To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.
Minutes:
(1) Mr. Harron asked given the confusion about his question at the Council meeting on 23rd May would the Leader of the Council give his reasons for refusing to ask the Chief Executive for the name and position of the so-called independent expert who allegedly rubbished the publication Voices of Despair Voices of Hope.
The Leader confirmed that at the time that the Council asked the independent expert to review ’Voices of Despair Voices of Hope’ it was agreed that the expert and the organisation they worked for would remain anonymous.
The name of the independent expert was only known by a few officers in the Council, on a need to know basis. This was in line with Data Protection Legislation.
The Leader confirmed he did not know the name of that person and was not sure if the Chief Executive knew the name, but could not give it to Mr. Harron due to the arrangement that was in place.
This linked into the email exchange that had taken place over the last few weeks he had had with Mr. Harron. The information could not be provided so the correct route, in accordance with the law and procedures, was to forward a Freedom of Information request. The Leader had offered to forward this on for Mr. Harron, but this had been declined.
Mr. Harron disagreed with the Leader’s answer. On the first occasion the Leader claimed the information did not exist – he was wrong. On the second occasion the Leader said he did not have it. This would be pursued.
In a supplementary question Mr. Harron asked the Leader if he remembered on the 18th October Elizabeth and T, two adult survivors, presenting a petition asking for meaningful consultation about their needs. The response to that petition was dire. He asked did the Leader share his admiration and courage of Elisabeth and T, who had both been through the horrendous process of a trial leading to convictions, and would he thank them for everything they were doing to bring about a better Rotherham.
The Leader did associate himself with the comments of Mr. Harron and had been fortunate to be able to speak with one of the people concerned. However, he commended their bravery and acknowledged wholeheartedly the suffering caused to too many people for far too long in Rotherham and, therefore, in position respected the steps they were taking to improve the town and he was happy to meet with them. In answering Mr. Harron that could not step outside the boundaries of the law and rules and procedures under which this Council had to operate.
Councillor Roche confirmed RMBC’s Shared Lives scheme was registered with the Care Quality Commission and was rated as ‘Good’. Shared Lives schemes were regulated in respect of the regulated activity of ‘personal care’ as defined in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2012.
The service was a member of Shared Lives Plus which was the national membership body for Shared Lives carers and schemes offering support to members to ensure the quality of service, with everyday issues around guidance, good practice, and regulation.
Shared Lives Carers recruited to the service would have undergone a rigorous recruitment process which was carried out over a period of time. Satisfactory references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks was a requirement. There were additional health and safety checks to assess the suitability of the carers home which include assessment of access; security; fire safety; household insurance; public liability insurance. Once completed this information was presented to the Shared Lives Panel who then reviewed evidence of capability, values and safety that were taken into account when they were making decisions to approve carers.
Approved Shared Lives carers have to complete a programme of mandatory training which included safeguarding; moving and handling; first aid. They received regular updates and refresher training. They were also supported by the Shared Lives team to understand their roles and responsibilities, which were clearly defined in the carer’s handbook. Shared Lives Carers were required to sign up to a carer’s agreement.
Before anyone was placed with a Shared Lives carer there was a structured matching process carried out gradually over a period of time; this allowed assessing for compatibility between the Shared Lives carer and the service user. These introductory visits were supervised by one of the shared lives team.
Once a person was placed with an approved Shared Lives carer regular supervisory visits took place; this was a minimum of four per year once the placement was settled and established.
As a source of support for Shared Lives carers and service users the Shared Lives team held regular networking meetings and events. Some of these meetings were used to share information and can include guest speakers who focus on specialist topics.
Should there be safeguarding concerns raised there were clear procedures in place to investigate such matters in line with the requirements defined in the Care Act 2014. This could lead to the suspension and deregistration of a Shared Lives carer.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) consistently rated Shared Lives as one of the safest and most effective forms of care and support and this continued to remain the case under their new inspection regime. In the State of Adult Social Care Services 2014 – 2017, CQC found that Shared Lives services outperformed all other forms of regulated care in inspections.
In a supplementary question Mr. Sylvester referred to the problem where men and women who used the day centres and their carers were not convinced that offering a service for people in their own homes. This required a hasty recruitment process in a market where it was difficult to recruit carers and was not as good a safeguarding regime. From bitter experience when it came to safeguarding concerns the service users were believed and not the Council. With this if a full and frank consultation process had taken place and people properly informed why had the Council failed to convince the service users and their carers that the safeguarding regime was as good and the failure for doing this.
Councillor Roche recognised there were some concerns about Shared Lives by carers, but this was not the view shared by all carers. It was important to remember Shared Lives was only one of the ways forward and not the only way. Once the assessments were complete for users all the issues would be discussed. It was not possible to pre-judge those assessments which had not yet taken place and those concerns could be raised and gone through with the carer and service users at the time.
(3) Elizabethwas unable to attend the Council Meeting so would receive a written response.
(4) Mr. R. Symonds referred to the comment by the Cabinet Member that some service users would still require a building based service. He asked how many of the current cohort of day centre users would require a building based service, how many buildings were available in the independent sector and what was their total capacity?
Councillor Roche explained it was not possible to directly answer the question about the number of existing users who would require a building based service in the future until individual assessments have been completed for the whole cohort.
In terms of the question regarding the volume of alternative provision, individual choice would determine the chosen offer and, therefore, it was not possible to state what the exact building base capacity would be. The existing customers who were currently accessing the day services and other in house provision would all be re-assessed as part of the Learning Disability transformation activity.
The assessment process would review this with the key people in the customer’s life and consider aspects such as friendship groups and a customer’s individual eligible unmet needs and the best way to meet this. This may mean for some that this would be a different offer and not rely on a building base, however, for other people a safe building base may be the best option. There were a range of services available in a mixture of different buildings depending on the requirements of the individual as previously stated.
Meanwhile there would be adequate places and the Cabinet Member did understand that for many service users and their families this was a very worrying time even though few people who had learning disabilities chose to go into day care these days and the feedback from those people who had moved away from it, over the past year, had been very positive. The Cabinet Member knew this was a big change, but from what he had seen was confident that the lives of those involved could be improved and that it was intended to do. He had discussed at the Carers’ Forum the number of service users accessing day centre services and those who did not. He was happy to share that information again at the next Carers’ Forum.
In a supplementary question Mr. Symonds asked, despite the best efforts of a diminishing adult social care workforce, Rotherham Council did not have a good record of carrying out care assessments. His sister, Jenny, a service user, was supposed to have an annual reassessment, but had not had one for five years. He asked what confidence could he have that there would be adequate provision and capacity that the 750+ service users would have an assessment in a timely manner.
Councillor Roche confirmed Mr. Symonds was right to raise this issue and had discussed this with the Strategic Director and raised this previously. He had asked that all the assessments must be completed this year and that additional resources must be provided to ensure they would take place. He was confident they would be undertaken on time.
(5) Miss Reed confirmed she liked going to the Oaks Centre, had been going there for ten years, had met her boyfriend there and went to see all her friends. She asked why she would not be able to go to the Oaks and see all her friends?
Councillor Roche could understand how upsetting this was for all. This was a big change and Council staff would be talking to users about being with friends and that when Oaks Day Centre closed people would still be able to do what they wanted. A meeting had been arranged with various people, including Miss Reed’s mother, to discuss individual situations. Over the last few years there had been less people wanting to attend the Oaks Day Centre and the building needed more money spent on it to keep it safe. A decision was needed on whether to keep it open or do something different with assistance being provided for people with learning difficulties to do more and to give them control over their lives. Sadly this would mean Oaks Day Centre would close and the Cabinet Member was happy to discuss this further once changes had been proposed.
(6) Mrs. Reed described how her daughter had loved attending the Oaks Centre for ten years and how her friends and boyfriend were there. The decision for closure had made her daughter depressed and she had been prescribed anti-depressants. She asked what assurances could the Cabinet Member give that she could remain with her friendship group and where could they be accommodated.
Councillor Roche was sorry to learn that Mrs. Reed’s daughter’s health had been affected and he hoped he could help her through this period of change. He had arranged a meeting during July to look at the position.
As part of the re-assessment process all service users would be seen. As part of this process the social worker would look at what was important to each person and this would include the friendship circles that have been formed within services over the years.
As part of the consultation work that has taken place within services over the last two years the friendship circles have been mapped out. If there were any gaps this could be looked at again as part of the assessment process. The relationships were appreciated and it would be ensured that this was supported through the process to enable people to keep links with the people who were important to them.
The reassessment process would look at how to meet eligible unmet needs – this could be through a number of options and this would be discussed with the customer and the family members. There was a directory of the different types of community support options and activities that could be accessed within Rotherham. This could be found through the connect2support website.
In terms of the buildings it was hoped to open up new opportunities and groups and not lock them in day centres. He understood that people may be anxious and upset around the proposed changes and de-commissioning of the buildings. However, he gave his assurance that the Council would work with individuals and their families to offer support which would also include looking at any health needs.
In a supplementary question Mrs. Reed understood that direct payments would be made to pay for carers and asked what sort of care would be available for £7.80 per hour.
Councillor Roche confirmed direct care was an option, but until the assessments were complete it was not possible to predict what was suitable. Direct care was not the only option. He would discuss this further with Mrs. Reed at the meeting that was already arranged.
(7) Mrs. Healey confirmed her friend, Jenny, attended the Oaks centre. When Jenny was out in the wider community she got upset when unkind people stared and sniggered. She asked would the Council accept that trying to integrate her into the community this would cause her further distress.
Councillor Roche agreed that upset was totally unacceptable and went further as to say it was appalling and any kind of hate crime should be punished. He did not think it was good enough to accept that people with learning difficulties should be segregated from the community.
The voluntary sector organisation Speak Up have undertaken work as part of their offer to ensure that there was peer support within communities around hate crime and how this should be reported. This has also been presented to different groups included the Learning Disability Partnership Board.
The hate crime training aligned with peer led travel training empowered and enabled people with learning disabilities to access services in the community.
Any concerns regarding hate crime should be reported through to the Council or to South Yorkshire Police (Tel. 101).
In a supplementary comment Mrs. Healey had not regarded the comments to be labelled hate crime and it was more about young people laughing at others. Jenny was upset and would be upset more if she did not go to the day centre and wanted to know what the Council was going to do about it.
(8) Ms. M. Hudson asked what had the Council done to ensure that people with a learning disability, who would be affected by the closure of services, fully understood the proposals of the report and were able to ask questions and raise concerns to key RMBC officers?
Councillor Roche explained that from the point the Cabinet report was agreed on the 21st May, 2018, there have been letters sent out to services and service users to advise on the decision to agree the proposals.
There had also been an easy read version of the report circulated to all services and customers.
Key workers within service have also been supporting customers to understand the reports proposals and officers have been presented within services to answer questions that customers may have.
Further discussions have taken place with the voluntary organisation Speak Up which would undertake further work with services and customers in small groups to discuss the report proposals.
Throughout the two separate pieces of consultation around the Learning Disabilities offer that there have been many opportunities for customers, carers and families to have their say. In addition to completion of questionnaires which were available online and through hard copies there have been in excess of forty engagement events with an additional offer to meet people individually where this was requested. There had also been specific engagement with customers and families to build communication profiles and the use of flash cards and other supported communication tools.
In a supplementary question Ms. Hudson asked if she could be advised of the dates/times of when these events took place and the officers involved. Her own daughter would be affected by the day service closures and she had observed that some people would be devastated about what was happening. Some service users did not have a clue about the proposed changes and no one had attempted to explain this to them.
Councillor Roche confirmed he would ensure that list was forwarded on in writing. If those meetings had not taken place he expressed his concern.
(9) Mr. Simons asked how could Councillors, with little or no experience of caring for people with learning disabilities or autism 24/7, make a fair and realistic decision on their behalf?
Councillor Roche explained it was a Councillor’s responsibility to represent all people living in communities including those with health and social care support needs. To discharge this duty Councillors worked closely with officers and customers who accessed services to inform the decisions to be made. Councillors did this by talking to people who used services and provide services. Councillors listened to people’s concerns and responded appropriately and made sure where possible people who used services were involved in the decision making. There was active user representation and participation at the Autism and Learning Disability Partnership Boards and had commissioned the voluntary sector organisation Speak Up (user lead organisation) to help with the changes in services for people with learning disabilities.
The Council had developed a number of strategies which were co-produced and had a quality assurance process which ensured the customer voice was at the heart of the assessment processes. The Council did recognise that co-production could be improved and would not be complacent.
In a supplementary question Mr. Simons asked did the service providers exist that could accommodate the displaced adults with the same standards of the existing staff of the intended closing facilities and still offer the same choices to their customers and what evidence did the Council have that they did exist.
Councillor Roche was fully aware of one event and there were others planned to explain about the services available. A list would be made available to service users and was currently being worked on.
(10) Mr. Taylor asked in answering a freedom of information request in March this year about building on green belt land he was informed that 1.3% would be removed from the green belt and asked was this figure still correct?
CouncillorLelliott confirmed the response given was in relation to 2015 figures. Since then the Local Plan Sites and Policies document had been approved by the Council for submission to Government. At that time the estimate of land to be removed from Green Belt for housing was 1.3%.
The Sites and Policies document had since been examined by a Government Inspector and some changes made. Some sites have been deleted, some new sites added and some land included within the Green Belt.
The land to be removed from the Green Belt for housing was now around 1.1% of the Green Belt so less than the information received previously.
In a supplementary question Mr. Taylor confirmed it was preferable to protect green belt land wherever possible and build on brownfield sites. As part of the same FOI he received a response that said it did not hold a percentage figure of the whole of the brownfield land available in the borough that was proposed that may be built on as part of the Local Plan. This suggested to him that the Council did not actually know where the brownfield sites were located so how could the Council put forward an effective Local Plan when it did not know where the brownfield sites were.
CouncillorLelliott believed the Council did know exactly where the brownfield sites were and would chase this with officers. However, she reiterated the Local Plan had been through robust scrutiny by an Independent Inspector and had negotiated the figure for housing demand to have this reduced from 17,000 to 14,000. The Local Plan with the brownfield and greenfield sites was there to meet the future housing and employment growth, which meant some green belt land was required to be built on as there was an insufficient supply of brownfield sites to meet this demand.