English|
In this section
|
12 March 2008: Trustees MeetingMinutes of the meeting of the Trustees of the Independent Living Fund (2006) held on Wednesday, 12 March 2008.
The meeting commenced at 10.30 am
In attendance: Gary Stephenson (Finance and Corporate Services Director) The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1 Apologies None. 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 meeting held on 13 February 2008, with minor amendments, were approved by the Trustees and signed by the Chairman at the end of the meeting. 3 Matters Arising The distribution of the note on close relative cases to all Trustees was noted. 4 Chairman’s Issues The Chairman asked whether Norman Cockett (DWP) could provide any further detail on the Review of Social Care outlined at the February meeting. Norman Cockett (DWP) said that more detail would be available after Easter but the Trustees’ wishes to be involved in future discussions had been noted. Outcome: Information 5 Outstanding Action Points The Chief Executive explained that the lease for the ILF offices would be signed after the meeting. She explained that several of the outstanding items were being discussed later on the agenda. An update was provided on DWP and joint ILF/DWP outstanding points. In response to a question from the Chairman on the Deeds of Assignment for the 2006 Trust, the Finance and Corporate Services Director said that the documents were available for signing at the end of the meeting. Outcome: Information
6 Finance 6.1 Grant in Aid and Benefit Forecast The Finance and Corporate Services Director presented the report to Trustees. He said that expenditure was expected to remain in budget for 2007/08 with an anticipated year end cash balance of £5.1m. At a meeting with DWP WEEG Finance Group on 3 March it was clarified that this sum was part of working cash management but the ILF could not use any of the cash carried forward as part of the planned expenditure for 2008/09. He explained that since the end of January there had been an average of 135 applications per week compared to 100 from October to mid December although the load and payment charts showed the anticipated slow down in rate of new awards from October 2008 when the application management policies would begin to take effect. He said that Northern Ireland (NI) forecasts had been adjusted to reflect the recent policy decision by DSD (NI) that the same policies agreed for GB on Threshold Sum and prioritisation would now also apply to NI applications. However, due to time delays, NI changes are expected to apply from 1 July 2008 so the assumption for impact on forecasts is from December 2008 / January 2009. The Finance and Corporate Services Director gave Trustees an update on the 3 March meeting with DWP WWEG Finance Group which covered the future financial management under DEL. He said that there would be an annual process of review of forecasts against HM Treasury guidance and requirements and consideration by DWP of any ILF End of Year Flexibility request. DWP Finance had made a statement that reviews of the level of ILF funding might take place if there were particular financial pressures within government. Norman Cockett (DWP) said that he had informed WEEG Finance that the ILF’s expenditure programme was protected for the 3 years already notified (2008 to 2011 inclusive). Trustees agreed that it was still their intention to go ahead with earlier proposals to give priority, after those in work, to applications from those on IS, Income based JSA or Pension Guarantee Credit or those on a similar level of income provided that the gross package cost was at least at £500 per week. Although this approach was at variance to the IS plus 25% in the Fairer Charging guidance, it was driven by the financial pressure of the budget position. Trustees considered the options on widening the income level for applications subject to budget but agreed that adjustment of the minimum care package cost level was a more appropriate mechanism. Outcome: Information 6.2 Administration Budget 2008/09 The Finance and Corporate Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that it had been revised to take into account the additional expenditure proposals arising from decisions taken by the Audit Committee at their meeting on 27 February 2008 in relation to IT/Data Security. He said that at the meeting with DWP WEEG Finance Group on 3 March, the administration budget was discussed and DWP had said there was usually an expectation to make 5% year on year real term savings in administration costs. Trustees agreed that they would consider this after the Chief Executive received the letter outlining formal expectations from DWP WWEG and when considering budgets for 2009-10 and 2010-11. Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the administration budget for 2008-09 only, and noted indicative figures for 2009-11. 7 Strategic Financial Planning 7.1 Update on Strategic Financial Planning Issues The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees providing information on developments since the last discussion at the February meeting. The Strategic Policy Director said that he and the Business Development Director had visited NCIL on 11 March where the main concern expressed related to the lack of consultation on the changes. He said that NCIL had been informed that there would be opportunities for consultation on future issues and agreement to work towards a joint statement of good practice had been reached. Further quarterly meetings were to be scheduled. He said that NCIL were also concerned that the ILF application priority groups suggested that only working disabled people would get funding. This had showed the need to explain the operation of the priority groups clearly. NCIL had asked to be kept up to date with information on the Review recommendations and IB Pilots. NCIL said that they were proposing to publish the Minister’s response to the January press release in their forthcoming newsletter. Outcome: Information COGA Norman Cockett (DWP) explained that DWP needed to know if any changes were required to the revised version of the COGA brought for Trustees to sign at the meeting. The Chief Executive said there was an issue in relation to JSA that may need a COGA change. Trustees discussed the issues of income based JSA and contribution based JSA and agreed that only those on income based JSA would be automatically included in the priority group. The Chairman proposed that Trustees signed the COGA in escrow and leave this with the Chief Executive and that he and Yogi Amin would ensure that the wording reflected ILF needs. The Chief Executive explained to Trustees that there was also an issue in relation to disregarding capital earmarked for higher education needs. However the parameters for the policy would need to be agreed with Trustees before a COGA change was made. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed to sign COGA in escrow 7.2 Impact Assessment
The Strategic Policy Director presented the paper to Trustees. He He said that relevant ILF staff would receive training in assessing the potential impact of relevant legislation when formulating policy ideas. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed the proposed approach. 7.3 LA Threshold Sum The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees and explained the different date of 1 July 2008 for introduction in Northern Ireland (NI). Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the policy. 7.4 Backdating User Awards The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees and brought their attention to a different date of introduction for NI as 1 July 2008. Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the policy. 7.5 Trust Fund Cases The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. [Information is being withheld under s42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it constitutes legal advice and is protected by legal professional privilege] Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the policy. 7.6 Capital Limits and Tariff Income The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. The Chief Executive said that Trustees had previously agreed to seek increases to the capital limits in line with CRAG and had agreed that limits should be annually uprated. Margaret McGlade queried why annual uprating had been agreed when this process was not carried out in Local Authorities (LAs). The Chief Executive said that she would have to check the wording of the letter which was sent out to LAs to see if annual uprating was mentioned; if not Trustees could pursue the option of not taking this forward. Outcome: Decision – Trustees agreed to seek change to ILF eligibility capital limits and tariff income to match CRAG. Outcome: Chief Executive to confirm position on annual uprating of capital limits Separately Trustees were asked to consider the tariff income range when making the calculations for the IS Similar test and the proposed recommendation option 2 was agreed. Outcome: Decision – Trustees agreed range for tariff income for IS similar test only as IS lower limit currently £ 6,000 and the ILF upper capital limit. 7.7 Application Selection Criteria The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees and explained that the decision taken earlier in the meeting regarding JSA will affect this policy and an amendment to wording would need to be made.
She drew their attention to correspondence received from Renfrewshire Council about applicants on Youth Incapacity Benefit as this group did not have an automatic passport to be in a the priority group. Trustees discussed this issue recognising that variations in hours of need or changes in method of assistance provision e.g. from intended Agency to actual employed PAs could impact on actual assessments. It was agreed that this issue would need careful monitoring and the Chief Executive said that the first report was scheduled for June 2008. Outcome: Information 7.8 Reapplications Policy The Chief Executive explained that this paper had been withdrawn to consider further legal advice. 7.9 Contingency Options The Strategic Policy Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that the paper gave an overview of contingency options if the new arrangements put in place proved to be insufficient. He said that the only real options were to change the minimum package cost or in extreme circumstances stop making awards. Trustees agreed the general approach. Margaret McGlade commented on the need to have the Minister’s agreement on contingency plans. Outcome: Norman Cockett (DWP) to provide an update on DWP views on the contingency options for the next meeting. 7.10 Consultation and the Funding Measures The Strategic Policy Director presented the paper to Trustees. He said that this would be an important aspect for Trustees as there was a significant expectation for opportunity to comment in the future from local authorities and disability organisations. There was a recognised need to discuss both future strategic focus and immediate issues. He explained that it was proposed to have two approaches – the development of a wider dialogue with users and organisations and a subsequent framework for focused formal consultation following government guidelines. Nick Danagher commented on moving from consultation to user involvement which was a requirement for NDPB’s. He also said that the ILF needed to be clear about the group of people involved and there was a need for a mix of organisations and individuals. In answer to a question regarding timescales, the Strategic Policy Director said that it was a difficult judgement to make; if Trustees wanted dialogue to influence 2009-10 it would need to be carried out quickly but a counter argument would be to take the time needed and balance against when decisions needed to be made. Margaret McGlade outlined potential timescales and pointed out that it would be very tight for Trustees to make decisions for the next financial year. Nick Danagher commented on a model which would be a scrutiny group who would oversee the progress of a plan set out by the Board and he suggested specific invitations to form this group. He felt it was very important to engage ILF users in the group. Yogi Amin agreed that the scrutiny group was a good idea but that it was important to agree the remit, scope and timings of its operation. Yogi Amin commented that a situation needed to be avoided where any formal consultation document was too late in the time frame to effectively inform decisions. Sally Sparrow commented on the need for the group to have an understanding of the ILF and their issues. The Chief Executive explained that there were administrative resource limits to running a scrutiny group and with time delays inherent in this approach it was important to set key timeframes and milestones. DWP commented that an intended remit for the ILF had already been set so any proposals should be in line with the broad steer. Outcome: Proposals for a Scrutiny Group and formal consultation to be circulated to Trustees before the April meeting. 8 Policy Development 8.1 ILF Policy on Monies from Supporting People The Chief Executive said that this paper had been withdrawn and would be presented to Trustees at the April meeting.
The Chief Executive explained that this paper had been withdrawn to consider further legal advice. 8.3 Finance Management Support The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. Outcome: Decision -Trustees approved the policy. 8.4 Task Training The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. Outcome: Decision -Trustees approved the policy. 8.5 Health and Safety The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the policy. 8.6 Employers Liability Insurance – self employed The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the policy. 8.7 Recruitment Costs The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the policy. 8.8 Policy on Discretionary Payments due to changes to or termination of employment The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. She explained that since the last discussion at the February meeting the ILF had considered the policy further and received legal advice. [Information is being withheld under s42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it constitutes legal advice and is protected by legal professional privilege]
Outcome: Decision- Trustees agreed the changes and approved the policy. 8.9 Short Term Care The Chief Executive presented the policy to Trustees. She explained that as a consequence of Trustees’ discussion on this issue at the February meeting this paper outlined current actual practice. She said that scenarios 1-9 were accepted as circumstances which the ILF should support. Scenario 10 related to parenting was new and would be accepted in the future subject to governance document changes. It was proposed that scenario 11 (emergency care) would not be met by the ILF. In answer to a question the Chief Executive said that scenario 11 (emergency care), would be excluded as this was an LA responsibility. Outcome: Decision - Trustees approved the policy. 9 Review Recommendations The Chief Executive presented the paper to Trustees and explained that she would need to provide an update at a meeting arranged with DWP, DH and ODI for 17 March 2008. She explained that the recommendations had been colour coded; red to indicate rejected, green for cleared, yellow for others and not ILF lead and the blue group to consider ILF position. It was agreed to focus discussion on the blue group. Recommendation 2 Trustees agreed to retain the position on campus accommodation cases. Recommendation 3 Trustees acknowledged that this needed careful consideration in the climate of financial constraint but agreed to support the work to develop costings which might lead towards removal of the joint ceiling. Recommendation 5 Trustees agreed cleared. Recommendation 9 Trustees agreed cleared. Recommendation 11 Trustees agreed cannot address due to financial climate so treated as rejected. Recommendation 13 Trustees agreed cleared. Recommendation 14 Trustees agreed cleared. Recommendation 15 Trustees agreed cleared. Recommendation 20 Trustees agreed first element but rejected second and third elements. Recommendation 22 Trustees noted current position and agreed could not be considered in isolation. Recommendation 27 Paper to come to April meeting. Recommendation 28 Trustees noted position would need further consideration. Recommendation 32 Trustees noted link to pilot proposals and need for further work. Recommendation 33 Trustees noted link to regional presence trial. Recommendation 38 Paper to come to April meeting – link to review of Review programme. Recommendation 40 Trustees agreed cleared. Recommendation 50 Trustees agreed to discuss with other stakeholders to propose treat as cleared. Recommendation 53 Agreed to annual open event and plan for 2008-09 (subject to other demands). Trustees agreed to attend other events as available. Recommendation 54
Minutes are now published on the website. Trustees discussed open meetings and decided this was not a practical option. Nick Danagher commented on meetings where specific topics could be discussed. Recommendation 55
The tender from NCIL was under consideration but there was a need to extend the remit of the work required. Trustees noted plan to reissue Recommendation 56 Trustees supported this but need for discussion with other parties e.g. ODI recognised. Recommendation 57 Trustees noted this but progress was for DWP to address Recommendation 58 Trustees noted progress to date. Recommendation 59 Trustees noted further work needed. Recommendation 62 Trustees noted progress to date. Recommendation 63 Trustees noted the trial of regional presence discussed in February. The Chief Executive commented that it would be helpful to absorb the recommendations into the general policy development in the future. The recommendations would still be tracked internally. This approach would depend on other stakeholder views on how reporting would take place. The need to ensure an audit trail of work undertaken and outcomes was acknowledged. Outcome: Information 10 Governance 10.1 Annual Election of Officials
The Chairman explained that, in line with the Standing Orders for Trustees’ meetings, Trustees were required to elect office holders annually. Peter Cooke was elected as Vice Chairman (proposed by Stephen Jack, seconded by Marie Martin) Mike Boyall was elected as Treasurer and Chairman of the Audit Committee (proposed by Peter Cooke, seconded by Stephen Jack) Members of the Audit Committee, Peter Cooke, Sally Sparrow and Yogi Amin were re-elected (proposed by Margaret McGlade, seconded by Stephen Jack) Sally Sparrow was elected as Chairman of the HR Committee (proposed by Peter Cooke, seconded by Marie Martin) Members of the HR Committee, Marie Martin, Margaret McGlade and Susan Winterburn were elected (proposed by Sally Sparrow and seconded by Peter Cooke) Peter Cooke was elected as Chairman of the UPCC (proposed by Sally Sparrow, seconded by Nick Danagher) Members of the UPCC Committee, Nick Danagher, Sally Sparrow, Marie Martin, Yogi Amin and Susan Winterburn were elected (proposed by Stephen Jack and seconded by Margaret McGlade) All nominees had indicated their willingness to serve. Outcome: With no other nominations, all nominees were duly elected. The Chairman commented on the potential of setting up a Policy sub committee to ease the workload. The Chief Executive said that she would look into this and let Trustees have proposals in due course. 10.2 Trust Deed and COGA Changes from April 08 The Chief Executive commented that changes to the Trust Deed had not been finalised but work was ongoing. As discussed earlier Trustees agreed to sign the COGA in escrow. Outcome: Information 10.3 Lease Signing The Chief Executive explained that the signing committee (Stephen Jack, Peter Cooke, Mike Boyall and Marie Martin) would sign a statutory declaration, the lease, maps and Side Agreement. A Trustee would also have to take the statutory declaration to a Commissioner of Oaths for signature. Marie Martin agreed to take the document to a Commissioner of Oaths. Documents would then be returned to the lawyers and then a notification would be sent regarding the payment of the stamp duty which will be in the region of £42K. Outcome: The signing committee signed the lease documents. 10.4 Deeds of Addition and Assignment The Finance and Corporate Services Director said that he had the Deeds of Addition and Assignment for signature: once signed these would be passed to DWP/HMT for collation and signature. Outcome: Trustees signed the Deeds of Addition and Assignment. The Chairman then left the meeting. The Vice Chairman continued to Chair the meeting from this point. 11 Operational Issues 11.1 Customer Service Strategy The Operations Director presented the paper to Trustees. He gave an overview of the paper and explained that it focused on the practical elements as a Customer Service Improvement plan embedding customer services in all areas of our work. He said there were two areas which needed Trustees steer/direction.
He explained that work had already been undertaken to consider the development of a charter or service standard for the ILF and was recognised as good practice including a purpose statement, responsibilities and targets. Sally Sparrow said that it would be helpful to design it in a similar style to the leaflets as they had received a positive response with appropriate caution on the use of acronyms. Susan Winterburn commented on the use of Plain English: the Operations Director said that a staff member was developing skills in this area. Outcome: Decision -Trustees agreed the proposal of a Customer Charter. BSI Certification BS8477 The Operations Director explained that BS8477 was a standard of customer service and recommended that we investigate further with a view to achieving the standard for 08/09. Trustees discussed this but said it was not seen as essential at this stage, however if there was little work to achieve the standard it would be worth pursuing. Outcome: Operations Director to further investigate the business case for BSI accreditation on customer service. 11.2 Review of Complaints and Decision Reviews The Operations Director presented the paper to Trustees. He explained that this project had been extended as a result of further reviews during the initial period of the project. He explained that the initial Chartermark assessment had identified need to get feedback from complainants which had been addressed at the reassessment visit. The Operations Director commented on further accreditation to ISO 10002 standard. The ILF have reviewed their processes against these standards and consider that the current complaints process meet the expectations of this standard. He explained there was an initial one off cost of £2200 and then an annual sum of £1000. Yogi Amin commented on whether significant extra resources were needed. The Operations Director said that significant extra resource might not be needed. Margaret McGlade commented that it would be a good PR point if the standard was achieved but it was important not to pursue if unwanted changes in process were required to meet the standard. Outcome: Trustees agreed in principle to apply for the standard provided this could be managed within current staff resource and budgets. The Operations Director explained that since January 2008 the ILF have come under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman who can consider cases of maladministration. Therefore it is crucial that we adhere to their guidance. Yogi Amin commented that there should be a clear definition of maladministration for the complaints team and all staff to reduce risk of PCA cases. The Operations Director said that he would take away this issue to consider awareness/training needs.
Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed to users writing their own submission as an additional step in the process of considering appeals to Trustees. The Chief Executive said that Trustees had agreed for the SMT panel to consider first tier requests to be considered an exception on applications. DWP had raised a question as to whether this type of scenario should be considered by Trustees. Outcome: Decision - Trustees agreed with the principle that the SMT panel should consider all initial requests for applications to be considered exceptional. The Chief Executive said that financial hardship decisions on available income were currently reserved for Trustees discretion as part of the COGA wording. However this would be discussed again with DWP in the future. 11.3 UPCC Minutes
The Chairman of the UPCC presented the minutes to Trustees. He explained that on average there were 3-4 decisions made per meeting, all decisions had been unanimous. Yogi Amin commented on the wording of decisions. [Information is being withheld under s42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it constitutes legal advice and is protected by legal professional privilege]
Margaret McGlade commented that staff time dealing with UPCC cases was likely to be the largest cost but had not been presented in the Operations Directors report. Outcome: Information 12 AOB 12.1 Date of Next Meeting The date of next meeting will be Wednesday 9 April 2008. There being no further business the meeting ended at 14:40 hrs. |
 |
