Agenda item

To consider a report of Leader of the Council and the Executive Councillor (Corporate, Customer and Community Services)

At its meeting on 15 July 2014, the Executive received a Medium Term Financial Forecast that indicated a budget reduction requirement of £22.453m for 2015/16, and forecast a cumulative reduction requirement of £39.419m in 2016/17, rising to £64.5m by 2018/19. In response to those forecasts, and in line with its previous deliberations and statements of intent, the Executive agreed the strategic framework for Investing in Stockport (IIS), a single programme of sustainable growth and public service reform in the Borough over the medium term.

At its most recent meeting on 12 August the Executive brought forward a set of proposals informed by the strategic framework and designed to address the budget reduction requirement.  Executive Councillors agreed that there should be a report to all scrutiny committees in the next cycle outlining the proposals relating to each committee’s remit.  Confirmation of which proposals fall within the remit of which Committee is provided at Appendix 1.

The business case working papers that were made available to the Executive Councillors accompany this report have been updated to include additional information in relation to the potential risks and impacts associated with the proposed changes.

All scrutiny committees are being requested during this cycle of meetings to comment upon the approach being taken by the Executive to address the need to make substantial savings over the next two years, and the specific proposals brought forward for consultation.

It is recommended, therefore, that the Scrutiny Committee comments upon both the overall approach being taken by the Executive and the specific proposals detailed in the accompanying documents, where they fall within the remit of that Committee.

Officer contact: Steve Houston / Laureen Donnan; 0161 474 4000 / 3180 or email: steve.houston@stockport.gov.uk or laureen.donnan@stockport.gov.uk

A joint report of the Leader of the Council and the Executive Councillor (Corporate, Customer & Community Services) was submitted (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the Executive’s proposals to respond to the Medium Term Financial Forecast considered by the Executive in July 2014. At its meeting in August, the Executive endorsed for consultation a set of proposals, in accordance with the Investing In Stockport strategic framework, that sought to respond to the required budget reductions but also to target investment to ensure the best outcomes for residents in the Borough.

The accompanying documents to the report provided further detail on the following ‘Investing In Stockport proposals:-

·         Preventative Commissioning Strategy

·         Integrated Prevention Service Children and Family Services

·         Integrated Care – Adult Social Care and Health

·         0-25 SEND Review

·         Learning Disability Review

·         Locality Operating Model

·         Information, Advice & Guidance

The Executive Councillors (Adult Care Services), (Children & Young People), (Corporate, Customer and Community Services) and (Economic Development & Regeneration) and appropriate project leads attended the meeting to present the proposals and to answer questions.

The following comments were made/issues raised in relation to the following proposals:-

(i)         Prevention Commissioning Strategy

·         Concern was expressed that the proposed reduction in ‘service duplication’ may result in an actual loss of service for some users.

·         A number of the saving proposals within the Adult Care Services portfolio had been deferred into the 2016/17 financial year and it was questionable whether those proposals could be delivered even within that timescale in the light of reduced resources.

·         There was a need to ensure that services for those with mental health needs extended beyond the pattern of normal working hours.

·         The proposed decommissioning of services procured from the third sector had the risk of reducing the pool of those organisations bidding to run services and consequently the costs associated with running those services may increase due a lack of competition.

·         The proposal to grow ‘reciprocal or natural support’ within communities through the extended use of volunteers needed to be carefully managed to ensure an equal spread of such volunteers throughout the borough.

·         Concern was expressed in relation to the proposal to ‘borrow’ funds from reserves for use in 2015/16 and then ‘repay’ those amounts in 2016/17 and future years as required and whether the Council’s approach to reserve-setting had been overly cautious.

(ii)        Integrated Prevention Services Children and Family Service

The development of ‘alternative provision’ for care leavers age 16 was discussed and it was confirmed that the costs currently associated with these placements could be significant and the outcomes unsatisfactory.  It was being explored with Stockport Homes if capacity within their housing stock could more suitably accommodate these young people, and at a lower cost to the Council.

(iii)       Integrated Care - Adult Social Care and Health

·         The projections for the opening of the three new locality hubs seemed optimistic.

·         The boundaries of the locality hubs and integrated children services did not necessarily correlate to local authority boundaries and there was the potential for confusion.

·         The savings outlined as a result of hospital deflections and their proposed use within the community may not materialise as agreement had not yet been secured from the Stepping Hill NHS Foundation Trust.

(iv)       0-25 SEND Review

·         Proposed revisions to the criteria for access to short breaks was discussed and the barriers that may exist for service users taking them up.

·         The proposed redesign of SEN transport services would continue to ensure that young people retained their independence and had access to transport services as and when they needed it.

(v)        Learning Disability

·         The in-house service would operate at a reduced level and would focus the Council's very skilled staff on those clients with the highest level of need.

·         It was recognised that some service users would no longer be engaged by the Learning Disability Service as such provision was not always appropriate for all those users.

·         Concern was expressed over the cessation of daytime activities for those in residential care which would consequently result in reduced interaction within the wider community.

·         Elected representatives needed to be included in the list of stakeholders.

(vi)       Locality Operating Model

·         Concern was expressed with regard to the channelling of services through the internet when a significant proportion of users still wanted to access services over the telephone. 

·         The proposed four locality areas did not necessarily correlate with local authority ward boundaries.

(vii)      Information, Advice & Guidance

·         It may be difficult for the Council to balance the projected increase in demand for access to information and guidance resulting from the implementation of the Care Act with a reduction in resources.

·         The personalisation of technological solutions would be a challenge.

·         Users often had an expectation that accessing electronic services would produce instantaneous outcomes, and the Council’s systems were not always meeting that expectation at present.

The Scrutiny Committee welcomed the open and inclusive method by which it was being consulted on the proposals, but commented that at this early stage, much of the detail was still outstanding.  Members of the Scrutiny Committee further expressed their view that there was significant risk that some of the proposals may fail to meet projected targets.

RESOLVED – (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That the comments of the Scrutiny Committee be submitted to the Executive for their consideration as part of the feedback on the Investing in Stockport proposals.