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. L. Harron asked following his question at the last Council meeting and the Leader’s response, what action was taken after a Legal Officer referred his concerns on 12th January, 2016 to the Interim Director of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer and the Deputy Monitoring Officer. Further details on this matter had been provided by email on 25th July, 2018.
The Leader confirmed the Interim Director of Legal Services left the authority in March, 2016, and it was not possible to say what action was taken in response to the email.
When the Chief Executive met Mr. Harron in July, 2017 she confirmed that an independent review of his concerns would be welcome, but that it needed to be dealt with by the Information Commissioner and that the Council would take action based on the outcome of that review.
Mr. Harron raised his concerns with the Information Commissioner, who published their decision notice on 7th December, 2017. The Commissioner’s decision was that the Council did not hold the requested information and had, therefore, complied with Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, but had failed to respond to the request within the twenty working day time limit.
The Leader believed Mr. Harron then raised the same concerns when he appealed to the First Tier Tribunal and that his appeal was heard last week and the Council was waiting for the outcome.
The Council’s position remained that it would consider the outcome of the appeal and take any appropriate action.
In a supplementary question Mr. Harron indicated the information given by the Leader was false and he would evidence this. He did refer his concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office when he received some emails that he requested that took seven months to be provided. However, the Information Commissioner said he was out of time on that particular issue and have not, in fact, looked at this issue at all.
Mr. Harron, therefore, asked if he sent the Leader the information would he look into the matter again.
The Leader confirmed he would be more than happy to look into this.
(2) Mr. M. Sylvester asked could the Cabinet Member please confirm that an approach had been made by the Nexus Academy Trust to take over the running of the Addison Day Centre and if so what was the nature of services they proposed to offer if successful in taking over its management?
Councillor Roche confirmed there was an initial meeting over two years ago with Nexus which did not come to any specific conclusion. An options paper was also received in June, 2017. The options paper was not progressed at that time as it was unclear what the benefits would be.
However, a recent approach to the Council had been made by Nexus and a meeting had been arranged with the Assistant Director and the Learning Disability Transformation Team to discuss the use of the building. At this stage it was unclear what their proposal was.
It would appear there had been some misunderstanding thinking Nexus could simply take over the existing day care facility. It was made clear that this was not the case. The building would only come into alternative use once the service has closed. At that point Nexus, as well as any other provider, could request an asset transfer and this would be dealt with by the Asset Management Board in line with usual policy.
In a supplementary question Mr. Sylvester referred to the demand for learning disability day care centres and how Nexus had an excellent reputation for transforming local schools. Nexus would not show an interest in running the day care centres if there was not such a need or demand. Given this, and considering all the doubt and worry over the closures, would an alternative management of the centres not be considered rather than a straight closure system.
Councillor Roche was fully aware of the strengths of Nexus and what they brought to Rotherham’s special schools, however, what was being proposed did not fit with the vision for learning disabilities. An alternative provision could not be considered until the centres were closed. Nexus or any alternative use provider could then come along and talk to the Council about an asset transfer.
(3) Mr. R. Symonds explained the Council had confirmed in response to a petition that 1,424 customers (39.19%) have not had a review or reassessment in the last twelve months (broken down into categories according to length of time) and asked what were the corresponding figures for learning disability customers?
Councillor Roche confirmed there were752 Learning Disability customers, 424 (56.38%) that have not had a review or reassessment in the last 12 months, 114 (1-2 years); 70 (2-3 years); 164 (3-4 years) and 76 (over 4 years).
The Council did take this issue very seriously and was addressing this with a dedicated team of social workers undertaking reviews with the support of existing staff and, where necessary, advocates.
The data for 2017/18 was not currently available across all local authorities, however, this could be provided in writing with information from 2016/17 to provide an indication of the benchmark.
In a supplementary question Mr. Symonds referred to the Cabinet report on the 21st May, 2018 being silent on missed assessments and reviews and gave a false impression that each person had a review. Were Cabinet Members told about the number of service users that have not had a review or a re-assessment and if not why not. Did the Cabinet Member accept that this crucial mission called into question the propriety of the Cabinet decision to close the centres.
Councillor Roche explained Adult Social Care was in a different place to what it was a number of years ago. It now had a dedicated team to work on the new assessments. The Service realised and accepted that what happened in the past with assessments was not good enough and the Service was now confident it could move forward with the assessments through the new dedicated team.
In terms of the decision the report was two years in the making and included going to other authorities and best practice. All available information was brought before the Cabinet before a decision was made.
(4) Councillor Donna Sutton, Maltby Town Council, asked why did Rotherham Council not meet with Nexus to explore their proposal regarding Addison Day Centre, and why were all RMBC Councillors not informed of the NEXUS offer or involved in the decision making of the centre closures?
Councillor Roche confirmed he and an officer did meet with Nexus, but this was not progressed as it did not produce any viable options at that time. Possible uses of the building would continue to be explored. A meeting was scheduled with officers and Nexus in the near future.
As the Leader of the Council had reported it was a legal requirement for a decision regarding day centre and the future of learning disabilities to be taken by Cabinet was this as an executive decision of the Council.
In a supplementary question Councillor Sutton asked why had Town and Parish Councils not been personally approached or involved directly in the decision making process or in the purpose and uses of the building to be able to support the centres staying open.
Councillor Roche assumed the question referred to the consultation as Town and Parish Councils would not be involved in the decision making. He confirmed he would send a more detailed answer about the consultation, but broadly outlined that consultation commenced in November, 2016 and included expected Service users and their families which ran from 5th December, 2016 to 2nd February, 2017 and engaged 627 people. This led to a report to the Cabinet and Commissioners’ Meeting.
As part of the consultation the Service also engaged with customers, information was placed in the local press and flyers were distributed. Information was also placed on the Council website to raise awareness of the consultation to the wider community. A more detailed answer on the process of consultation would be provided in writing.
(5) Ms. S. Healey referred to the Cabinet Member recently saying on television that the number of people wanting to go to day centres was going right down and asked what was this statement based on and specifically how many people have left Addison or the Oaks and not moved on to another day centre.
Councillor Roche explained people and families have higher expectations of an independent life in their community and want more control over their lives.
This change was reflected in the declining number of people who have accessed traditional building based ‘day services’. Over the past two years there had been Oaks: 0, Addison: 2, Adpro: 4.
In September, 2016 there were 118 people attending Addison day centre and there were now 108, which meant ten people had left. In September, 2016 there were 121 attending Oaks day centre and there were now 84 people attending, which mean 37 had left. Unfortunately, there were no other Council owned day care centres which meant none of these Service users had moved onto another Council run centre.
People and families were saying they expected support and services to be more person centred, flexible, available during the day, evening and weekends and as close to where the person lived as possible and community based. People and families wanted more opportunity to contribute and be part of mainstream life.
A number of people have a mixed package of support which included access to a range of services.
In a supplementary question Ms. Healey asked if the Cabinet Member was aware that in 2015 social workers were told to dissuade people from using traditional day centres and if he was aware why was this done.
Councillor Roche confirmed he was aware of the rumours and raised this issue with the then Strategic Director and made it clear that this should not happen.
(6) Mr. R. Wainwright asked had the Council explored any other avenues for the community use of the former Kimberworth Infants School, other than demolition, and if so who and what were they, and would the Council be prepared to put the decision on hold until these other avenues have been explored?
Councillor Lelliott explained the Council did consider the option to make the building available for expressions of interest from the community, however, it was decided not to on the basis of:-
·
The Council still had
an operational need for the site (but not the building).
·
The condition of the
building and its annual running costs would require a substantial
investment by a community group and the Council could not offer any
security on the length of tenure on any Community Asset
Transfer.
· The building was located on the wider site in such a way that any future development of the whole site would be reliant on the Council maintaining control of this area of the site.
· The costs to secure such a vacant building are £100k pa.
The Council would not be putting the demolition on hold due to the reasons outlined and the costs associated with other options.
In a supplementary question Mr. Wainwright asked how the removal of the building fitted in with the new neighbourhood working strategy which involved devolving power down to local communities. He believed the obligations at officer level had not been fulfilled with regards to consulting with other parties and asked could he please be provided with a copy of the new Asset Review Strategy in relation to this building.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed this would be provided in writing.
(7) Mrs. M. Hudson referred to Councillor Roche saying "assessments will take into account the wishes, preferences and outcomes sought by the individual" and asked what if the individual was happy and benefiting from current service provision and wished to remain with existing arrangements?
Councillor Roche confirmed that where an assessment identified that an individual had needs for care and support then the Council must decide if the unmet needs met the national eligibility criteria, consistent across England, and how the provision of care and support could contribute to the outcomes that the customer wished to achieve. While the Council could not commit to the support being provided by the current building and service it would ensure that any unmet needs and personal outcomes were taken into account.
In a supplementary question Mrs. Hudson asked if the Council was going to ignore the needs of a person with learning disabilities and move them to another service. She further asked what would happen to the carers of these people and would the Council force people to move from services they were happy with to others they did not want to move to.
Councillor Roche explained the reports outlined the vision of Adult Social Care over the next two years whilst moving towards closure of Addison and Oaks day centres. Assessments would take into account needs and wishes of both the carer and the service user.
(8) Mrs. M. Reed referred to it being five years since her daughter had a care assessment or a review, but when she used to have them they were done by qualified social workers and now asked why were they now being undertaken by unqualified workers?
Councillor Roche confirmed in all Adult Care Services there were qualified and unqualified staff undertaking assessments, this included qualified occupational therapists as well as occupational therapy assistants.
The Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 set out that a local authority must carry out an assessment in a manner which was appropriate to the needs and circumstances of the individual to whom it related and ensure that the individual was able to participate in the process as effectively as possible.
Assessors must be appropriately trained and competent whenever they carry out an assessment and have the skills and knowledge that related to a specific condition or could identify the circumstances when they may need to consult with someone with expertise in a particular matter prior to completing the assessment.
Dependent upon complexity, assessments may sometimes be co-worked or transferred to a more experienced worker if the situation dictated. Should any safeguarding issues arise, they would always be undertaken by qualified social workers.
In a supplementary question Mrs Reed referred to the report that went to Cabinet on the 21st May, 2018 when the decision was made to close the day centres and indicated that each person would have a review based on a person’s centre approach which would inform the Services that the Council would need to cover to meet their individual needs by 2020. This indicated that a dedicated team of social workers and existing staff would undertake the reviews. She asked did the Cabinet Member consider the statement to be accurate and Cabinet Members were misled as clearly each person did not have a review and those that had had reviews were not necessarily carried out by social workers.
Councillor Roche confirmed that all the assessments were carried out by qualified staff as was the case across all England. He confirmed the Cabinet were given the full facts.
(9) “T” referred to all the positive feedback from her event “Other Words For Anger” (OWFA) on 29th June, 2018, and her wish to do even more to support adult survivors of CSE and asked in what ways were officers and Councillors at RMBC prepared to work with her.
The Leader thanked “T” for her question and the invitation to the event on the 29th June and appreciated the contribution being made.
The Council was reviewing its post-Abuse Services and officers had approached individuals who have expressed an interest in being part of the process.
“T” had met with the Assistant Chief Executive to discuss support and he was in the process of looking of what could be done further. The Leader was happy to follow this up if there were more specific ideas to take forward.
In a supplementary question “T” confirmed that on Sunday she had started fundraising for the first objective and all Councillors were sent an email about this.
The first objective was to build on holding follow up events and an annual event. A series of art workshops were now scheduled starting on 13th September, 2018 for adult survivors of CSE. “T” was delighted that ROAR were supporting the initial workshops and in response to the email on Sunday one Councillor had agreed to pay for the venue for six weeks from their Community Leadership Fund. She, therefore, asked if Councillors were prepared to provide some funds to support the next annual event.
The Leader was unable to make any spending commitments due to the budget position, but was happy to take up the conversation of looking at funding some event space.