Attached is the Word document with the Written Question (and answers) from todays County Council. The question I asked (relating to fraud) is first, the other questions are listed after it;
"Question from Councillor A Pellew to the Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance, Councillor S Count
How much money has been lost to fraud by Cambridgeshire County Council? I am particularly thinking of the figure published on the BBC Website - "The East of England managed to lose £21.5m (up 67% from the previous year)" - and would like to know what figure, if any, Cambridgeshire contributed to this figure. A comparison with previous years would also be helpful as would a commentary (if required).
What training do members of staff receive to help them identify attempts to defraud the Council? Is there an existing policy in place for staff to follow when they have identified fraud (and is this available to members)?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance, Councillor S Count
As part of the reporting requirements for the production of the 2010/11 Statement of Accounts the County Council reported to the Audit Commission that the value of fraud identified and investigated within the Council was £202,900 of which £198,000 was immediately recovered.
The value reported for 2009/10 was £2,300.
In respect of specific policies and procedures, the following are in existence and are available on CAMWEB:
- Anti Fraud and Corruption Policy
- Whistleblowing Policy
- Anti Money Laundering Policy
With regards to training and awareness, Internal Audit ran a fraud awareness week campaign in September 2010.
The provided weblink is an internal link to the Counties system and so won't work externally (but I've included it here so Councillors or Council employees can access it).
Looking at the BBC figure and the "tiny" contribution Cambridgeshire made to the total (I mean zero is the target, but considering the budgets involved £2,300 is nothing) either another County had an absolute disaster and has managed to cover it up so it's not a news story (unlikely) or the BBC is reporting the fact that £202,900 has been lost to fraud but not the amount that was immediately recovered. The story, at best, was unclear on this point.
On to other Councillors Questions and answers;
Question from Councillor N Harrison to the Cabinet Member for Community Infrastructure, Councillor S Criswell
The 20mph speed limit in Mill Road, Cambridge has been given little promotion by the County Council and little or no enforcement by the police.
Reducing vehicle speeds is a high priority for the residents and users of this street and many others in Cambridgeshire. Will the Cabinet member therefore
a) seek a commitment from the police to increase their level of speed enforcement activity in Mill Road and elsewhere
b) instruct county council officers to conduct a publicity campaign to promote compliance with the speed limit in Mill Road and other roads with 20mph limits.
Response from the Cabinet Member for Community Infrastructure, Cllr S Criswell
As Councillor Harrison highlights, speeding is one of the most frequent traffic management and safety concerns raised across the county and it is one of the key areas for attention by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Road Safety Partnership. However, there is a need to ensure that the resources to tackle speeding are targeted in the most effective way.
The speed surveys undertaken after the introduction of the 20mph speed limit in the Mill Road area suggest a reasonable level of compliance during the day and evening periods but some evidence of higher speeds during early hours of the morning.
With regard to speed enforcement activity, through our Safety Camera Partnership with the police, priority is given to sites where excessive speed has resulted in serious or fatal road casualties. In the case of Mill Road, whilst there is a long history of high levels of injury accident, casualty severity is lower than the average for the city. There are also operational difficulties in deploying mobile safety camera units in areas like Mill Road. Therefore, any enforcement activity would be better provided by local policing teams rather than by mobile camera units.
There is an opportunity for local communities to influence and inform local policing priorities through the police liaison process undertaken at the City Council’s East Area Committee and I would recommend that the concerns over the lack of enforcement activity should be pursued through this route.
Given the long standing road accident problem in Mill Road, I understand the desire to see more attention given to raising the profile of the 20mph speed limit and I have asked the Head of Road Safety & Parking Services to meet with Councillor Harrison to consider practical ways in which this might be achieved, taking into account the results from the speed surveys. Whilst this approach may be appropriate in Mill Road and other streets with significant accident problems, I would not support it being a priority merely on the basis of a street or area having a 20mph limit. Our priority must be to focus on roads with frequent and high severity accident problems.
Question from Councillor S van de Ven to the Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning, Councillor I Bates
Cambridgeshire is now in a huge transitional time in terms of the future of public transport provision. Why has the county council not therefore undertaken systematic and comprehensive research on the transport needs and prospects of its residents, similar to that conducted elsewhere, for example by Hertfordshire County Council (Bus Strategy 2011-31 and Intalink Strategy 2011-2016), and Gloucestershire County Council and Fenland District Council (GIS mapping)?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning, Councillor I Bates
The County Council prides itself on its robust policies and it is therefore wrong to suggest that systematic research to inform its transport policies has not been undertaken. For example, over a number of years the County Council has undertaken a significant amount of research and study into the accessibility problems that face its residents. As part of the development of the second Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2006-11 (LTP2), comprehensive GIS mapping of accessibility issues was undertaken for the entire county, looking at a range of services including health care, employment, education and town / retail centres. This was part of a wider evidence base that informed the accessibility strategy in LTP2. This mapping assessment was updated to inform the development of the third Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011-26 (LTP3), and remains relevant today.
It is easy to identify additional study work that could be undertaken out of general interest, but before this is done, it must be clear that this will have a useful purpose that is not duplicating current knowledge, which is the approach we take. In this context, in the last two years, the County Council has for example, provided targeted accessibility advice to:
• Assess the impact of proposed changes to the locations from which out of hours health care provision is provided, for NHS Cambridgeshire.
• Inform the development and review of Market Town Transport Strategies.
• Provide annual assessments of the accessibility of new development to key services for the District Councils.
• Provide accessibility mapping of access to key services to inform the Cambridgeshire Future Transport programme.
• Inform the NHS Cambridgeshire / County Council Joint Strategic Needs Assessment phase 5 (Prevention of Ill Health in Adults of Working Age).
The experience with LTP2 also showed that whilst the comprehensive evidence base is useful, the real value is added when work is undertaken at a local level to dig down into the issues and problems, and identify local solutions. So whilst we do have a wide scale evidence base, we are clear that it is the local knowledge that is far more likely to identify deliverable and sustainable solutions than further high level study work.
Question from Councillor S Whitebread to the Cabinet Member for Community Infrastructure, Councillor S Criswell
The council currently has a policy that in areas covered by residents parking schemes, residents can lose their right to permits by carrying out major building work on their property. An example of this would be someone entitled to a residents permit, who converts his house into one house and one basement flat. He could then not only be refused the right to a permit for the new flat, but also lose his right to a permit for his house.
There have been several incidents in my ward where this has happened. Does the cabinet member not think it unfair that someone could carry out work completely unrelated to parking (ie not creating any new parking space) and still lose their right to a residents permit?
Does the cabinet member agree with me that this approach is inconsistent with allowing residents of new developments in controlled parking areas to use visitors permits?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Community Infrastructure, Cllr S Criswell
The policy relating to new development in residents’ parking areas was reviewed in May 2010 as part of a wider review of parking policy. Local members in Cambridge were consulted via the Area Joint Committee, as part of this process.
The policy is as follows:
Within existing residents’ permit scheme areas, any new development within an established residents’ parking scheme will not qualify for the provision of residents’ parking permits. The redevelopment of an existing dwelling or dwellings that results in an increase in the number of dwellings will preclude the issuing of permits to any of the dwellings, including the existing dwelling or dwellings.
Where development takes place within the curtilage a property that does not involve any material change to the existing dwelling or dwellings but results in the provision of additional but separate dwellings, no permits will be issued to the new dwelling(s) but the existing dwelling(s) will retain the right to apply for residents’ permits.
All dwellings whether existing or newly developed will be eligible to apply for visitors’ permits.
In most residents’ parking schemes there is significant pressure on parking capacity as the number of permits issued often exceeds the number of parking spaces available. Therefore, the policy is necessary to mitigate the impact of new development on locals parking capacity and to ensure that new development does not exacerbate existing operational parking pressures. Anyone considering development plans will need to balance the benefits they receive as a result of the development with the potential loss of residents’ permit rights. Development proposals can include the provision of off-street parking to mitigate any loss of residents’ parking permits.
To provide a level of accessibility to residents parking areas for those visiting residents, the policy provides for the provision of visitor permits but, again, development proposals can provide alternative off-street parking for visitors. If, through the planning process, it is determined that development would have a significant detrimental impact on the operation of a residents parking scheme, it is possible, through a S106 agreement with the developer, to remove the right to acquire visitor parking permits for those living in the development.
Question from Councillor P Sales to the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Councillor M Curtis
This year the total budgeted figure for domiciliary care across all client groups is approximately £35m. The Council pays care agencies an hourly rate of £15.75 for domiciliary care. Most care agencies pay their care staff only slightly more than the legal minimum wage of £6.08 per hour. Let’s be generous and say £6.20 on average.
This means that approximately £9.55 per hour is swallowed up in agency fees of one sort or another. Is it acceptable to the lead member that so much of this year’s domiciliary care budget will not be directly spent on the client?
Response from the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Councillor M Curtis
The difference between the hourly rate paid to agencies and the amount paid to care staff has to cover a range of overheads including:-
• Premises (agencies are required to have registered premises in Cambridgeshire)
• Management costs (supervisors, care-co-ordinators, HR, Assessors, Trainers, phones for some carers)
• Recruitment (includes advertising, induction training, CRB checks)
• Care Quality Commission fees (registration fees, inspection fees)
• Insurance (including professional indemnity)
• Costs of temporary staff (used when permanent staff are off sick)
• Training (every worker is required to have completed the common standard training before they are allowed to start work)
• Travel costs (some agencies pay staff if they use their own cars, others provide fleet cars that drop staff off. Some agencies pay staff up to 25p per mile, this has to come out of the £15.75)
The Council does not pay any enhancements over and above the £15.75 for evening, weekend or Bank Holiday working as is the case in some councils. Staff working unsocial hours are paid enhancements for unsocial shifts and these costs will come out of the £15.75 the Council pays.
The rates paid to staff by agencies will vary depending on the seniority and experience of the worker, in some cases these rates will also increase where agencies have problems recruiting staff. The decision on how much to pay staff is a commercial decision for each provider and will be based on a number of factors, some of which are listed above. The tender process next year will test the competitiveness of the market to ensure that the Council is purchasing effective services that meet the needs of vulnerable people in the community.
Looking ahead, contracts are due to expire next year. The tendering process will test the market and the need to deliver effective services to vulnerable people. The process will require tenderers to provide a more detailed breakdown of costs.
This information will be used to evaluate further the overheads, including those relating to administration, property, etc. as well as those directly related to training, development, safeguarding and travel.
