Apologies were received from Sian Lines (Diocese of Hereford - CE) and Carol Morgan (Diocese of Shrewsbury - RC).

Members are reminded that they must declare their disclosable pecuniary interests and other registrable or non-registrable interests in any matter being considered at the meeting as set out in Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct and consider if they should leave the room prior to the item being considered. Further advice can be sought from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

None received.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th February 2025 and 22^nd May 2025.

Contact: Shelley Davies

That the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th February and 22^nd May 2025 be confirmed as an accurate record subject to the following amendment to the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th February 2025:

Minute 28 (3^rd bullet point of paragraph 5) to read ‘Bedstone’ College and not ‘Bedstones’ College’.

To receive any questions from members of the public of which notice has been given. The deadline for this meeting is 12.00 pm, Thursday 26^th June 2025.

A public question was received from John Palmer, in relation to Telecare Charging.

The full question and response provided can be found on:

Public Questions - 02.07.25.pdf

To receive any question of which Members of the Council have given notice. The deadline for this meeting is 12.00 pm, Thursday 26th June 2025.

There were no member questions.

To confirm the re-appointment of the two Dioecian co-opted Members and to provide an update on the recruitment process for the two vacant parent governor positions. 

The Chairman confirmed the re-appointment of the two diocesan co-opted Members, Sian Lines and Carol Morgan and provided an update on the recruitment process for the two vacant parent governor positions. 

A decision of Cabinet made on 11 June 2025 with regard to ITEM 11 TELECARE CHARGING CONSULTATION has been called in by the Green and Progressive Independents Group with support from the Labour Group.

The People Overview and Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the decision taken.

The following appendices to the covering report by the Scrutiny Officer are attached, or to follow:

Appendix 1a – Call in notice – Green and Progressive Independents Group supported by the Labour Group.

Appendix 2 – Telecare Charging Consultation Report to Cabinet

Appendix 2a - Telecare Benchmarking in WM

Appendix 2b - Telecare Consultation Report

Appendix 2c - EISHA Telecare Charging

Appendix 2d - Charging and financial assessment policy for non-residential care

Appendix 3 – Supplementary Information – Service (to follow)

Appendix 4 - Call in procedure at committee

The Chairman explained the purpose of the item and referred to the options available to the Committee in relation to the call in and the procedure that would be followed as set out in appendix 4 to the report.

The Chairman invited Councillor Duncan Kerr, on behalf of the Green and Progressive Independent Group to explain the reasons for the call in of the decision. Councillor Kerr referred to the reasons as set out in Appendix 1 of the report and requested that the Committee uphold the call-in and refer the decision back to Cabinet for re-consideration on the following grounds:

1.    The telecare service was a preventative service, but the costs in health and financial terms to the Council and the wider Health and Social care ecosystem of imposing these charges and thereby removing 30% of users from it have not been ascertained. (National data shows a potential £14bn saving to the Country from the extension of telecare and the Council has learnt the hard way the consequences of cutting early help in Children’s Services).

2.    The outcome has not been compared with the costs and disbenefits of removing other preventative services operated by the same department for example help with cleaning and gardening services to those who also don’t have a care plan.

3.    If these exercises identify this service as having the lowest cost to benefit ratio of any discretionary service, we should then consider alternative options such as funding by Parish Councils or the charity model now being used in Children in care services to enable them to go Above and Beyond their statutory functions.

4.    Decision makers have not been provided with the unit costs of this system. It is evident that a significant portion of the cost is fixed, and we need to understand if the charges proposed will result in some users subsidising others. We must determine who is subsidising whom and consider whether it is right to impose these charges simply because we have the ability to do so.

5.    Too much (sole) reliance and justification has been placed on practice in other authorities, which doesn’t make it right, we should be justifying decisions in terms of our own objectives and priorities of our own residents and their representatives not those of other authorities.

Councillor Alan Mosley seconded the proposal to refer the decision back to Cabinet to reconsider the decision made.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions for Councillor Kerr at this stage of the meeting and as there were none, went on to ask the Portfolio Holder for Social Care and officers to explain the background to the decision made and respond to the call in.

The Portfolio Holder for Social Care noted the critical role of preventative services in keeping people safe and well at home and advised that such services usually incur a small charge. It was explained that mitigations were in place to prevent financial hardship, including support to maximize income and benefits for those  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To note that the next meeting of the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be held at 10.00 am on Wednesday 22^nd October 2025.

Members noted that the next meeting of the People Overview and Scrutiny Meeting will be taking place on at 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday 22^nd October 2025.