Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Christine Godwin, Maisey and Rodberg. 

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.

Shirley Griffiths declared a personal interest in any reference to the following organisations, of which she was a member: -

·        Medway NHS Foundation Trust

·        South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

·        Medway Older People’s Partnership.

Councillor Igwe declared a personal interest in mental health services and the prison service as he worked as a mental health practitioner for the NHS in the prison service.

Councillor Kearney declared a personal interest in any reference to Medway NHS Foundation Trust and the South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, as she was a member of both trusts.

Councillor Shaw declared a personal interest in agenda item 4 (Call-in: Medway Council’s vision for commissioning and providing adult social care services in Medway) as she knew people who attended the Balfour Centre.

This Cabinet decision has been called-in by six Councillors. 

Discussion:

Councillor Murray explained that six Members of the Labour Group had called in Cabinet decision 153/2011. This was because they wished to make a proposal to call a halt to the consultation on the future of Balfour Centre, Nelson Court, Platters Farm Lodge and Robert Bean Lodge and request officers to explore options with service users, staff and other stakeholders to retain them as council-run services that were economically viable and efficient.

Councillor Murray expressed the view that these were all highly valued facilities with specialist services where the council should be exploring, with staff, the efficiencies required to enable them to remain as council services. She stated there was little benchmarking or economic analysis in the report to Cabinet; it only stated that the private sector could do better. The Labour Group considered their proposal was based on sound business-reasons because the private sector could only provide services that were profitable, whereas the council could provide services that people really needed.

Officers responded that a 60 day consultation period had been proposed in order to speak to stakeholders to gain their views and inform the decision-making process. This would be achieved through face-to-face contact, telephone, e-mail and easy-read facilities. It was important that the council had the opportunity to explain the proposals thoroughly and listen to people’s responses. It had been built into the proposals that this committee would see the responses to the consultation and discuss the matter in January 2012 before it was reported to Cabinet in February 2012. The council’s commissioning team had been instructed to make every comment available to Members to view at any time before a report was submitted to Cabinet which would summarise all the responses.

The committee was also informed that a 30 day consultation period was proposed for Platters Farm Lodge as it had a high turn-over rate of temporary service users, who regularly gave comments to the council with regard to the services provided there. This timescale was different to the other services because it was not a residential home.

The representative of the Pensioners Forum, Christine Baker, stated that the forum wished to inform the committee that it opposed the proposal to out-source council care home services, as it put the very old and very vulnerable at risk. She said there had been much in the media about private companies stripping care homes of their assets and it was also very dangerous and unacceptable for old people to be forced to move home at a late stage of their lives.

Members of the committee then raised the following questions and comments:

Balfour Centre

·        what activities were available to people attending the Balfour Centre and should the centre close in the future, what other facilities were available for those users?

·        what do the people who used to attend the Balfour Centre do now and where do they go?

·        how had the figures of an average of 34 daily users of the Balfour Centre been calculated?

·        where in Medway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 596.

This Cabinet decision has been called-in by six Councillors.  

Discussion:

The Vice-Chairman of the committee explained that six Members of the Conservative Group had called-in Cabinet decision 154/2011. This was because they felt it was important to consider this matter alongside other changes to adult social care.

The Assistant Director for Adult Social Care advised that this proposal was as a result of the council’s current charging policy that was no longer fit for purpose. The current policy was introduced in 2002 and was based on the types of care provided and excluded day care and transport services. The Personalisation budgets did not specify the type of care provided and focussed on outcomes and there was no type of care defined. The current policy also had no provision for those with mental health needs.

The committee was advised that the proposal put forward for consultation was to ‘means test’ all service users of adult social care provision. If the user had more than £23,500 in savings they would then contribute towards their care. If the users had less than this amount in savings, the council would provide care for them. The figure of £23,500 was a national figure and not one imposed by the council. The proposals would also include those with mental health issues and users of day care and transport services.

Another part of the proposed policy was to provide a top-up loan for the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) which is a grant given by the council to a person who needs to make adaptations to their home in order for them to live safely and with dignity, rather than be moved to live in care. Where the cost of the adaptations exceeded the limit of £30,000, the proposal was that the council could offer funding of up to £25,000, which would be secured by a legal charge against the property. This would be repayable when the property was sold; when the applicant was not able to maintain their commitment to provide care at home; or when the applicant died. The loan would then be re-used for another applicant requiring the top-up funding in order to maintain their independence at home.

Members asked how the DFG top-up loan would apply to those in rented accommodation, as they did not own the property they were living in. Officers responded that the consultation could easily incorporate the views of those living in rented accommodation but that there had been applicants in the past and the council had worked successfully with the landlord to provide the correct accommodation and/or adaptations for the tenant. Officers also added that another 40 units accommodation for elderly people was becoming available from February 2012 and £506 million of funding had been secured as a contribution towards future accommodation of this type.

Members re-iterated that the proposed policy did not safeguard people in rented accommodation and therefore they were discriminated against in the policy. Officers were asked to ensure that the Diversity Impact Assessment screening form was updated to ensure people in this situation were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 597.