Agenda item

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Corporate and Support Services.

At its meeting on 5 September, the Executive will consider the following reports:-

(a)       A report from the Corporate Director, Corporate and Support Services entitled ‘Medium Term Financial Plan - Financial Landscape and Forecasts 2012/13 to 2014/15’, and

(b)       A report from the Executive Councillor, Finance entitled ‘ Medium Term Financial Plan – Executive Proposals’

It is recommended that each scrutiny committee should receive a copy of the reports and have the opportunity to hear from and question the relevant Executive Councillors and Corporate Directors regarding the contents of the reports.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to comment as appropriate on the financial challenge facing the Council and, in particular, the proposals from the Executive which relate to those matters within the Scrutiny Committee’s remit.  Comments from all scrutiny committees will be reported to and considered by the Executive.

Officer contact: Steve Houston on 474 4000, or email: steve.houston@stockport.gov.uk

The Corporate Director for Corporate and Support Services submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) requesting the Scrutiny Committee to consider and comment upon the financial prospects facing the Council and the Executive’s proposals for reducing expenditure which were appropriate to the Committee’s remit. The Scrutiny Committee was asked to comment on two reports which had been considered by the Executive at its meeting on 5 September 2011, namely, (a) Medium Term Financial Plan – Financial Landscape and Forecasts 2012/13 to 2014/15 and (b) Medium Term Financial Plan – Executive Proposals. 

The Executive Councillors (Adults) and (Communities) summarised the proposals as they related to their portfolios.

The following comments were made /issues raised:-

·         Concern was expressed about the £1.6 million savings identified in the care management budget through the implementation of the reablement programme in 2012/13; in particular the level of support that would be afforded to those persons after the six week intervention period under the scheme if they still required additional support.  In response, the Scrutiny Committee was advised that ‘reablement’ was designed to be a short-term intensive intervention and that current performance had shown that approximately three in ten service users did not require further assistance.

·         A question was raised in relation to the criteria and process for reablement and how the service would target hard to reach groups.  It was subsequently reported that all individuals with substantive and critical care needs would be referred to the reablement programme in the first instance in order that no gaps in service provision would appear.  Reablement may not always be appropriate and these cases would then be referred back.

·         A member recounted the excellent service received by a family member through the reablement scheme, but noted that the service received at the conclusion of this by a private sector provider had not met the same standard. 

·         Implementation plans for the proposals contained within the report should have been provided to the Scrutiny Committee prior to consideration of the proposals to assist in arriving at a judgement.  The Scrutiny Committee was advised that the consultation process was ongoing and the supporting documents would go through a number of iterations during this period, however if members requested this information it would be made available to them.

·         The number of proposed post reductions resulting from the proposals was queried.  The Scrutiny Committee was advised that it was anticipated that there would be a reduction of ten social workers and three managers which would be achieved through voluntary redundancies and holding current vacancies.  There would be a reduction of a further six posts in Quality Management and two posts in the commissioning of support and information management.

·         Supported tenancy provision had been mentioned in the report and in particular the negotiation of staff terms and the redesign of services.  Members asked what this would mean in practice and whether negotiation over staff terms would actually mean a reduction in working conditions.

·         The use of the phrase ‘efficiency savings’ implied that the Council was ‘inefficient’ previously, particularly as such savings were being made without an impact on front line services.  It was further commented that if spending on services was being reduced, did this mean that spending had previously been too high or that it would be too little in the future.  In response, it was stated that efficiency savings had been made by the Council for a number of years, but that instead of using these savings to develop new services, these were now being used to achieve the necessary budgetary reductions.

·         Cost reductions in community meals were proposed in the report and Members asked for further information on how these would be made.  The removal of linen and community meal services would have an impact on those that currently used them, and what provision would be made for those service users in the future.  Members were advised that in the past community meals had only been distributed by a ‘meals on wheels’ service.  With the advent of Personal Budgets there was now scope for meals and  other services to be provided by other sources such as local cafes or public houses, which had the advantage of leading to a greater degree of social inclusion.  However, it was noted that those with higher and complex needs will always need specialist services provided by the Council.

·         The move towards self-directed support and Personal Budgets would be welcomed by some service users, however, many people, and in particular those who were less affluent or articulate would more reticent or able to take on the planning and design of their own service provision and what support and assistance would be provided for them.  The Scrutiny Committee was advised that it was not anticipated that all service users would take up the option of Personal Budgets and that there would always be a requirement for other options to be available.

·         It was noted that it was anticipated that those users who take up Personal Budgets would make ‘more cost effective decisions’ and negotiate lower costs and it was queried why the Council with its sizable purchasing power had been unable to achieve this.  Members were advised that it was not necessarily the case that individuals were able to negotiate better prices than the Council, but that service users were able to selected different providers and use different services to better meet their needs which may cost less than the services which would have been purchased by the Council.

RESOLVED – (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That the comments of the Scrutiny Committee be referred to the Executive for consideration.