In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the meeting on any matter relevant to the work of the meeting. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman or person presiding will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers. Members of the public are not required to give notice to use this facility. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours’ notice is encouraged.
Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.
Minutes:
Mr Jeff Gazzard referred to a report on the agenda relating to the closure of Hollins View and criticised the conclusions drawn from the user consultation exercise and the cost of independent sector respite provision as stated in the report which he felt was considerably higher than the figure negotiated by the Council for its own referrals. He suggested that Hollins View and other care facilities should remain open while the Council explored the option of transferring the facilities and staff to an appropriate charitable institution within the independent sector. The Leader responded that the Council was obliged in accordance with the Care Act to consider all the options and had done so. Councillor J Clowes, the Portfolio Holder for Care and Health in the Community, addressed the specific issues raised by Mr Gazzard.
Mrs Christine Gazzard, whose husband was her carer, was a regular user of Hollins View and felt that the standard of care and the staff at the facility were first class. She asked the Council to consider keeping Hollins View open. Councillor Clowes responded that the proposals were about providing personalised care and giving people what they wanted to meet their own needs.
Sue Helliwell asked why the Council was not already securing cheaper provision in order to keep the two homes open and asked if the Council would apply the national care quality system of rating to alternative facilities within the independent sector. Councillor Clowes responded that because the Council had only two facilities within the Borough there would inevitably be a high corporate cost of running them. With regard to quality assurance she commented that the Council already placed 80% of its respite users in the independent sector and needed to ensure that they received care of a high standard. Whilst the Council did adhere to the guidance of the Care Quality Commission, it felt that having its own independent scheme of quality assurance would best guarantee the care and safety of its residents.
Sylvia Dyke spoke in support of the reunification of Cheshire and referred to the increasing influence of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and the Potteries which she perceived as a threat to the integrity and identity of Cheshire as a shire county. The Leader responded that Cheshire East was a leading authority in the country and could be proud of its achievements in reducing unemployment and poverty and achieving economic growth. Cheshire East worked closely with other Cheshire authorities to promote the interests of Cheshire. Other proposals would be coming forward shortly which would aim to protect the interests of Cheshire.
Debbie Jamieson referred to the report on respite care and asked Councillor Clowes and the officers to confirm to Cabinet that a letter from Eastern Cheshire Clinical Commissioning Group had been circulated which stated that they had not been involved in the risk assessment during the review of respite care provision. She also claimed that there was insufficient alternative provision available in the independent sector and that the Council needed to provide a robust statement of what alternative arrangements it had in place when closing down 50 beds. She suggested that the Council should consider how its care beds could be saved and run by another operator.
David Wood mentioned that dementia cases were set to double over the next 15 years and that this would place increasing demands on an already stretched independent sector. The closure of Hollins View would lead to the loss of 40 beds which would increase further the pressure on existing provision. He went on to question the figures in the report for the cost of respite care in Hollins View, which he felt were inflated, and the cost of provision within the independent sector which he felt was understated. Finally, he suggested that what the public would want to see was both the expansion of the independent sector and the retention of Hollins View and Lincoln House in order to retain quality provision in both sectors and offer the widest possible choice.
In response to the previous two speakers, Councillor Clowes confirmed that the letter to Mr Wood by the CCG in relation to risk assessment had been raised at a meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board. The Council had not invited CCG to comment on the Council’s proposals as this would have been contrary to the Council’s governance arrangements since the respite service was a Council service and not an NHS or joint service. She then went on to confirm that the rate of £376 for respite care was the rate the Council had agreed with independent providers, although she did accept that self-funders might have to pay top up fees. She agreed that ideally there should be a mixed economy of service providers but that given the small contribution made directly by the Council in providing respite care it could not achieve the economies of scale necessary to provide a value for money service at a time of increasing demands on the Council’s limited resources.
Clive Shore asked how closing the Council’s facilities could increase choice. He also commented that the report seemed to suggest that independent providers of respite care were not already providing a personalised service. The Leader responded that the Council was taking action to ensure that the many people with dementia or in need of respite care across the Borough would receive the best service possible in the future, that it would be provided within their local communities, and that local first was a priority. He stressed that the Council was listening carefully to what its residents were saying. Councillor Clowes added that the purpose of the proposals was to ensure that residents would not have to go outside their own communities to obtain respite care. The proposed arrangements would offer more choice of service, not less, and would address the personal needs of individuals. There was also no intention to reduce the number of care beds within the Council’s facilities until the Council was satisfied that there was sufficient capacity within the independent sector.
At the conclusion of public questions, and in response to the comments and requests made by the speakers, the Leader announced that he now needed to discuss the implications of the requests with relevant Cabinet members and officers and that accordingly the meeting would be adjourned for approximately fifteen minutes. He would then bring forward the item on respite care on the agenda.