Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the special meeting held on 8 December 2011 and the meeting held on 15 December 2011.

The records of the special meeting held on 8 December 2011 and the meeting held on 15 December 2011 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Apologies for absence were received from Christine Baker (Medway Pensioners Forum) and Councillor Gulvin.  The Chairman announced that Christine Baker was now out of hospital and had thanked the Committee for their good wishes.

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none.

(a)               Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

(c)               Whipping – the Council’s constitution also requires any Member of the Committee who is subject to a party whip (ie agreeing to vote in line with the majority view of a private party group meeting) to declare the existence of the whip and the nature of it before the item is discussed.

Councillor Kearney declared a personal interest as she is a Member of Medway NHS Foundation Trust and the South East Coast Ambulance Trust.

Councillor Igwe declared a personal interest as he is a mental health practitioner working for the prison service and the NHS.

Councillor Murray declared a personal interest as her niece has been appointed to NHS Medway. 

Shirley Griffiths declared a personal interest as she is a member of the Medway NHS Foundation Trust, a Member of the South East Coast Ambulance Trust and of Medway Older People’s Partnership. Councillor Christine Godwin declared a personal interest as she chairs the Medway Older People’s Partnership.

During debate later in the meeting Councillor Purdy declared a personal interest in Age Concern as she is a trustee of that organisation.

The Chairman referred to a suggested running order for the meeting, which had been handed to each Member present and shared, in advance of the meeting, with the opposition spokespersons, and the Committee agreed this.

This report will detail feedback from the consultation process in relation to proposals relating to Fairer Contributions for Fairer Access to Services prior to consideration by the Cabinet (suggested 1 hr maximum debate).

Discussion:

The Social Care Commissioning and Voluntary Sector Manager gave a presentation illustrating the background to the proposed changes to the council’s policies on charging contributions for non-residential Adult Social Care services and Disabled Facility Grant for adaptations.

The Service Manager, Physical Disabilities, then gave a presentation on the proposals with regard to the Disabled Facility Grant.  She explained that the review was to ensure that the system is a fair as possible and sustainable in the future.  She explained that in a few complex cases the Disabled Facility Grant was not enough to enable people to make the alterations needed to their homes because they are means tested or the adaptations cost more than the grant available.   In cases where additional financial support was needed the Council was looking into the possibility of offering an interest free loan in such cases on the understanding it would be repaid when the home was no longer needed by the disabled service user or their family.

Members questioned officers on both reports and sought clarification on a number of issues. 

Some Members felt that more should be done in the way of checking the feasibility of making these changes particularly as there were often structural reasons why houses could not be adapted extensively.  There was also concern around the ability of some people to be able to repay and, what was perceived to be, a possible unfairness of putting a charge on a property, which would affect other family members. 

The view was expressed that widening access to adaptations should not be used as an argument to close establishments such as the Balfour Centre as it was not possible to replicate the social element involved.  Officers then explained that the proposals in relation to fairer contributions for fairer access to services were not connected with the proposals under consideration relating to the decommissioning of the Balfour Centre or the outsourcing of Linked Services Centres.

A proposal was made that the Cabinet should be asked to reconsider the proposal and look at how to use the Council’s assets more effectively to move quickly to the provision of purpose built accommodation to meet the needs of disabled people using private investors and with affordable rents. On being put to the vote this proposal was lost.

Some Members of the Committee then expressed support for the Cabinet’s proposals, which would enable people to retain their independence but it was suggested that the Cabinet should also consider ways to increase the provision of purpose built accommodation.

Decision:

It was agreed to recommend the Cabinet to consider the comments made at the meeting and to investigate the possibility of building specially adapted houses for people with a disability.

This report will detail feedback from the consultation process in relation to Medway Council’s vision for commissioning and providing adult social care prior to consideration by the Cabinet (suggested 1 hr max debate on Balfour Centre plus 1 hr max debate on outsourcing).

 Discussion:

The Committee considered the issue of the decommissioning of the Balfour Centre first and received a presentation on the proposals by the Social Care Commissioning and Voluntary Sector Manager.

(a) Balfour Centre

Discussion:

The Social Care Commissioning and Voluntary Sector Manager explained the background to the proposal to close the Balfour Centre which was that the attendance at the Centre was falling as more people chose direct payments.  She also pointed out that a number of independent sector providers were keen to enter the market and would be more cost effective.  She referred to the commissioning of a number of Changing Place toilets across Medway one at Eastgate and another at Hempstead Valley. 

Mrs Cooper, as lead petitioner, addressed the Committee and put forward the following points:

• Recent visits from some Members of the Council to the Balfour Centre had been welcome
• She intended to make a request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for full attendance register details of attendance at the Balfour Centre over the past two years to check whether attendance had fallen
• Disappointment had been expressed that the details of alternative provision had not been made available during the consultation period in spite of them being requested
• Once the Centre was closed it could not be easily replaced and it was likely such Centres would be in even greater demand in future
• If the independent sector were keen to provide such facilities why could the Council not provide them?
• Staff at Balfour Centre provided a helpful service to service users in helping them deal with practical and emotional problems including providing a place where they could share their concerns

Mr Munton, as lead petitioner of one of the petitions relating to both Balfour and the outsourcing issue), put forward the following points:

• It was felt that to ensure a mix of provision in social care that good public sector provision was needed
• There had been an increase in reports in the media recently of problems with social care establishments run by the private sector
• The cost to the private sector of running social care establishments must be the same as for the local authority so why could the local authority not run them more economically?
• There was no private provision that adequately compensated for the loss of the Balfour Centre
• Why had the Council not considered other alternatives to privatisation involving a more co-operative style?

Mr Crittenden a service user at the Balfour Centre spoke in support of the Centre and put forward the view that if it closed there would be limited options for the service users. 

A relative of a service user at the Balfour Centre urged Members to vote in accordance with their conscience.

Members then questioned officers about the proposal to decommission the Balfour Centre and the Social Care Commissioning and Voluntary Sector Manager undertook to provide the list of alternative provision, along with some responses to frequently asked questions, to the consultation meeting, which would be held on 30  ...  view the full minutes text for item 736.

To consider whether any items need to be added to the work programme and agree a date for a special meeting of the Committee on 22 May 2012.

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report by pointing out that a special meeting had been suggested to consider the proposals on future delivery of mental health care management and services for 22 May 2012.

She also advised the Committee that an invitation, from NHS Kent and Medway had been handed to each Member present to an options appraisal workshop for acute mental health services, which would be held on 24 February 2012 at King Charles Hotel in Gillingham.

Decision: 

It was agreed that a special meeting of the Committee would be held on 22 May 2012 at 6.30 p.m. to consider proposals on the future delivery of mental health care management and services prior to the report being considered by Cabinet.