Agenda and minutes

The Chairman noted that those Members who had provided their apologies were absent due to a meeting clash with the Strategic Planning Committee which had been moved forward due to a heavy agenda. A concern was expressed that this had been done without due consideration to the scheduled Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2011.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None noted.

Charlotte Peters-Rock, a representative from Knutsford Area for Knutsford Action, attended to address the Committee. She made the following points:

·         That the Committee should commend the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services for relinquishing control of the Health and Wellbeing Portfolio as it was argued that this was creating a conflict of interest. Mrs Peters-Rock stated that the Committee should examine what the impact of having both portfolios joined for several months had been.

·         The Committee was asked what it was doing to oversee the distress caused by the actions of the Council – without prior consultation – towards service users and their family carers (with regard to the ongoing Building Base Review). It was asserted that this issue required an urgent response as Mrs Peters-Rock argued that the Health and Wellbeing Committee had abrogated responsibility for such health and wellbeing oversight to the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee.

·         The Committee was also asked to undertake a review of the ‘severe strain’ caused to service users and their family carers (as a result of the Building Based Review) so that such strain could be mitigated wherever possible. She asserted that in future, the reasoning behind similar decisions should be made clear and that consultations should be held in advance so that no adverse decisions would be made which disadvantage ‘the vulnerable’, whether they be service users or their family carers.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Peters-Rock for her attendance and assured her that a written response would be provided. 

To consider a report of the Strategic Director of Children, Families and Adults. (To Follow)

Members considered a report on the financial outturn of the Adult’s Department for 2011-12. This report built on the Mid Year Review of Financial Performance and provided further information on the mitigation strategies which were in place to help to reduce forecast overspends. Patrick Rhoden, Principal Accountant, reported that whilst the Three Quarter Financial position had yet to be finalised, the indication was that there would be a reduction in the overspend from the Mid Year position.

Lucia Scally, Head of Strategic Commissioning and Safeguarding, continued to go through each part of the Adult’s budget, highlighting the reasons for the overspend and what mitigation strategies had been put in place as a result. Members asked questions and made comments after each area.

Care4CE

Lucia Scally reported that there was a projected £1.1m overspend in this area and that this was due to the delay in delivering the rationalisation of building use and linked temporary decommissioning of ECT beds.

It was queried why there had been a delay in the rationalisation and what lessons had been learned. Councillor Roland Domleo, Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, commented that it was vital that the consultation process had been as comprehensive as possible and therefore the delay had been necessary. He also noted that the process of building valuation had taken longer than expected. In terms of what had been learned, Councillor Domleo noted that in future there would have to be a proper programme time plan on such a project.

It was questioned how long it would take to complete the Building Based Review and whether this would have an impact on the 2012/13 budget. A number of Members were doubtful that the proposed saving would be realised as the rationalisation process would not begin until after April 2012. Councillor Domleo stated that the saving would be incremental and Lucia Scally noted that the service would account for the savings profile once a final decision had been reached.

Attention was drawn to a point that had been made in a previous meeting regarding a purported disjoint between assets and adult social care which had a part to play in delaying the building base review thereby negating any potential savings for 2011/12. It was noted that this point would be reiterated when the final Building Base Review paper was submitted to scrutiny.

Individual Commissioning

Jacqui Evans, Head of Local Delivery/Independent Living Services, reported that there was a forecasted £3.241m overspend and that this position had not changed dramatically since the Mid Year Review. She explained that the overspend position was due to two main factors. Firstly, increased numbers in residential and nursing care, either because people were living longer in these settings or because individuals were increasingly depleting their own financial capital and as a result were turning to the Council for care cost support. Secondly, those in receipt of care were tending to require larger packages than individuals presenting for care previously. Jacqui Evans continued to outline ongoing initiatives which were in place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To consider a presentation from the Private Sector Housing Manager.

Members received a presentation on the cost benefits of Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) from Karen Whitehead, Private Sector Housing Manager. She explained that the presentation was in response to a request from the Committee following an earlier report on DFGs. This had asked that a robust business case be brought which outlined the invest-to-save benefits of DFGs.

Karen Whitehead reported that the service had examined 21 cases where adaptations had been carried out by looking into the following areas to calculate saving/cost avoidance and payback period:

-       Cost of care package prior to adaptation

-       Cost of adaptation

-       Cost of care package after adaptation.

With the use of case studies, Karen Whitehead demonstrated that there were examples of how DFGs could result in cost avoidance, cost savings and other benefits that were not necessarily economic.

In sum, Karen Whitehead explained that whilst it was not possible to generate a reliable figure for the potential cost saving/cost avoidance of DFGs, it was clear from the analysis that there were significant social and economic benefits of independent living.

It was queried that if the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) removed their portion of the funding, would the Council still feel it worthwhile to continue with providing DFGs. Karen Whitehead asserted that removing the DFG budget would have a significant impact on residents as a number of people have relied on the grant in order to remain independent. Patrick Rhoden added that if the Council invested more in DFGs from the capital programme this would likely make a significant revenue saving.

It was questioned how the Council arranged contracts for the work. Karen Whitehead explained that this was where the Home Improvement Agency (HIA) became involved. They helped the resident find a reputable tradesman and then they also supervised the work. It was noted that the resident was free to arrange their own contract but that the HIA would still supervise the work.

Regarding the invest-to-save potential of DFGs, it was queried whether any progress had been made in achieving extra funding. Karen Whitehead reported that the service was undertaking a pilot to look at the short term payback options e.g. stair lifts to explore whether these could be made more widely available. She also noted that the 2012/13 budget for DFGs had increased to £1,500,000 from £1,320,000 in 2011/12.

RESOLVED – That the presentation be noted.

To give consideration to the work programme.

Members considered the work programme. The Chairman suggested that as there were a number of overlaps with the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee and the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Officer should distribute both agendas to both Committees for their consideration. An update was also provided on the Dementia Task and Finish Review as it was noted that the Group were likely to produce their final report in March.

It was also suggested that the next informal meeting of the Committee be brought forward to before Full Council on 23^rd February. This was so comment could be made on the draft business plan before it was formally voted on at Full Council.

RESOLVED –

a)    That the work programme be noted.

b)    That the Scrutiny Officer distribute both the Adult Social Care and Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee agendas to the Membership of both Committees in order to help identify cross-cutting issues.

c)    That the next informal meeting be re-scheduled to a date prior to 23^rd February so that comment can be passed on the draft business plan before Full Council.

To note the current Forward Plan, identify any new items and to determine whether any further examination of new issues is appropriate.

The Committee gave consideration to the extracts of the forward plan which fell within the remit of the Committee.

RESOLVED – That the forward plan be noted.