Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received on behalf of Cllrs Linda Leach, Elias Mattu and Sandra Samuels.

There were no declarations of interest.

·         22 September 2015

·         10 November 2015

The minutes of the previous meetings held on 22 September 2015 and 10 November 2015 were agreed and signed as correct records subject to the following amendments:

22 September 2015

Include Ros Jervis, Service Director Public Health in the attendance list and amend the spelling of Cllr Jasbinder Dehars’ name on page five.

There were no matters arising.

[To consider the Draft Budget 2016/17 including the related Savings, Redesign and Income Generation Proposals, Financial Transactions and Base Budget Revisions and underlying Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) assumptions that was approved by Cabinet to proceed for formal consultation and scrutiny stages of the budget process, as appropriate, on 21 October 2015.]

Alison Shannon, Head of Finance introduced the report.  She provided the savings, redesign and income generation proposals for the Adults Cabinet Portfolio and advised that the purpose of the report was to seek Panel’s feedback on each of the draft budget items.

Reshaping of Older People Services:

The Head of Finance advised that further details had been provided in the ‘Better Care Technology and Strengthening Support at Home’ report presented to Cabinet on 22 July and 11 November. Anthony Ivko, Service Director Older People, advised that Panel that the comments arising from this Scrutiny Panels in depth scrutiny of the issue on 14 July and 10 November as pre-decision scrutiny items had informed the Cabinet decisions on both occasions.

Cllr Paula Brookfield, Chair, acknowledged the inclusion of this Panels comments and the need to move forward with the savings proposal. She indicated that there was a need for the scrutiny process to monitor the implementation of the plans to reshape older people services to manage the expectations and the implementation. The Service Director advised that meetings were arranged to meet with everyone involved in the implementation plan and give advice about any pressures and address them.

The Panel were in agreement that Cabinet should be made aware that the Adult and Safer City Scrutiny Panel will maintain overview and scrutiny of the implementation of plans and progress of the reshaping of older people services.  

Restructuring of the Library Service:

The Service Director advised that no detail of this saving proposal was available at this stage and that Cabinet had requested the library restructure saving to be revisited. In response to Cllr Patricia Patterns question the Service Director confirmed that the savings proposal will have to be realised this budget year and that the details would be reported to Cabinet later in the process.

Cllr Barry Findlay voiced concerns that the savings proposal would not be involved in proper scrutiny and highlighted the need for the revised savings proposal to come before this panel to afford the Panel opportunity to scrutinise this important decision.

The Chair indicated the importance of the decision and that Panel felt strongly and were in total agreement that the revised proposal should be subject to pre-decision scrutiny.  She advised that the next meeting of the panel would be 26 January 2016 and suggested that if this was not timely that a special meeting should be arranged. 

Move Warstones Office Base:

The Service Director provided a summary of the proposal.  He advised that options have been explored for the use of the building but that a sustainable option had not been identified.  He advised that the proposal is to relocate the Assessment and Care Management Team and to support the groups to relocate from Warstones to other local community venues.  He advised that commissioners have met with user groups and they are confident that other places can be found.  He indicated that as a temporary measure a Community Health team would be based here while the joint  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

[This report provides Scrutiny Panel with an update on the work carried out with residents and their families of Duke Street residential care home.] 

Kathy Roper, Head of Commissioning All Age Disability, provided a report to inform the Scrutiny Panel of progress on the work carried out with residents and their families of Duke Street residential care home.

The Head of Commissioning advised that the report set out the costed care options appraisal for Duke Street if it was to be de-registered as a residential care home and re-registered as a supported living service. She advised that the social landlord model was not a new concept, that it would provide a better quality of life in supported living and that it was important for the staffing to remain the same to ensure the residents remain settled in their homes.

She informed the Panel that TUPE arrangements for staff were  being considered to ensure a level of consistency for residents and that a lot of time has been invested with families and carers to reduce anxiety about the level of service and care for their relatives.

There followed a discussion about the risks highlighted in the options outlined in the report relating to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (Dols), Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection and the revised cost model.  The Service Director responded to the question ‘what happens if the family does not agree with the Dols and there is a legal challenge?’ He advised that the Dols does exactly what it says; there is a requirement on all people that work for the State to have proper authority; it does not take away autonomy; there is a right to restrict an individual to a living area; it is intended to protect the safety and security of the individual, but only to do the minimum.  The Head of Commissioning advised that most residents in Duke Street do not have the ability to make their own decision and that staff bring together families, carers, social workers and any other appropriate person to discuss safeguarding the individual without deprivation of liberty.

In response to further questions the Head of Commissioning advised that because de-registering and re-registering is taking place the individual still has tenure of place. She clarified that even if the family objects on behalf of the individual if a best interest decision considers that Duke Street is the best place for an individual to live they will be able to stay there.

Cllr Lynne Moran asked what the difference would be in terms of finance between supported living and re-registered care home. The Head of Commissioning advised that the individual would be able to receive housing benefits, approximately £133 per week and a range of other benefits.  She advised that this would not cover all costs and that the Council will have a duty of care for the individual.

Cllr Lynne Moran asked what the TUPE arrangements time period would be.  The Head of Commissioning advised that it would be a twelve month period and that there would initially be a three month stand still period to determine if the employee wanted to move or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.