Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2015.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2015.

RESOLVED

That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest

To provide an opportunity for Members to declare the existence of a party whip in relation to any item on the Agenda

There were no whipping declarations

A total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to make a statement(s) on any matter that falls within the remit of the Committee.

Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes, but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned, where there are a number of speakers.

Note: in order for officers to undertake and background research, it would be helpful if members of the public notified the Scrutiny Officer listed at the foot of the Agenda at least one working day before the meeting with brief details of the matter to be covered.

5 Members of the public attended the meeting to speak in respect of the Call In. Concerns were raised regarding the location and amount of beds that would be available, the quality of care and suitability of nursing homes, the consultation process, suggested savings and justification for the proposals. Members of the public also highlighted their personal experiences relating to the private sector and Council ran services.

To consider the Call-In of the above decision

Before opening the discussion in response to this matter the Chairman provided a brief overview of what the Committee would be considering to clarify the procedure. The Chairman explained that the Committee was only able to consider the decision made at the Cabinet meeting on 30 June 2015. Paragraph 9.7 of the cover report on page 28 confirmed the decision that was under consideration.

On behalf of the 6 Members who had signed the Call In, Councillor D Flude addressed the Committee and using national and local statistics to support her case, expanded on the following reasons for the Call In:

1.    Evidence of the impact of the closure of Mountview on service provision was not yet available. It would be sensible to see whether the proposed strategy was working in the Congleton area before adopting the same strategy in Crewe and Macclesfield.

2.    Work was ongoing to establish a ‘fair price’ for respite care. The financial implications of the decision could not be properly established until this work was complete

3.    The Shared Lives Care system would not cope with the extra workload that these proposals would cause. 

4.    There was a direct conflict between the decision in June 2015 and point 3 of the resolution in December 2014. The implications for adults with learning disability should be established before any decision was taken to cease all.

5.    There would be a shortfall in bed vacancies and the people who currently used Hollins View and Lincoln House will have a reduced service.

6.    In December 2014 the Leader of the Council promised further consultation which had not happened.

Councillor J Clowes, Cabinet Member for Adults, Health and Leisure, presented the Cabinet’s response to the Call In. She informed the Committee that beds would be block booked in the independent sector, which would also allow for emergency beds. Following the decision to cease residential respite care at Mountview, the Council had commissioned 1095 new beds nights, which, evidence suggested had been under-utilised.

Councillor Clowes informed the Committee that an independent consultant had been commissioned to recommend a fair price for respite care, however this work was still ongoing. The expectation to release £1.3 million per annum for investment may not be achieved but significant savings would still be made, which would be reinvested.

Evidence to suggest that there was sufficient capacity in the private sector and that the private sector was willing to engage was based on the presumption from other authorities that had already moved in this direction, however the local market needed to be tested.

The Committee considered the information it had received regarding the Call In and the response to the Call In. It was proposed that the Committee need not offer advice to the Cabinet on its decision. However it was agreed with the Portfolio Holder that the Committee would review the progress of the decision to secure alternative carer respite support via a formal tender process, initially in November 2015, and subsequent at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.