Agenda for Adult Care & Health Committee on Monday, 23rd September, 2013, 4.00pm
navigation and tools
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Hove Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Caroline De Marco
(a) Declaration of Substitutes: Where Councillors are unable to attend a meeting, a substitute Member from the same Political Group may attend, speak and vote in their place for that meeting.
(b) Declarations of Interest:
(a) Disclosable pecuniary interests not registered on the register of interests;
(b) Any other interests required to be registered under the local code;
(c) Any other general interest as a result of which a decision on the matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting you or a partner more than a majority of other people or businesses in the ward/s affected by the decision.
In each case, you need to declare
(i) the item on the agenda the interest relates to;
(ii) the nature of the interest; and
(iii) whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest or some other interest.
If unsure, Members should seek advice from the committee lawyer or administrator preferably before the meeting.
(c) Exclusion of Press and Public: To consider whether, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, or the nature of the proceedings, the press and public should be excluded from the meeting when any of the following items are under consideration.
NOTE: Any item appearing in Part Two of the Agenda states in its heading the category under which the information disclosed in the report is exempt from disclosure and therefore not available to the public.
A list and description of the exempt categories is available for public inspection at Brighton and Hove Town Halls.
16A Declarations of Substitute Members
16.1 Councillor Robins declared that he was substituting for Councillor Marsh. Michael Schofield declared that he was substituting for Geraldine Hoban.
16B Declarations of Interests
16.2 There were no interests.
16C Exclusion of the Press and Public
16.3 In accordance with section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, it was considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of any items contained in the agenda, having regard to the nature of the business to be transacted and the nature of the proceedings and the likelihood as to whether, if members of the press and public were present, there would be disclosure to them of confidential or exempt information as defined in section 100I (1) of the said Act.
16.4 RESOLVED - That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Item 28 – Integrated Community Equipment Services.
To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2013 (copy attached).
17.1 Councillor Summers noted that Section 5.3 of the minutes confused the words hydration and dehydration and asked for this to be amended. Councillor Summers pointed out a typing error at paragraph 6.3.
17.2 Councillor Mears referred to paragraph 14.9 in relation to Extra Care Housing. She asked if there would be a further report to the committee should there be a change of plans which affected the business case. The Chair confirmed that there would be a report back to the Committee under those circumstances.
17.3 Councillor Mears referred to paragraphs 14.11 and 14.13 in relation to the debate on the allocations policy. She asked if it could be confirmed if this matter had been addressed and that there was now only one allocation policy. The Executive Director replied that there had been issues with Hanover Housing which had been resolved from 1st September.
17.4 Councillor Mears asked for assurance that Adult Social Care did not have a separate allocations policy. The Chair confirmed that the anomaly had been resolved and that there was now one policy. Councillor Mears asked for this to be confirmed in writing.
17.5 RESOLVED – (1) - That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2013 be agreed and signed as a correct record subject the amendments outlined in paragraph 17.1.
18.1 There were none.
(a) Items 22 to 26 & item 27 will be read out at the meeting and Members invited to reserve the items for consideration.
(b) Those items not reserved will be taken as having been received and the reports’ recommendations agreed.
19.1 RESOLVED – That all items be reserved for discussion.
To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:
(a) Petitions: to receive any petitions presented to the full council or at the meeting itself;
(b) Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 16 September 2013;
(c) Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 16 September 2013.
20.1 The Committee noted that there were no petitions from members of the public.
(b) Written Questions
20.2 The Committee noted that there were no written questions from members of the public.
20.3 The Committee noted that there were no deputations from members of the public.
To consider the following matters raised by councillors:
(a) Petitions: to receive any petitions submitted to the full Council or at the meeting itself;
(b) Written Questions: to consider any written questions;
(c) Letters: to consider any letters;
(d) Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion referred from Council or submitted directly to the Committee.
21.1 The Committee noted that there were no petitions, written questions, letters or Notices of Motion received from councillors.
Report of Executive Director for Finance & Resources & Finance Director, CCG (copy attached).
(1) That the financial position on the NHS Managed S75 Budgets for the 2013/14 financial year be noted.
22.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Finance & Resources and the Finance Director CCG which set out the financial position on the NHS Trust Managed S75 Provider Budgets in 2013/14. The Head of Business Engagement presented the report. The table in paragraph 3.2 of the report showed the contributions to the partnership for 2013/14. Paragraph 3.3 reported on overspends in mental health and the Integrated Equipment Store. The CCG contracts with SCT and SPFT were currently forecast to break even.
22.2 George Mack stated that a growth in dementia cases would be expected, yet the budget allocated to dementia was declining. He thought it would be helpful to consider if that needed to be addressed. Mr Mack referred to paragraph 3.3 which stated that the forecast assumed 867 service users were receiving community care during the year. He asked if this was a total of dementia and mental health service users.
22.3 The Head of Business Engagement explained that WTE (Whole Time Equivalents) was a way of calculating the cost of people who might be receiving services for part of the year. The budget projectory on dementia was the budgeted level of activity. The total forecast number of service users in 2013/14 is estimated at 877.
22.4 Councillor Bowden asked whether there was a model to arrive at budget figures. He expressed concern that the budget allocated for dementia was less than in 2011/12 when incidents were increasing. He asked what would happen to people if the budget was exceeded.
22.5 The Head of Adults Assessment stressed that the costs of complex needs in mental health was high. The budget for dementia had been contained for the last few years and an increase was not expected. Adult Social Care had a duty to meet people’s assessed need. If the budget was overspent, then money would have to be found from elsewhere.
22.6 The Executive Director informed members that more people were being placed in dementia care. She explained that officers are exploring using more community and domiciliary services to meet needs in a more personalised way and at a lower cost.
22.7 Councillor Mears asked if there was a record of how many people went into residential care, and how many were housing association tenants/council tenants or were from private or rented accommodation.
22.8 The Head of Adults Assessment confirmed that the Care First Data Base would be able to break down this information.
22.9 Councillor Mears replied that a breakdown would be useful. She asked how this information was fed back to Housing Services. The Head of Adults Assessment explained that Adult Social Care had a good relationship with Housing Services. If a tenant did not have capacity, Housing Services had to go through a legal process to terminate the tenancy.
22.10 The Chair asked for the data to be supplied for the next meeting.
22.11 RESOLVED - (1) That the financial position on the NHS Managed S75 Budgets for the 2013/14 financial year be noted.
Report of Executive Director of Finance & Resources, Executive Director of Finance & Resources and Chief Finance Officer, Brighton and Hove CCG (copy attached).
(1) That the actions needed to establish the ITF and the issues that it raises be noted.
23.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Adult Services, Executive Director of Finance & Resources and the Chief Finance Officer, Brighton & Hove CCG which explained that as part of the June 2013 spending round the government set out the plans to establish a health and social care Integration Transformation Fund (ITF). The report contained a table with indicative figures built from the national planning assumptions which quantified the likely value of this fund in Brighton and Hove.
23.2 The Chief Finance Officer, CCG presented the report and informed members that the proposed fund had two components as set out in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the report. There were funds already in the system that would be pooled and their deployment would be overseen by the Health & Wellbeing Board, in line with a plan jointly agreed with the CCGs and the City Council. The second component was to add to the existing pooled funds and release a further £10m from NHS funds increasing the fund to £18m. This could only be achieved by joint working between Brighton and Hove CCG, BHCC and Brighton and Sussex University Hospital Trust.
23.3 Additional funds could only be released if the investment planned for the integration of 7 day working in health and social care to deliver earlier interventions and reduce inappropriate admissions to hospital and the hospital reduce their capacity. A key requirement was to have risk-sharing principals and contingency plans in place along side the investment plans for 2014/15 and 2015/16. These plans were required to be developed and ready for implementation by the 31 March 2014.
23.4 Councillor Meadows noted that the Health & Wellbeing Board was being asked to agree plans and questioned why the Adult Care & Health Committee were not to be consulted first when there would be an impact on funding. She asked if staff had been consulted about seven day working.
23.5 The Chief Finance Officer explained that plans had not yet been developed but were required by 31 March 2014. The current report was for noting and was alerting the Committee of the fund and the impact on the Health & Wellbeing Board role. This had happened as a result of national guidance and was not a local decision. Joint plans would have to be presented to the Health & Wellbeing Board as the route for funding. Moving to Seven day working would raise a number of practical issues and if working conditions changed there would be a formal process for the staff affected.
23.6 Councillor Mears noted the plans for joint working and asked what would happen with regard to IT & communication systems. Councillor Mears referred to paragraph 5.8 which stated that there were significant implications which would need to be reflected in budget strategies and the Medium Term Financial Strategy. She stressed that it was important that the Committee had an oversight and impact on the budget papers.
23.7 The Chief Finance Officer agreed that there needed to be a vast improvement in IT systems. The CCG were working closely with the council with regard to financial planning.
23.8 Councillor Meadows asked if the Adult Care & Health Committee could agree the plans before they were passed to the Health and Wellbeing Board for sign off. The Executive Director stated that it was possible for the Committee to consider plans before being presented for sign off by the Health & Wellbeing Board but stressed that there might be timing issues in view of the deadlines.
23.9 Janice Robinson asked what had been done to identify shortcomings in 7 day working so far. She felt that there probably were important gaps in the hospital system. She suggested that some of the funding needed to be placed into health to fund these gaps. She asked to what extent had the local authority and CCG been able to identify the gaps and whether some of the money would have to be provided to health.
23.10 The Executive Director explained that there were already joint plans and that some of the money was spent on community services. The Head of Adults Assessment explained that seven day working in hospitals was already in place. However, the whole sector needed to move to seven day working in order to provide a complete service.
23.11 Councillor Bowden mentioned that patients were being discharged to their own homes without adaptations. He asked where the adaptation fund came from. The Head of Adults Assessment replied that there were a number of different funds and it was critical that people were placed in the right facility when leaving hospital.
23.12 The Chair stated that the Committee would like to see the plans by January 2014.
23.13 RESOLVED - (1) That the actions needed to establish the ITF and the issues that it raises be noted.
Report of Executive Director of Adult Social Services (copy attached).
(1) That the safeguarding work carried out in 2012-13, and the priorities planned for 2013-14 be noted.
(2) That the report be agreed for circulation.
24.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Adult Services which introduced the Brighton & Hove Safeguarding Adults Board’s Annual Report for 2012-13. The Head of Safeguarding (Adults) presented the report and explained that the report outlined the work carried out during in 2012/13, and the priorities for 2013/14. The Annual Report will be published on the council’s website and will be circulated to all member organisations of the Safeguarding Adults Board.
24.2 The Executive Director of Adult Services informed members that there was a great amount of safeguarding work being carried out and stressed that changes brought about by the Care Bill 2013 had been challenging. She emphasised that although the Board functioned well at present it was necessary to make further improvements by working with partners in a more consistent way.
24.3 Councillor Meadows referred to the section on Multi-Agency Working in Section 2.2 of the Annual Report and asked if the IT system was working well. She was informed that this was an initiative of the Community Safety Team who were looking at the risk for vulnerable people of anti-social behaviour. The IT system had client information about vulnerable victims and had been seen as very positive.
24.4 Councillor Meadows referred to Troubled Family Programme and asked if it was cost effective. She was informed that it was too early to know the impact of the Troubled Family Programme but it would be carefully monitored.
24.5 Councillor Meadows referred to 3.1 of the Annual report in relation to the 23% increase in the number of investigations for alerts which required a safeguarding investigation. She asked about the resource implications and whether extra staff would be employed to deal with that matter. She was informed that there were 16.5 investigations for alerts a week which was a large number and needed to be monitored and investigated. It was a huge burden on staff.
24.6 Councillor Meadows referred to paragraph 4.6 in relation to Ireland Lodge and asked what happened to vulnerable people who had been declined referrals. She was informed that this action was a result of a recommendation of the coroner who found that the level of need was increasing. Officers were in close contact with hospitals to ensure that there were appropriate admissions. Delayed discharges were minimal.
24.7 Councillor Meadows referred to paragraph 4.10 in relation to training by e-learning. She asked how this was monitored and whether it was as effective as face to face training. She was informed that e-learning was being used more as an option. Free safeguarding training was still offered. A capability framework has been developed and has been used with staff to ensure competency.
24.8 Councillor Meadows noted the acronym PRIMH mentioned in Section 4.11. She asked what it referred to. She was informed that PRIMH referred to Promoting Recovery in Mental Health and this would be made clear in the final document.
24.9 Councillor Summers thanked officers for the report. She referred to paragraph 3.1 which reported an increase in 29% in the number of safeguarding alerts raised of suspected harm or abuse of an adult at risk. She asked why there had been such an increase and why half were not investigated.
24.10 The Head of Safeguarding (Adults) explained that the ongoing increase in alerts was a national trend mainly due to raising awareness. 54% did not require investigation but were still logged and analysed. Other actions might be taken apart from investigations. An audit was carried out each year on cases that were not investigated. Investigations were also audited to see if they were appropriate.
24.11 Councillor Summers referred to the second graph in section 3.2 - % of Completed Investigations by Age Group of adult at risk. She commented that it was very noticeable that the 25-64 age group was highest and she asked why this was the case.
24.12 The Head of Safeguarding explained that the numbers of investigations involving the younger group included cases of issues such as substance misuse.
24.13 Councillor Summers referred to Figure 5 - % of Completed investigations by nature of alleged abuse and noted that a quarter were due to neglect.
24.14 The Head of Safeguarding (Adults) acknowledged that the number of neglect cases was a concern and stressed the importance of preventative work. An increase in an investigation of neglect also showed the raising of awareness that neglect is a form of abuse which requires alerting and investigations.
24.15 Councillor Mears congratulated officers on an excellent report which was very informative. She asked how the Troubled Families Programme was funded.
24.16 The Executive Director reported that the Troubled Families Programme was run by Children & Families. There was payment by result around the ring-fenced group. Adult Services were trying to adopt the same methodology.
24.17 Councillor Mears mentioned that a number of people were being placed in Ireland Lodge who had drug and substance misuse issues. She questioned whether it was appropriate to place people with these problems in Ireland Lodge and hoped that the right people would be placed there in future.
24.18 The Executive Director reported that Ireland Lodge took people with dementia whereas Wayfield Avenue took clients with more functioning mental need. The client group was getting slightly younger at Wayfield Avenue.
24.19 Councillor Norman considered the report to be very good and wide ranging. He did not think it necessary to restructure the Board at present.
24.20 The Executive Director explained that there would be a review of the Board but not a restructure. The review would ensure that the Board was fit for purpose.
24.21 The Chair thanked the Head of Safeguarding (Adults) for her work on the report.
24.22 RESOLVED - (1) That the safeguarding work carried out in 2012-13, and the priorities planned for 2013-14 be noted.
(2) That the report be agreed for circulation.
Report of Executive Director of Adult Social Services (copy attached).
(1) That the Committee’s comments on performance in relation to the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework 2012/13 be noted.
25.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Adult Services concerning the progress made in relation to implementing the significant changes to the adult social care performance framework that had been introduced by the Department of Health. The Head of Contracts & Performance set out the report which provided comparative data for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) relating to 2012-13 performance.
25.2 The Head of Contracts & Performance explained that the Zero Based Review was concluded following consultation and Councils received guidance in May 2013 regarding future national reporting requirements commencing for the year 2014/15. This would require significant changes across various parts of the council and a dedicated project board was in place to oversee this. In the interim councils would be required to provide national data returns as previous for 2013/14.
25.3 Members were informed that the second Local Account (“How are we doing”) was produced. Feedback had been very positive and the document was a significant improvement on the first publication.
25.4 The First City Summit was held in June 2013. There was full attendance from 80 service users/carers and citizens. Appendix 1 of the report provided a summary of feedback from those who attended.
25.5 Based on the analysis of service user and carer surveys, that formed the heart of the Local Account, the Council joined the Making it Real Programme and published an action plan on the Making it Real national site.
25.6 The Council continued to report its performance in relation to the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF). Performance for 2012/13 was detailed in Appendix 2 of the report. Appendix 3 provided additional data regarding year on year performance. Good and positive outcomes were indicated in most areas however the outcomes from the Carer’s survey were relatively disappointing compared to other comparator councils. An analysis of all available information about carer’s services was being collated and would be presented to the senior management team in adult social care in September to inform improvement planning.
25.7 Councillor Norman thanked the Head of Contracts & Performance on the in depth report.
25.8 The Chair asked for an early indication back to the next Committee regarding the outcomes of the Carer’s Survey.
25.9 RESOLVED (1) That the Committee’s comments on performance in relation to the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework 2012/13 be noted.
Report of Executive Director of Adult Social Services (copy attached).
(1) That the Committee note the decision to consult users of the Connaught Day Service on the proposed relocation to Belgrave Day Options base in Portslade made by the Executive Director of Adult Services in consultation with the Committee Chair Cllr Jarrett and in accordance with Part 6 of the Constitution of the Council.
26.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Adult Services which reminded members that in 2012 the Children’s and Young People Committee received a report which recommended the expansion of West Hove Infant School to enable the council to help provide the increased number of primary school places required in the Hove area. To facilitate this expansion the relocation of the Connaught Day Service for adults with learning disabilities would be required. A report was submitted to Adult Care & Health Committee in June 2013 with proposals to consult on moving Connaught Day Service to Patcham House School. This option was withdrawn by Children’s Services prior to their Committee meeting on 16 July 2013.
26.2 The General Manager, Learning Disability Provider Services explained that the revised proposal was that Connaught relocate to Belgrave Day Options base in Portslade in March 2014. To facilitate the required 12 week consultation period, the Executive Director of Adult Services, in consultation with the Chair, used her constitutional delegated authority to approve the decision to consult regarding the proposed move.
26.3 The General Manager explained that service users and their families would be familiar with the location of the Belgrave Day Options Base. She further explained that officers were aware of the Shoreham Harbour Planning Scheme. The General Manager had met with the project officer from the developers and it was possible that the scheme could raise positive options for the local authority in the future. However, changes on the site would not be seen for about five years.
26.4 The General Manager explained that there had been two carers meetings at the Belgrave site for family carers. Officers were working closely with colleagues in Children’s Services. Alterations to the building would need to be made but it was stressed that it was conjoined but separate from the equipment store. All service users would be offered a reassessment of their needs.
26.5 Councillor Meadows expressed concern that the consultation had not taken account of the parents and carers of the 20 service users. She was aware of a family member who had not received a letter. Councillor Meadows was concerned that assessments that took place would result in some service users not being able to transfer to the Belgrave Day Options base as their needs would not be considered severe enough.
26.6 The General Manager explained that the consultation period did not end until October. She was aware of the particular case mentioned by Councillor Meadows and it had been followed up. Consultation letters were sent to the address where the service user lived. Care homes had been asked to send information on to family members. All information was now also being sent direct to parents/carers.
26.7 The General Manager explained that the Connaught Centre had a wide range of different service users using the building. There was a need to find the right mix of people for the Belgrave Day Options Base. Some people might need to go to a different day option site where their needs would be better met.
26.8 Councillor Mears expressed concern that some clients using the Connaught Centre who had a need might not transfer to the Belgrave Day Options Base following an assessment. Councillor Mears stressed that members needed to be reassured that clients were referred to somewhere where their best interests were met. She stated that the committee needed to be informed of the numbers of service users who were finally referred to the Belgrave Day Options Base. She also asked for the Committee to be informed about what facilities were being made available for those who did not qualify for the Belgrave Day Options Base.
26.9 The Head of Adults Assessment explained that each service user would receive an individual assessment which would look at how to best meet their needs.
26.10 The Executive Director confirmed that officers would report back to the committee and provide information concerning the current service users at the Connaught Centre. Members would be informed where they were referred to and which services they received.
26.11 Councillor Bowden stressed that the service users at the Connaught Centre were vulnerable people and needed familiarity. He asked if there would be a transfer of information and if the new people in charge would be given the opportunity of meeting the service user beforehand.
26.12 The General Manager confirmed that officers developed transitional plans for all service users. Service users would be introduced to staff before transition.
26.13 Councillor Meadows mentioned that parents and carers had commented that service users receiving assessments were sometimes persuaded into accepting direct payments. The parents/carers were concerned that their love ones would lose out on funding as they would not be able to access council services.
26.14 The Executive Director explained that service users could have a mix of direct payments and council services. Personalisation could be provided in a number of ways. She stressed the importance of people understanding the different options. The Executive Director stated that she wanted to ensure that every one understood the process by the end of the consultation period.
26.15 RESOLVED - (1) That the Committee note the decision to consult users of the Connaught Day Service on the proposed relocation to Belgrave Day Options base in Portslade made by the Executive Director of Adult Services in consultation with the Committee Chair Cllr Jarrett and in accordance with Part 6 of the Constitution of the Council.
Items Referred For Council
To consider items to be submitted to the 24 October 2013 Council meeting for information.
In accordance with Procedure Rule 24.3a, the Committee may determine that any item is to be included in its report to Council. In addition, any Group may specify one further item to be included by notifying the Chief Executive no later than 10am on the eighth working day before the Council meeting at which the report is to be made, or if the Committee meeting take place after this deadline, immediately at the conclusion of the Committee meeting.
27.1 RESOLVED - That no items be referred to Council
Report of Executive Director of Adult Social Services (copy attached).
28.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Adult Services concerning options for the future delivery of equipment services, currently provided by the Integrated Community Equipment Service. The service is commissioned jointly between BHCC and Brighton & Hove Clinical Commissioning Group and has been provided via a Section 75 agreement with Sussex Community NHS Trust since 2004.
28.2 The service delivers daily living and community health equipment and minor adaptations to adults and children who met the accessibility criteria. It is located at the Belgrave Centre in Portslade, a BHCC building, with a satellite store based at Brighton General Hospital.
28.3 The Commissioning Manager set out the report and explained the various options for the future of the service. The Commissioning Manager explained that key issues to consider were the current low rate of recycling of equipment which negatively affected the budget, and issues related to the building which is not big enough and requires major works.
28.4 Councillor Mears commented that it would have been helpful for members to have seen a map of the site, showing its relation to the Belgrave Day Options Base. She asked if the damaged roof was above the store. The Commissioning Manager confirmed that the roof was above the store.
28.5 Councillor Mears referred to paragraph 3.6.5 of the report which stated that £193,000 was required to update the building. She asked if this sum of money was purely for this part of the building. The Commissioning Manager confirmed that the money was required for this part of the building.
28.6 Councillor Meadows agreed that recycling was a key issue. She stressed the need to keep track of equipment. Councillor Meadows asked about the relationship between the equipment store and the Belgrave Day Options Centre.
28.7 The General Manager, Learning Disability Provider Services explained that the equipment store and the Belgrave Day Options Centre were conjoined but separated a few years ago. They operate as two separate buildings. The Executive Director of Adult Services confirmed that there were no plans to expand the day service. The two services are not connected in any way.
28.8 Councillor Meadows expressed concern that staff at the equipment store had only been consulted about the proposals a few days before the committee meeting. She asked officers to clarify what would happen if members approved Option 4. Would TUPE be involved and would the decision be seen as a fait accompli?
28.9 The Executive Director explained that if a decision was taken to approve Option 4, it would result in discussions with West Sussex County Council on the possibility of working in collaboration to tender for a new service model for the provision of the community equipment store. There would be further consultation with staff following the decision of the committee. TUPE would apply to some staff if any new tender was to be pursued in the future.
28.10 Councillor Meadows asked if there would be redundancies. The Executive Director replied that it was difficult to give a definitive answer but stressed that the changes would not be implemented until 2015 and officers would work closely with the unions with regard to these issues. There would be a natural staff turnover which would help to mitigate the need for redundancies.
28.11 Councillor Robins raised the issue of the Shoreham Harbour Planning brief. This would result in a large housing development in this area of Portslade. He asked if the developer could be asked to fund a suitable store. (Note – The General Manager, Learning Disability Provider Services later confirmed that the Shoreham Harbour scheme would not result in changes on the site for about five years).
28.12 The Commissioning Manager stated that she was not aware of the housing issues and had looked at the most effective model for the future of the service. If Option 4 was agreed and a joint tender was progressed with West Sussex, it was anticipated that there would probably be the need for 5 smaller stores across the city.
28.13 Councillor Bowden stated that housing in this area had been identified in the City Plan but nothing definite had been approved at this stage. He agreed that in the future it would be sensible to have discussions with the developer. Councillor Bowden referred to paragraph 3.5.2 which related to the overspend on the ICES equipment budget. He stressed the need for keeping a track of equipment with smarter methods such as bar coding. Councillor Bowden considered that only Options 3 or 4 were feasible. He asked for reassurance that the depots would be sited in Brighton & Hove.
28.14 Janice Robinson expressed concern about the overspend on the budget and stressed that increasing numbers of people would require the service. She stated that she would like to see if efficiencies could be made by joint working with West Sussex. She considered that the needs of service users were paramount.
28.15 Councillor Norman considered that the service had been in need of an upgrade for some time. He believed that that Option 4 was the right proposal. Councillor Norman informed members that having been a service user this year he had been very impressed with the prompt delivery of equipment but had found that he had received no contacts regarding the return facility. He stressed that the Shoreham Harbour scheme was at very early stage at the moment and it was necessary to make improvements to the equipment service as soon as possible. The current facilities were not fit for purpose.
28.16 Councillor Mears highlighted how difficult it was to return equipment. She suggested that service users should be given written instructions on where to return equipment. This was not happening at the moment. Councillor Mears asked for a report to the next committee meeting setting out the findings of discussions with West Sussex County Council on the feasibility of working in collaboration to tender for a new service model.
28.17 The Commissioning Manager stressed that West Sussex County Council would not be meeting until December 2013 when they would make a decision about a procurement process. Nothing definitive would happen for a few months. The Executive Director confirmed that no final decision could be made by Brighton & Hove City Council until West Sussex County Council had made their decision in December.
28.18 Councillor Meadows suggested that the local authority could take over the management of the store. Bar coding would help to identify equipment. She stressed the need for the store to remain in the city so that service users could easily access equipment.
28.19 The Executive Director explained that Sussex Community NHS Trust had other satellite buildings. There were no issues with those buildings. The proposals were based on better logistical stores. The Executive Director stressed the risks associated with the current building and systems. She further stressed that ICES is a service that requires specialist skill. She considered that bringing the service in-house would not be an appropriate option as the local authority did not have the specific skills required to manage the service.
28.20 Councillor Phillips informed members that she could not support Options 3 or 4 as she did not agree with outsourcing services. She preferred Option 2 but accepted that this option would not be sustainable in the future.
28.21 Councillor Summers stated that she was not happy to accept recommendation 2.2 which would have given the Executive Director delegated authority to award a contract.
28.22 Councillor Bowden considered that the committee should not be rushed into making a decision without further information. He would prefer the service to remain in-house but if that were not possible then joint procurement could be considered. He stressed that the committee should have democratic oversight on the future of the service.
28.23 Councillor Mears informed members that she would be happy to agree recommendation 2.1 but would want a report back to committee in November. She agreed with Councillor Summers with regard to recommendation 2.2. Meanwhile, members should be invited to a tour of the site.
28.24 The Chair informed the committee that agreeing Option 4 would result in discussions on the feasibility of joint procurement with West Sussex. It would not be a final decision.
28.25 RESOLVED – (1) That Option 4 of the report be agreed: To enable Adult Social Care to formally approach West Sussex County Council to discuss the feasibility of working in collaboration to tender for a new service model for the provision of community equipment services.
(2) That until such time as a new contract is awarded, it is agreed that services shall continue to be delivered with Sussex Community NHS Trust (SCT), and that commissioners will work with SCT to develop the requirements of the existing service specifications.
(3) That a further report be presented to the Committee at its meeting on 25 November. In the meanwhile, a site visit should be arranged for Members.
Part Two Proceedings
To consider whether the item listed in Part Two of the agenda and decisions thereon should remain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
29.1 The Board considered whether or not Item 28 – Integrated Community Equipment Store should remain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
29.2 The Senior Lawyer advised that at the time of the publication of the agenda, staff and the unions had not been consulted on the proposals set out in the report. The report had therefore been placed on Part Two of the agenda as it contained exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Schedule 12A, Part 1, to the Local Government Act 1972. Staff and unions had now been consulted and following consideration of legal advice members agreed they did not consider the report or the minutes should remain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
29.3 RESOLVED – That the report and minutes relating to Item 28 be made available to the press and public.