Agenda and minutes

Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday, 28th November, 2017 6.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 2, Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Jonathan Vali  (0161 474 3201)

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

1.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 75 KB

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2017.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 24 October 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

2.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they have in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors and officers were invited to declare any interests they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

 

The following interest was declared:-

 

Personal Interest

 

Councillor

Interest

 

 

Laura Booth

Agenda item 6, ‘Inclusive Growth and Reform Programme: Adult Social Care and Public Health budget proposals’ as reference was made in the report to the Revenue & Benefits Service in which her daughter was employed.

 

3.

Call-In

To consider call-in items (if any).

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There was no call-in to consider.

4.

Stockport Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2016/17 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

To consider the Annual Report of the Safeguarding Adults Board.

 

The Annual Report has been prepared in accordance with the statutory requirements and is being submitted to the Scrutiny Committee in line with good practice.

 

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to ask questions and comment on the report.

 

Officer contact: Nuala O'Rourke, 0161- 474-5657, nuala.orourke@stockport.gov.uk

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Gill Frame, Independent Chair of the Stockport Safeguarding Adult Board, accompanied by Nuala O’Rourke, Head of Safeguarding and Learning, attended the meeting to present the Board’s Annual Report for 2016/17 (copies of which had been circulated) and to answer questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

 

It was commented that the 206/17 had been a positive year and that the Board was in an increasingly strong position.

 

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

 

·         The use of the ‘if Stockport was 100 people’ graphic within the report was commended.

·         It was important to utilise information from whistle-blowers and from other staff who were interacting with the public, even if they were not specifically employed in safeguarding. Ensuring as many people as possible were trained to identify risk and know how to report it would provide more ‘eyes and ears’. In response, this point was acknowledged and the Board had given particular emphasis to its auditing arrangements to ensure partners were held to account, and it was hoped this would show benefits in the next reporting year.

·         How was learning shared from serious case reviews and other review processes? In response it was stated that there were regular training/ learning events with practioners, as well as new 7 minute briefs on the Board’s website.

·         Was adult safeguarding as resource hungry in the way children’s safeguarding could be? In response it was stated that every social worker was likely to state that safeguarding adults was what they did every day but where there were issues of concern, such as around neglect, responding to these were by their nature it is resource hungry. Supporting partners and providers to improve was more effective.

·         More details were requested about how the Board was addressing self-neglect, particularly because there were unlikely to be practioners to report problems. In response it was stated that neglect this was a priority shared with the Children’s Board. A strategy and guidance was being developed for practioners to identify those at risk. This type of neglect was linked to capacity to make sound decisions.

·         What links were being developed with the Fire Service who undertook home visits to vulnerable residents? In response it was acknowledged that the Fire Service were a valuable source and partner, but that the Board was currently without a representative due to the retirement of the previous member.

·         An update was requested in respect of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. In response it was stated that there had been a significant challenge with the volume of applications, and tis was increasing. The outcome of a Law Society reviews and further government guidance were awaited. It was stated that the Council would always follow the spirit of the law to ensure that priority was given to processing applications where there was dispute or concern.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be welcomed and Gill Frame and Nuala O’Rourke be thanked for their attendance and presentation.

5.

Safer Stockport Partnership Priorities pdf icon PDF 107 KB

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

 

The purpose of this report is to seek views on proposed priority areas for the SSP to focus on in a new SSP Plan. Given the cross-cutting nature of the Partnership’s work, this report is being considered by all Scrutiny Committees.

 

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to:

·         note the developing Stockport and GM Community Safety Plans, underpinned by completed strategic assessments, and timetables for further engagement and consultation going forward;

·         consider the proposed priority areas for action in the new SSP Plan set out at paragraph 4.3 of the report.

 

Officer contact: Peter Owston, 0161 474 3274, peter.owston@stockport.gov.uk

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Deputy Chief Executive submitted a report of the Deputy Chief Executive (copies of which had been circulated) seeking the views of the Scrutiny Committee on proposed priority areas for the Safer Stockport Partnership to focus on in a new Safer Stockport Partnership Plan.

 

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

 

·         What was the reason for Stockport having higher than average alcohol admissions? In response it was suggested that the cause was likely to be more accurate recording by the Foundation Trust, although the longstanding issues with alcohol misuse were monitored by the Council and health partners.

·         Further information was sought on the significant increase in reports of Child Sexual Exploitation. In response it was stated that improved reporting resulting from greater awareness and about the manner in which data was recorded. It was clarified that the classification did not always refer to large, organised exploitation or even actual abuse, but did include reports about young people at risk. The Stockport team responsible for delivering Operation Phoenix had been judged through a peer review process to be the best in Greater Manchester.

·         Assurance was sought that developing problems were given particular priority to prevent escalation. In response, information as given about the work of the Aspire Team who provide support to other partners and intervention to help prevent harm, often for small cohorts but those at high risk.

·         Ensuring those involved in providing services or in contact with vulnerable people had the appropriate skills to identify issues and concerns should mean that more soft intelligence or early warning signs could be identified. In response it was confirmed that this approach was being taken in training front line staff, although there was further work to do.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

6.

Inclusive Growth and Reform Programme: Adult Social Care and Public Health budget proposals pdf icon PDF 191 KB

To consider a joint report of the Cabinet Members for Adult Social Care and for Health.

 

In recent months the Cabinet has presented a series of updates detailing its approach to becoming self-financing by 2020/21 and addressing the significant funding challenges facing the Council. Within it’s latest update on 14 November, the Cabinet outlined the challenging position facing Adult Social Care and Public Health services and introduced a series of options for addressing these.

 

This report is now being presented to this Scrutiny Committee for comment accompanied by a detailed proposals for specific options as appropriate.

 

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to comment on the reports and proposals presented within them.

 

Officer contact: Andrew Webb, 0161 474 3808, Andrew.webb@stockport.gov.uk

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A joint report of the Cabinet Members for Adult Social Care and for Health was submitted (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider and comment on a series of detailed proposals and options for savings from within the Adult Social Care and Public Health services to address the challenging financial position faced by these services.

 

The Cabinet Members highlighted a number of key issues, including:-

 

·         the disappointment of the Cabinet that the recent Autumn Budget Statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not included additional resources to address funding shortfalls for adult social care;

·         the Stockport Together Programme would assist in addressing some, though not all, of the budget pressures facing adults social care and public health;

·         the Public Health Grant had been subject to a number of in-year reductions in previous financial years and while relatively modest sums in the overall context of the Council’s finances they were significant as a proportion of the overall public health budget;

·         these proposals needed to be seen in the context of the ongoing challenges to Council finances, with significant sums needing to be saved in the next and future years. The Cabinet had therefore stated that it was proposing both the full permitted increase in Council Tax and the Social Care levy;

·         there remained a number of savings targets from previous years that had not been achieved and these would be addressed through these proposals;

·         the Council’s savings programmes needed also to be seen within the context of cost improvement and savings programmes of partner organisations.

 

The Director and Deputy Director of Public Health, the Director of Operational Social Care, a representative of the Borough Treasurer and other officers from the Adult Social Care Services attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Chair expressed the concerns, shared by many councillors, of the severity of the financial situation facing the Council.

 

The Director of Public Health stated that it was likely that the current proposals were likely to have a significant impact on the NHS as well as the Council and expressed disappointment that these savings could not be made through the wider health and social care economy. He expressed concern about the impact of these proposals, and reminded the Scrutiny Committee on the recommendations he had made in his last Annual Report in respect of Local Authority funding.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered each of the proposals as set out in the report appendices in turn.

 

Adult Social Care Charging Policy

 

Clarification was provided that charges were levied for all services but these proposals related specifically to non-residential services. It was also stated that everyone was subject to a financial assessment to determine their ability to pay.

 

The options set out in the proposal were summarised.

 

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

 

·         Clarification was sought on the correspondence with the stated aims of the Stockport Programme. In response it was clarified that the Council would remain under a legal obligation to provide services to those in need of them.

·         Assurance was sought that those who could not afford to pay would not be disadvantaged by these proposals. In response it was confirmed that the financial assessment would ensure those who could not afford to pay would be protected.

·         Assurance was sought that any income generated from charging would only be used to fund adult social care. In response it was stated that the purpose of the proposals was not to raise income as such, but to protect front line social care services by reducing savings requirements.

·         Concern was expressed that benchmarking charging against other local authorities may present a challenge if those local authorities were doing the same were they to raise their charges as a consequence. In response it was stated that the Cabinet believed it was right to have a maximum charge/ ceiling on charges, although there was scope  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Agenda Planning pdf icon PDF 55 KB

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.                                                          

 

The report sets out planned agenda items for the Scrutiny Committee’s next meeting and Forward Plan items that fall within the remit of the Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to consider the information in the report and put forward any agenda items for future meetings of the Committee.

           

Officer contact: Jonathan Vali,   0161 474 3201, jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A representative of the Democratic Service Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out planned agenda items for the Scrutiny Committee’s next meeting and any relevant Forward Plan items.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.