Issue - items at meetings - Integrated Community Equipment Service 2014

Report of the Executive Director for Adult’s Services (copy attached).

That the Committee agree to the Council entering into a tailored contract with the equipment provider selected by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) to meet the needs of the residents of Brighton & Hove as recommended by the Health & Wellbeing Board on 9^th September 2014. The CCG have indicated their preferred option is to enter into a contract with the WSCC contractor.

81.1    The Committee considered a report of Executive Director for Adult Services in relation to the Integrated Community Equipment Store (ICES). The report provided further information on the future of the ICES following the deferral of the decision about the future provision of the service at the meeting of the Committee on 16 October 2014. The equipment service was commissioned jointly between the Council and the CCG, and had been provided via a Section 75 agreement between the Council and SCT since 2004. SCT had given notice on the contract and would cease to provide the service on 30 September 2015; the report therefore setting out options for the future of the service. The CCG had indicated that their preferred option was to abide by the decision reached collectively at the Health & Wellbeing Board on 9 September 2014 to work in partnership with the Council and the service commissioned by West Sussex County Council (WSCC). If the Committee were to agree a different option the CCG would actively pursue their preferred option to work with WSCC and potentially leave the current ICES service as a standalone Council service – as opposed to a joint health and social care service.

81.2    In response to questions raised by Councillor Randall the Executive Director for Adult Services explained that the Council intended to base contract negotiations around the information it was currently in receipt of such as the tracking of equipment, but some of the finer detail had not been given over by SCT; however, there was benchmarking data information which would further aid this process. In response to a further query the Executive Director explained that the Council would work closely with HR, the trade unions and the preferred provider going forward to secure staff terms and conditions. They were already known to be good employers and the Executive Director was of the view, but could not guarantee, that they were a living wage employer. It was reiterated that staff that had transferred over from WSCC over nine years were still with the provider.

81.3    Councillor Morgan stated his view that the decision to outsource the service had already been made following the decision of the Health & Wellbeing Board in September – he felt the process had created questions of how decisions were made in relation to health matters. Were there an NHS alternative bid before the Committee then this would be backed, but he felt the Committee would have to support the proposals before them to prevent the service being split. It was important that the current team be able to continue providing local services to people, and be based in the city. Councillor Morgan felt these decisions were going to become increasingly frequent and it was vital that health services be accountable and public.

81.4    Councillor Sykes stated his view that there had been a collective failure on the part of both politicians and trade unions to properly produce an in-house bid for the service; however, he felt that to block the proposals would be to the detriment of the service users.

81.5    Councillor G. Theobald stated that this was now the third time the proposal had been before him and each time the advice had been consistent. He acknowledged the concerns of the staff, but he was of the view that the needs of residents must come first and the provision of this service with WSCC would ensure that residents were able to stay in their own homes. The national trend was towards integrated health and social services, and he was disappointed that one of the first instances of this model of working had been turbulent. He stated it was not practically possible for the Council to run its own service; the preferred bidder had a strong track record, and the decision was supported by the CCG.

81.6    Councillor Randall noted the necessity to have provision in place, and queried if there could be some provision in the contract to secure the living wage for staff; he noted the importance of the decision and stated he would support the report.

81.7    Councillor A. Norman stated the meeting had been useful to give the Committee more information. She noted that as medical advances were made then additional support had to be provided for individuals coming out of hospital. Councillor A. Norman highlighted that she applauded the work of the team at ICES, but with the current provider pulling out of the service a decision had to be made about the future service provision, and it would be harmful not to agree the recommendations in the report.

81.8    Councillor Hamilton stated he was disappointed that the health service were pulling out of providing this service, but he felt that more work could have been undertaken since September 2013 to look at other options. He expressed concern in relation to the four staff currently employed by the Council, and agreed with others on the Committee that their terms and conditions should be protected. He also added that he had received assurance from the Executive Director that the service would remain free at the point of delivery.

81.9    At this point in the meeting the Executive Director explained that if the recommendations were agreed it was important that the work be able to progress quickly with the preferred provider, and it was their preference to have a base in the Brighton area.

81.10  Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that he would have supported the substantive recommendations at the previous meeting, but he felt the additional information had been valuable and clarified the situation. He added that any other decision would be to the detriment of residents of the city.

81.11  The Chair added that the scale of the local population was not enough for the level of service that was required, and therefore it was necessary to enter into the larger contract. There had been missed opportunities in the past, and this had not been to the benefit of the staff and service users. The Chair also added that he had been concerned with some of the questioning of the Health & Wellbeing Board set up as this was happening nationally, and the Council’s governance arrangements were leading on this to deliver improved outcomes for service users.

81.12  The Chair then put the recommendations to the vote.

81.13  RESOLVED -  That the Committee agree to the Council entering into a tailored contract with the equipment provider selected by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) to meet the needs of the residents of Brighton & Hove as recommended by the Health & Wellbeing Board on 9 September 2014. The CCG have indicated their preferred option is to enter into a contract with the WSCC contractor.