Agenda item

In accordance with the Constitution, the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board (OSPB) was asked to consider a decision made taken by the Cabinet on 2 November 2017 in relation to Engagement on Options for Future Delivery - Connect Short-Term Service and Council - Provided Day Services for Adults with a Learning Disability.  This decision was called-in by the required number of Members and was attached to the Agenda.

 

In accordance with the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Rules, the following had been invited to attend the meeting:

 

·       Signatories to the call-in

·       Mr A I Hardman, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care

·       The Director of Adult Services

 

The following order of proceedings was suggested:

 

·       Presentation by Members of the reasons for calling-in the decision

·       Questions and clarification

·       Response by the Cabinet Member/Officer

·       Questions and clarification

·       Any closing remarks by the Cabinet Member/Officer

·       Any closing remarks by those calling-in the decision.

 

Once it had heard from all parties and considered the decision called-in, the OSPB would need to consider whether to:

 

a)     Accept the decision without qualification or comment (in which case it could be implemented immediately without being considered again by Cabinet); or

b)     Accept the decision (in which case it could be implemented immediately without being considered again by Cabinet) but with qualification or comment which the relevant Cabinet Member with Responsibility must consider and respond to: or

c)     Propose modifications to the decision or require a reconsideration of the decision (in which case the implementation of the decision was delayed until the Cabinet had received and considered a report of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board); or

d)     In exceptional circumstances ask the Council to consider whether option (a), (b) or (c) is appropriate (in which case the implementation would be delayed until after the meeting of the Council to which it had been referred and, if Council resolves option (c), Cabinet had reconsidered the matter having regard to the Council's view).

 

Members were reminded that the debate should focus on the decision making process.

 

Presentation of the reasons for calling-in the decision – Councillor McDonald

 

Councillor McDonald, one of the signatories to the call-in presented the case for the call-in and in doing so made the following main points:

 

·       The Cabinet Report was seriously flawed and had elements of presumption and predetermination

·       The current service was second to none, which was not recognised in the Report. There was no mention or recognition of the dedication of staff or the respect given to them by service users or their carers

·       There was no explanation about how well the current service was working for the service users or the impact of the changes on their social or personal development

·       Recommendation 1a) failed to recognise the needs or demands of the service. Financial sustainability was at the heart of the recommendation as well as pushing forward the Council's political agenda to become a commissioning authority, which it was suggested the Council's had a poor track record of

·       Recommendations1b) and 1c) talked about engagement not consultation, which assumed a presumption that engagement would pick up views and inform the process.  This was implementation by stealth

·       The implication of Recommendation 1e) and 1f) was that after widespread engagement was carried out, there would be no one left to consult with,  which again was implementation by stealth. It was disingenuous to go through a process, when the way forward had already been decided

·       There was a lack of evidence and comparable analysis for the rationale of the Report, the only comparison was financial

·       The Service was remodelled just over a year ago and it was questioned what had changed already to warrant a further restructure

·       There was no indication of a tender process for the service, how if the service was commissioned it would be monitored, what the short term service achieved, where the inefficiencies were in the service.  It seemed that the service would be fragmented to allow for outsourcing and the Report was financially motivated.

 

Questions and clarifications

 

It was suggested that the Cabinet recommendation to engage with all parties was right and proper as a sudden change in a service for a vulnerable group of people would be un-acceptable. It was the right way forward to be fully informed by collecting relevant information 

 

In response to the question about why the call-in was opposed to  recommendation 1f) which requested a further report be made to cabinet in April 2018 which was informed by the proposed engagement exercises and detailed impact assessments including proposals for formal consultation where required. Councillor McDonald advised that he thought it was a done deal, using the back door method of predetermination, financially driven, with no comparable analysis  and not in favour of service users or carers.

 

The point was reiterated that the report was about seeking to engage with service users and carers to gain their views, which was very important and reasonable.  Councillor McDonald believed that if this was the case then the use of a ballot would have been more appropriate.

 

Article 7 of the Constitution relating to Decision Making was referred to, in particular reason number 1 of the Call-in: 'it fails in regards to equal rights and equalities' and it was pointed out thatthe Constitution referred to human rights and equalities which was very different to equal rights.

 

In response to the request for evidence that the current service was second to none, Cllr McDonald advised that the County Council's website stated this.

 

A Member of the Board suggested that Cllr McDonald referred to paragraphs 3, 10 and 21 of the Cabinet Report which explained the changing needs and demands of the individuals using the Service.  In particular paragraph 21 referred to the fact that there was evidence that the use of Council-provided day services by people with learning disabilities had been reducing over time and trends forecasted it to continue to reduce over future years.  This was due partly to changing expectations from individuals and families, particularly younger individuals, wanting a more mixed variety of services during the week and also to the growth in the number and variety of external provision of day opportunities in Worcestershire. Furthermore, many people with a learning disability have said that they want meaningful employment rather than day opportunities.  This was an ambition that the Council was successfully supporting through the Supported Employment Team.

 

The Chairman of the Board summarised that he felt that the decision had been called-in because of a concern that it was financially motivated, being made without comparative evidence which if the Cabinet had had this available to them could have made a more informed decision.

 

Response by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care and the Director of Adult Services

 

In addressing the points made by Cllr McDonald, the Director of Adult Services made the following points:

 

The Cabinet Report was a pre-consultation report and great care had been taken to avoid the term Consultation as the Report was not suggesting Consultation but engagement which was in fact a stage earlier. Consultation was prescriptive and had legal connotations.

 

It was clear that the current Service was not working as effectively as possible. People with learning disabilities were advising that they wanted a different type of service; there was a demand for suitable work and meaningful opportunities and the Care Act said that Council Services needed to be more personalised.  Since 2014, there had been a 40% increase in supported employment.

 

The Report aimed to be transparent and there wasn't any robust evidence included, as this would be gathered as part of the engagement process, which involved speaking to relevant people (including Speakeasy NOW, an advocacy service for people with learning disabilities) about the requirements of the service. The formal Consultation would take place at a later stage.

 

The Director confirmed that legally, there was no need for this Cabinet Report but that morally, it was right to share early thoughts with this vulnerable group of people.  In the current economic climate it was important to use the money available in the most effective way possible.

 

The Director apologised if there had been confusion about whether the report was seeking to engage or consult and reiterated that at this stage it was definitely engagement.  There was no suggestion about the quality of the current service or the staff who supported the service who were very passionate about what they did.

 

There would be a further Cabinet Report in April 2018 with proposals for future service delivery, including proposals for formal consultation where required.

 

Questions and clarifications

 

It was suggested that in order to avoid any confusion, the opening statement of the Report should have been clearer and succinct in respect of its intentions ie to engage this would have avoided any confusion between consultation and engagement.

 

The Director clarified that transformation of this Service was so important for this group of people because it was clear that they wanted and needed a service that was meaningful, some of the current service was one size fitted all, but that was not what was wanted.  Money was tight but personalisation was important, as was doing things better.

 

It was confirmed that the Gunning Principles (which were based on fairness and that: Consultation must take place when the proposal was still at a formative stage: Decision-makers couldn't consult on a decision that had already been made) would be complied with.

 

The Director reiterated that it was the intention for the engagement process to be as widespread as possible and inform the Consultation process. Speakeasy Now and the Association of Carers would also be included as part of the process. The Adult Care and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Panel would also be discussing this issue at its meeting on 22 January 2018.

 

In addition, if any Members wished to attend the CMR Briefings there was an open invitation to all members.

 

Closing remarks by the Cabinet Member

 

The Cabinet Member regretted any confusion about the intention of the Report and confirmed that he wanted to be as open and transparent as possible in trying encourage as varied a learning disability day service as possible. 

 

He was confident that the current service needed to change as the demand and needs were changing and wanted to see a more efficient model of service and was keen to find out what that would look like.  Individual impact assessments would be carried out and human rights respected.  Mindful of the points made,  he did not feel that the outcomes were pre-determined.

 

Other councillors in attendance were offered the opportunity to speak.

 

Cllr Tucker

 

Given that the reason for the Cabinet Report was to carry out engagement to inform a subsequent Consultation, it was very difficult, on this occasion to understand the reasons for the call-in; which seemed premature.

 

Closing remarks by those Members calling-in the decision

 

In his closing remarks Councillor McDonald referred to paragraph 10 of the Cabinet Report, which referred to the necessity for the Council to remain financially sustainable and manage forecast increases in demand, due to demographics and increasing needs of the population, alongside reductions in available funding.  This he believed, showed an increased demand for the service not a decline as was suggested earlier. He believed that engagement was predetermination and the only reason for pre-consultation was to get the criticism and negativity out of the way first in order to impose the changes.  He believed that there should have been an evidence base for the engagement and a comparable analysis.

 

Conclusion

 

The Vice-Chairman of the Board suggested that in light of the debate, it appeared that the there was a genuine willingness for engagement and proposed that the decision should be accepted.

 

The point was made that it was important that service users and carers were at the heart of the decision.

 

The Chairman thanked the CMR and Director for their explanations.  The Director agreed to consider how to include Group Leaders in the engagement process.

 

In accordance with the Constitution, the Board agreed to accept the decision (in which case it could be implemented immediately without being considered again by Cabinet).