Agenda and minutes

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

The following supplementary information was submitted to the Board:

-  Agenda item 7 – Analysis of independent sector providers within a 5-mile radius of care homes (July 2016)

The above information was not available at the time of agenda despatch, but was subsequently made available on the Council’s website.

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-16 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests declared to the meeting, however the following matters were brought to the attention of the Scrutiny Board for information:

-  Councillor M Dobson advised that he was manager of a Neighbourhood Network.  He also advised that he was a member of GMB and Unite.

-  Councillor P Truswell advised that he was a member of GMB and UNISON.

-  Councillors P Gruen, A Hussain, J Pryor and B Selby advised that they were members of GMB.

All Councillors remained present for the duration of the meeting.

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes.

An apology for absence was submitted by Councillor C Anderson.  Notification had been received that Councillor A Lamb was substituting for Councillor C Anderson.

To consider a report from the Head of Governance Services advising the Scrutiny Board on the procedural aspects of Calling-In the decision.

The Head of Governance Services submitted a report in relation to the procedural aspects of the call in process.

Members were advised that the options available to the Scrutiny Board in respect of this particular called in decision were:

Option 1- Release the decision for implementation

Having reviewed this decision, the Scrutiny Board may decide to release it for implementation. If the Scrutiny Board chooses this option, the decision will be immediately released for implementation and the decision may not be Called In again.

Option 2 - Recommend that the decision be reconsidered.

The Scrutiny Board may decide to recommend to the decision maker that the decision be reconsidered. If the Scrutiny Board chooses this option a report will be submitted to the decision maker.

In the case of an Executive Board decision, the report of the Scrutiny Board will be prepared within three working days of the Scrutiny Board meeting and submitted to the Executive Board. Any report of the Scrutiny Board will be referred to the next Executive Board meeting for consideration.

In reconsidering the decision and associated Scrutiny Board report, the Executive Board may vary the decision or confirm its original decision. In either case, this will form the basis of the final decision and will not be subject to any further call-in.

Failure to agree one of the above options

If the Scrutiny Board, for any reason, does not agree one of the above courses of action at this meeting, then Option 1 will be adopted by default, i.e. the decision will be released for implementation with no further recourse to Call In.

RESOLVED – That the report outlining the call in procedures be noted.

To consider a report from the Head of Governance Services presenting background papers to an Executive Board decision in relation to the Better Lives Programme – Phase 3: Next steps and progress report, which has been called-in in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

The Head of Governance Services submitted a report together with relevant background papers in relation to an Executive Board decision dated 21 September 2016 – the Better Lives Programme – Phase 3: Next steps and progress report.

Following the decision of Executive Board, Call In requests were received by the Scrutiny Officer as follows:

• From the Morley Borough Independent Group
• From the Labour Group (Call-in subsequently withdrawn)
• From the Conservative Group
• From the Green and Liberal Democrat Groups.

The Scrutiny Board considered the following written information:

• Copy of the completed Call In request forms
• Report of the Director of Adult Social Services (and associated appendices), presented to Executive Board at its meeting on 21 September 2016
• Extract from the draft minutes of the Executive Board meeting held on 21 September 2016
• Scrutiny Inquiry report on The Green (April 2016)
• Copies of letters submitted for consideration by the Scrutiny Board
• Additional information in relation to the analysis of independent sector providers within a 5-mile radius of care homes.

The following were in attendance:

• Councillor Robert Finnigan, Signatory to Call-in
• Councillor Neil Buckley, Signatory to Call-in
• Councillor Dawn Collins, Signatory to Call-in
• Councillor Jonathan Bentley, Signatory to Call-in
• Councillor Ann Blackburn, Signatory to Call-in
• Councillor Catherine Dobson, Ward Member
• Councillor Rebecca Charlwood, Executive Member for Health Wellbeing and Adults
• Cath Roff, Director of Adult Social Services
• Anna Clifford, Programme Manager (Better Lives), Adult Social Care
• Steve Hume, Chief Officer (Resources and Strategy), Adult Social Care
• Mark Phillott, Head of Commissioning (Contracts and Business Development), Adult Social Care
• Lucy Jackson, Consultant in Public Health, Leeds City Council
• Matt Ward, Chief Operating Officer, NHS Leeds South & East CCG
• Desiree Wilburn, Senior Organiser, GMB
• Dean Harper, Regional Organiser, UNISON
• Keith Spellman, Carer of resident at Middlecross Care Home
• Lindsay Cannon, Supporter of Save The Green, Leeds
• Tony Cannon, Supporter of Save The Green, Leeds
• Bill Askin, Supporter of Save The Green, Leeds
• Joyce Wright, Supporter of Save The Green, Leeds.

Signatories to the Call-in and other representatives in attendance made the following key points:

Councillor R Finnigan

• Concern about the shortage of extra care provision in Morley.
• A reported £5m additional revenue had been generated through the social care levy, with the potential for additional revenue to be generated in future years.
• Confirmation that 1,500 people in Morley had objected to the proposals.
• Concern about the impact of the decision on elderly and vulnerable residents.
• The availability of alternative care provision – through extra care housing – prior to the proposed decommissioning of residential care facilities.

Councillor N Buckley and Councillor D Collins

• Concern about the lack of alternative good quality provision.
• Concern about how Adult Social Services had communicated with families and residents in relation to the decommissioning of services from Manorfield.
• The need for Executive Board to give greater consideration to the previous recommendations agreed by the Scrutiny Board.

Councillor J Bentley

• Concern that the Better Lives Strategy may no longer be fit for purpose, did not take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

In accordance with the Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules, to consider the Board’s formal conclusions and recommendations arising from the consideration of the called-in decision.

The Scrutiny Board considered whether or not to release the decision for implementation.  A vote was subsequently held and the Scrutiny Board agreed (by majority decision) to refer the decision back to the Executive Board for reconsideration. The following statement was agreed:

That the Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Services, Public Health, NHS) refers the decision back to the Executive Board for reconsideration.

The Board’s view, having listened to all of the statements made and having considered all of the information, is that the primary consideration of any further decisions should be on the quality of care provided to residents.

In making the referral back Scrutiny Board acknowledges that the Executive Board has stated its intention that The Green be retained as a community asset for intermediate care/recovery beds and set out its ambition to invest in jobs and skills and to safeguard existing  jobs for staff from all of the establishments subject of the decision.

The Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Services, Public Health, NHS) recommends:

·  That the Green is retained until there can be a seamless transition to the new facility.

·  That where residents  in any of the three care homes concerned  are moved to  alternative accommodation, that accommodation should provide  at least equal  quality of care as currently provided.

·   That the Director of Adult Social Service provides extra focus on working to ensure that the quality of alternative care in the independent sector is improved significantly.

·  The Scrutiny Board is satisfied with assurances given by the Director of Adult Social Services around the commitment and timescales in relation to Siegen Manor, so long as they are adhered to.

·  The Scrutiny Board has no further comment in relation to the decisions concerning Middlecross residential care home or any other establishment forming part of the Executive Board’s decision.

·  That the Scrutiny Board continues to be involved and monitors progress of any future decision in relation to the matters considered.

RESOLVED – That the Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Services, Public Health, NHS) refers the decision back to the Executive Board for reconsideration on the basis of the statement agreed at the meeting.

(Councillor B Selby requested that it be recorded that he voted against referring the decision back to the Executive Board for reconsideration)

(Councillor B Selby and Councillor P Truswell left the meeting at 4.10pm during the consideration of this item.)

Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 1:30pm

(Please note: Pre-meeting for all Scrutiny Board members at 1:00pm)

Tuesday, 25 October, 2016 at 1.30 pm (pre-meeting for all Board Members at 1.00pm)

(The meeting concluded at 4.52pm)