English|
In this section
|
10 October 2007: Trustees MeetingMinutes of the meeting of the Trustees of the Independent Living Fund (2006) held on Wednesday, 10 October 2007. The meeting commenced at 10.30 am
Present: Stephen Jack (Chairman)
In attendance: Gary Stephenson (Finance and Corporate Services Director) The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1 Apologies Apologies were received from Barry Robinson (DWP) who was unable to be present at the meeting due to other work commitments. 1.1 Conflicts of Interest and or Loyalty on Agenda Trustees were asked if they had identified any area on the agenda where there was an actual or potential perceived conflict of interest or loyalty. All Trustees confirmed that no issues had been identified.
The minutes of the 2006 Fund meeting held on 12 September 2007, with a minor amendment, were approved by the Trustees and signed by the Chairman at the end of the meeting. 3 Matters Arising 3.1 2006 Trust Deed/COGA/Management Statement The Chairman commented that all documents had now been signed. However it was still planned to revisit these, as there were still some issues to be discussed further. Norman Cockett (DWP) thanked everyone for their help in getting the documents signed. Trustees agreed to sign the resolution to confirm the decision taken outside of a formal meeting to accept the 12 September 2007 version of the 2006 Deed. Outcome: Information 4 Outstanding Action Points
The Chief Executive updated Trustees on the outstanding action points. Outcome: Information 5 Chairman’s Issues The Chairman thanked Trustees for their continued commitment over the last few months with the heavy workload. He said that the Minister for Disabled People had agreed in principle to remunerate Trustees. However, there were some legal issues to resolve. He said he would like the effective date to be 1 October 2007 even if the arrangements take longer before payments actually commence. The Chairman outlined that the training needs for Trustees had been discussed with the Chief Executive. It was proposed to set up a series of workshops on a range of topics after Trustees’ meetings. They would possibly start March/April 2008. The Chairman said that he and the Chief Executive had met Norman Cockett (DWP) on 1 October 2007 to follow up on the feedback received at the September Trustees’ meeting. The October discussion had been very constructive as there was still an opportunity to approach HMT on the settlement figures. The Chairman invited Norman Cockett (DWP) to explain the announcement of a review of social care policy in the Pre Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Review Statement 2007 on 9 October.He quoted from the Treasury website which said the Government thought there was a need for change to the care and support system for older people. The Government thought there was an opportunity to replace the current systems with a "new offer" focusing on services to users and placing the individual at the centre of these systems. The website said the government intended to develop a reform strategy and would set out in the New year a process of public engagement leading to a consultation paper. Nick Danagher commented that this review was consistent with the Strategy Unit Improving Life Chances report and a key aspect would be the emphasis given to the social care agenda compared to Health and Education. Margaret McGlade commented that the view of the Community Care Alliance was that the current arrangements are not sustainable with LAs squeezed and potential users negatively affected. With changing demographics a new look to social care was inevitable. 6 Finance Details of the discussion are at Appendix 1 7 Governance 7.1 Proposal to DWP on arrangements for transfer of operations to 2006 Fund The Finance and Corporate Services Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that a request had been made to DWP for the Specified period for the 1993 and Extension Funds to be brought to an end on 30 September 2007. Operational changes had been made from 1 October and Users had been informed. Although it was hoped that all assets and liabilities had been transferred by 31 December 2007 there were a number of legal, accounting and audit issues to be resolved.
Chris Saul explained that there was a need for an indemnity for the Extension/1993 Fund Trustees for liability that may arise in connection with the 1993/Ext Funds to meet liabilities from the 2006 Fund assets. The Finance and Corporate Services Director said that he would keep Trustees updated on the process. Outcome: Information 7.2 Trustees Powers
The Chief Executive said that this suite of documents met the Cabinet Office requirements on Code of Practice for NDPB Board members. She said that the Standing Orders, Conflict of Interest Policy, Code of Conduct and Role Descriptions had been updated and revised in line with the new 2006 Deed. The final document relating to the Scheme of Delegated Authority would be presented at the November meeting. 7.3 Revised Trustees Standing Orders Trustees discussed the paper. It was agreed to show that minutes are published on the website and need to address security of electronic documents identified. Para 22 was also to be amended. Outcome: Decision - With minor amendments Trustees ratified the Standing Orders Arrangements 7.4 Revised Conflicts Of Interest Policy The Chief Executive said that the Register of Interests form would need completing and returned as soon as possible.
Outcome: Decision - Trustees ratified the policy. 7.5 Revised Code of Conduct Outcome: Decision - Trustees ratified the code of conduct. 7.6 Revised Role Descriptions Outcome: Decision - Trustees ratified the role descriptions. 8 Strategy 8.1 ILF Review Issues Log The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees. She explained that the log had been updated but needs possible revision to the format for the future after discussion with DWP. 8.2 Review Recommendation 7 The Business Development Director presented the paper to Trustees. He said that the recommendation related to Ethnicity of Users and that the Review found that 4.9% of ILF recipients were from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups and also noted that data was unavailable in 37.8% of cases. He said there was also concern over comments made that BME users were ‘barred’ from applying to the ILF or were limited in the support they receive and this message was also echoed in an article in the Journal of Integrated Care on 4 August from the Reviewers. He commented that current data shows that 8.11% of users are from BME groups and that there has been a 70% response rate from users. He therefore perceives that there is no problem with access and our statistics are good in comparison with the Census. He said that there was an ongoing programme of work to ensure the organisation is accessible to all community and faith groups. In answer to a question the Business Development Director said that all Users had been asked twice for this information and that the response rate was very healthy compared to the Census. It was explained that the information was not collected by the ILFAs as Users may feel inhibited and pressurised to provide the information, however further work was being carried out to further improve the collection of this data. He said that he hoped to engage with DWP analysts to test our data so that there is an independent assessment of our findings and will keep Trustees updated. Trustees agreed the need to refute the data of the Reviewers if it was found to be incorrect. Outcome: Information 8.3 Recommendation 24 The Business Development Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that this Review recommendation stated the ILF should re-consider its review of literature. He explained that the review of literature was being undertaken at the same time as the Review consultation exercise. As previously explained, there was a major programme of consultation on the new literature and a recent survey of all Users had received a positive response. In answer to a question the Business Development Director said that individual replies had been given to users who had requested specific help e.g. the need for literature in Braille. The Fund considered that no further specific action was needed to address the recommendation and that further work would be addressed through normal business. It was proposed to Trustees that this recommendation was now considered cleared. Outcome: Decision -Trustees agreed to treat the recommendation as cleared. 8.4 Review Recommendation 25 The Chief Executive commented that this was a very early scoping paper outlining an 8 week turnaround project to improve the time taken from the date of receiving a new application to the date of reaching a decision for support. The organisation has been working on this project for some time, however further work depends on business priorities and budget pressures. It was planned to present an overview of progress on the organisation’s efficiency at the November Trustees’ meeting. Outcome: Information 8.5 Review Recommendation 47 and 48 The Business Development Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that there had always been sharing protocols in place with LA’s. Following the publication of the Review the ILF consulted LAs in June 2007, and the results were that 88% of LAs were satisfied with the information provided by the ILF. Of those who expressed dissatisfaction there were no emerging patterns as it related to very specific one off requests eg an LA asking for the names of those who had applied. It was planned to provide each LA contact Officer with a list of the type of information regularly made available and on specific request. As customised links were a specific part of the LA strategy, it was considered that these recommendations were cleared. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed the Review recommendations 47 and 48 should be treated as cleared. 8.6 LSH The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees. She said it provided an update on applications from former residents of Long Stay Hospitals. Trustees agreed the proposal that this paper should be discontinued. Outcome: Information 9 Policies 9.1 Ratification of Policy Synopsis 2 The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees. As this had been agreed outside the formal meeting structure Trustees agreed to sign the resolution after the meeting. Outcome: Chief Executive to respond to queries raised in Policy Synopsis 2 list 9.2 Update on Policies discussed 12 September The Chief Executive updated Trustees on policies discussed at 12 September meeting where queries were raised. It was explained that extra wording had been added to the Ex-gratia policy to show that loss of income was an acceptable element of financial loss; the Qualifying Support Services policy had been amended to reflect inclusion of day centres, and the explanation on overpayments in the DLA/AA appeals policy had now been resolved with DWP with no change being made to the policy. Outcome: Decision -Trustees noted the amendments and ratified the policies on ex gratia, QSS and DLA/AA appeals. 9.3 Available Income The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. She explained that this was a policy position based on the current Conditions Of Grant Agreement agreed on 12 September. She said that a project was being formalised to look at Available Income (AI) strategically in line with DWP’s preferred position that contribution of AI should be a precondition of ILF payment. However the policy proposed has an expectation not precondition that all candidates will make a contribution towards their care costs and the ILF award has been calculated to take that contribution into account. Also new requests from the LA to pay the contribution or agree to cost unpaid care, as an equivalent contribution would not be met.
Counsel had suggested that the policy make it clear that any exception only applied for the duration of the award. Any new application should not have the expectation that a further exception would be automatically agreed. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed to accept the policy as a starting position pending further discussion as the AI project progresses. 9.4 Group 5 Candidates The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. She explained that the new Trust Deed gives Trustees the power to pay a user a retainer payment or a payment for care to be provided during hospital or respite periods. She gave an overview of the new policy and said that the monetary impact would be carefully monitored. Outcome: Trustees approved the policy on Group 5 Candidates. 9.5 Independent Living The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. She said that the new Trust Deed introduced a new definition of independent living. She said that the policy had been introduced to reflect the questions of degree of choice and control in the area of accommodation and care provision. If any issues arise, ILFAs are required to report to the Social Work Co-ordinators in Nottingham who would look at the scenarios and make appropriate decisions. Outcome: Trustees approved the policy. 9.6 Regular and Ongoing Local Authority Input The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees which had been previously circulated by E- mail on 30 September. She gave an overview of the policy and commented that any exceptional cases would be referred to the UPCC. Outcome: Trustees approved the policy. 10 Performance 10.1 User Agreement The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees. She said that it provided an update on the implementation of the new User Agreement which was introduced in February 2007. Assessment of the impact would be kept under regular review and a further report would be made after the end of the business year. Outcome: Information 11 AOB 11.1 HR Committee The Chairman of the HR Committee said she would be confirming dates for their first committee meeting with members today. 11.2 Date of Next Meeting The date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 28 November 2007. The Minister for Disabled People, Anne McGuire, will be attending this meeting from 10.30 am to 11.30 am to discuss the budget and Review recommendations. There being no further business the meeting finished at 14:00 hrs.
6. Finance 6.1 Grant in Aid and Benefit Forecast The Finance and Corporate Services Director explained that as was reported at last months meeting Treasury have agreed the request for extra funding for 2007/08 of £12.6m. He explained that at the moment the funds are within budget. He explained that the projected cash carried forward at March 2008 would be around £2 million but the changing funding arrangements to DEL (Departmental Expenditure Limit) meant that monies available at year end March 2008 under Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) couldn’t be carried over to DEL. The Chairman commented that 08/09 would be another difficult year as Treasury have restricted the level of funding based on the original forecast as at December 2006 which was clearly considerably lower than projections based on actual trends in 07/08. The Finance and Corporate Services Director said that three different scenarios had been discussed at the workshop on 9 October on options to manage funding for 08/09 based on £308m of which £9m was allocated for administration leaving £299 million for user expenditure. It was explained that all the scenarios were based on a starting commitment at March 2008 based on 19,500 users with an average payment per week £300 equating to £304.2m. With the usual attrition rate of 8% the Fund expected to reduce from 19,500 to 17,570 over the year requiring £288.5m. The current forecast for growth in new awards is 65 per week.
A graphic of the 3 scenarios is attached. There will be no funding to address Review recommendations with significant cost but Trustees could implement those Review recommendations at very low cost e.g. student loan changes. This scenario focuses on new cases as a priority and would mean freezing current awards of existing users i.e. no adjustments for change of circumstances, reviews etc. The capacity for new applications was much reduced as the £10.5million available would equate to approximately 1300 cases per year (25 per week). Scenario 2 This scenario builds on Trustees maintaining their position of giving current users priority. Increases in awards for current uses would amount to £6.9m. Increasing the Threshold sum to £320 would reduce projected expenditure by approx £2m.
There would be some money (£2.5 million) to enable the Review recommendation relating to employer “on costs” for recruitment and health and safety training and to meet parenting costs.
The Chairman said that this action was harsh with negative PR for the Fund and obvious problems for LA’s. Norman Cockett (DWP) said that the issue was where the ILF wants to be in three years time. In the wording of the Trust Deed ILF’s original purpose was a top up to Social Services; however because of the way the ILF has evolved it now served a “middle” group of disabled people. Scenario 3 This scenario outlines potential extra funding of approximately £9 million. The Chairman commented that with the extra funding the Trustees could implement the lower cost Review recommendations on recruitment costs and parenting, allow for increases in awards to current users and still take on some new applicants at a rate of 29 per week which, although much reduced from current rates did represent a meaningful figure. The Chairman said that Trustees had agreed that, if Treasury were not prepared to agree to the extra funding then Trustees would wish to go forward with scenario 2.
Trustees then discussed the separate consideration of an increase in the Threshold sum to bring it in line with inflation since 1993.
The Finance and Corporate Services Director commented that the number of users potentially affected when the Threshold sum was increased varies with the level of increase e.g. if the Threshold sum was raised to £320 about one half of our users would be impacted when they made an increase request. If the Threshold Sum was raised to £220 this would only affect 5% of users. The Chairman commented that by raising the threshold sum to £320 would allow a further £2 million to be available to fund increases in awards and/or some lower cost Review recommendations. The Chairman said that immediate renegotiation would also have significant consequences administratively.
The Chief Executive commented that it might be worth exploring the some form of planning agreement with LAs in how we work out the volume. Norman Cockett said this concept was worth exploring, as the ILF would be operating in a restricted funding environment. The Chief Executive explained that 08/09 was the difficult year, 09/10 estimated that take on of 35 new awards a week and around 50 awards a week in 10/11. Norman Cockett (DWP) said he understood that the first year was critical. A further option to have sufficient money to at least allow a rate of applications to match the attrition rate was discussed The Finance and Corporate Services Director reported that to keep the level of new awards from applications at 40 per week an extra £13/14m i.e. £ 322 million would be needed for 08/09. Norman Cockett (DWP) agreed to go back to Treasury to argue their case for extra funding for 08/09 and would need strong evidence of the impacts for ILF users and external stakeholders. The Chairman reiterated that the relationship with LA’s would suffer if new applications to the Fund ceased and the ILF would not be able to carry out even the lower cost Review recommendations. Norman Cockett (DWP) said that he had a meeting arranged with the Minister for Disabled people after the meeting and would take forward the issues discussed .He would report to the Chairman after the discussion. The Chairman said that the ILF would let DWP have a list of the points/ issues to discuss with Treasury. He said that the ILF would appreciate a timetable to work to, as Trustees would need to know the position as soon as possible as preparations needed to be made to move forward with their preferred scenario 2. Norman Cockett (DWP) said that appreciated that Trustees would need a decision as soon as possible. He said he could report back to Trustees by the end of the week on his discussion with the Minister and on his discussions with Treasury the following week.
|
 |
