Issue - meetings

The following documents are attached:

a) notices invoking the Call-In;

b) minutes of the Cabinet held on 14 March 2013;

c) report submitted to Cabinet on 14 March 2013.

The Sub-Committee received papers in respect of a call-in notice submitted by seven Members of the Council.  As the Committee Procedure Rules did not make provision for members of the public to address the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee agreed to allow family representatives of service users to address the meeting. 

The Chairman invited the Member representative of the Councillor signatories to present their reasons for call-in to the committee.

The Member Representative addressed each of the grounds for call-in separately.

Ground a) – inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision

The Member Representative described the Cabinet meeting on 14 March at which he believed there had been confusion about the nature and status of the decision being taken.  The families he had spoken to had not been clear as to what had been decided, and thus he had concerns about the nature of the consultation, and whether the service users had the capacity to fully understand the issues and the consequences.

Ground e) – a potential human rights challenge

The Member Representative considered that if the proposals had not been properly explained to service users in the light of their capacity for understanding, if an independent advocate service had not been provided, and if the Council had not fully met service user needs in these respects, then he believed that the Council would be vulnerable to a human rights challenge.

Ground f) – insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice

The Member Representative made reference to the Equalities Act, and its requirements to eliminate discrimination and advance equal opportunity.  He queried if enough had been done to create a ‘level playing field’ for service users with learning difficulties, both in ensuring that they fully understood the proposals and their implications, and in delivering accommodation and services that best met their needs.

He stated that he had been made aware of the following issues during meetings and discussions with service users and their families:

·                    whether the integration of services users with differing categories of need was desirable;

·                    the potential for bullying and harassment of individuals placed among residents with differing needs;

·                    the disruption for elderly residents and residents with learning difficulties if accommodated together.

He reminded the Sub-Committee that many service users had been resident in their current placements for many years, even decades, and were ill-equipped to deal with change and disruption to their routine.  He believed the trauma of removing individuals from their known and secure environment would have an adverse impact and questioned whether the Council had done enough to address concerns.

The Member Representative then queried whether the figures quoted in the report were sufficiently accurate in respect of predicted costs and anticipated savings.  He believed that until the level of work required for mitigation was known and individual care plans were drafted, it was difficult to be clear about costs.  Furthermore, if figures were based on services for older persons rather than residents with special needs, then they would be too low.

In conclusion, the Member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38

Report of the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the new Service Model, described in section 2.5 of the report, which specifically involved the following changes to services be agreed:

A.                 Bedford House - work to achieve separation between the long-term residential, respite and day services at Bedford House. Work with the Council’s Estates Department to identify a longer term option for the efficient use of Bedford House. This may include the potential sale of the building and the purchase of an alternative building which met the needs of the long-term residents in a high quality environment;

B.                Gordon Avenue - change the model of the service and identify a choice of alternative housing options for the service users living at the Home.  To use the service as a Residential Respite provision in the future. In addition, to increase the use of alternative respite options including Harrow Shared Lives Service and communicate the range of options to families and service users;

C.                Woodlands Drive - change the model of the service and identify a choice of alternative housing options for the service users living at the Home;

D.                Southdown Crescent - de-register the service and support people to live in a supported living environment;

E.                 Roxborough Park - maintain and develop the current modelof the service delivering high quality care to people with complex autism and severe challenging behaviour.  This would mean that some people who do not have complex autism and severe challenging behaviour who currently lived at the Service might be supported to move to alternative provision that met their assessed eligible needs.

(2)               the Corporate Director for Community, Health and Wellbeing, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holders, be authorised to agree the future model and use for Woodlands Drive with the vacant building being considered for young adults in transition who needed support to remain close to home.

Reason for Decision:  To enable local residential service provision for adults with learning disabilities that responded to current and future demand for specialist residential services.  To contribute between £600k-£1m to the achievement of Medium Term Financial Strategy savings of £2.275m in relation to residential care.  To consider whether there were any residents who might be supported to live more independently.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing, setting out the proposals which involved the reconfiguration of six residential care services provided by the Council for people with learning disabilities.

It was noted that, as part of the review, extensive consultation had taken place with service users, families, advocates and staff working within the services.  The report explained that the aim of the review was to deliver a modernised service that offered improved outcomes and value for money whilst ensuring that local needs were met in the most effective way possible based on national policy guidance and best practice.

The Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing stated that the review process had not been rushed and a great deal of time had been spent on it, as it had been important to strike a balance between the resources the Council had for residential provision against the needs of those that the Council supported.  The Portfolio Holder added that this balance was needed otherwise fewer people would be provided for.  She added that:

·                    the review process had commenced in June 2011 and that the consultation process had commenced in September 2011 for a period of 12 weeks;

·                    the recommendations being proposed were at a strategic and shape level, with a view to shaping the changes for all of the different residences rather than for individuals;

·                    the proposals were intended to remodel a number of the services, de?register one and move respite care from Bedford House to Gordon Avenue;

·                    the changes would be challenging and would impact on a number of vulnerable people;

·                    users and carers had been consulted with advice and advocacy being provided to support them thereby giving every service user an opportunity to engage in the process.  Staff had also been consulted;

·                    opposition to the proposed changes was expected, and it was appreciated that the process would be distressing for users who potentially would need to move homes.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the Council had listened to people and considered the requirements of the Equalities Act in reaching its conclusions.  She commended the report to Cabinet, which she considered to be comprehensive and was proud of, and made a minor amendment to recommendation 1 in that it ought to make reference to paragraph 2.5 of the report rather than 2.5.3.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance was supportive of the detail provided in the report and made reference to the equality impacts contained within the report to which Cabinet needed to give due regard.  He congratulated the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing and officers for a comprehensive report.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the new Service Model, described in section 2.5 of the report, which specifically involved the following changes to services be agreed:

A.                 Bedford House - work to achieve separation between the long-term residential, respite and day services at Bedford House. Work with the Council’s Estates Department to identify a longer term option for the efficient  ...  view the full minutes text for item 608