on agendas for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

RESOLVED:  That the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee write to Portfolio Holders and Corporate Directors to provide a reminder on the way in which Scrutiny could aid the decision making process.