Agenda item

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 periodic intervals  to review the effectiveness of this decision specifically on the quality and number of beds available, starting 6 months after the introduction of the new arrangements.

RESOLVED

1.    That Cabinet be informed that this Committee  has no advice to offer in respect of  its decision taken on 30 June 2015  in connection with ‘moving to local personalised Carer respite –update’

2.    That the Committee review the progress of the decision to secure alternative carer respite support via a formal tender process, initially in November 2015, and subsequent at periodic intervals  to review the effectiveness of this decision specifically on the quality and number of beds available, starting 6 months after the introduction of the new arrangements.