Agenda item

Head of Local Democracy and Member Services to report that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 27 June 2011 on consideration of a Call In of the Cabinet’s decision of 7 June 2011 vide Minute CAB.05 relating to the Recommended Budget Savings Decision – Adult Services Proposals in 2011 – Older Persons’ Drop In Centres, Jacksons Lane Luncheon Club and Cypriot Elderly and Disability Project resolved as follows –

a.         That the decision in relation to Drop-In Centres be referred back to the Cabinet to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision within 5 working days in light of the views expressed by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.   

b.         The Cabinet be recommended to defer a final decision and continue to fund drop-in services for a further 6 months in order to allow the completion of the detailed exploration of alternatives and of possible extra support (including facilitating capacity building within the voluntary sector, to assist the voluntary sector in filling the void that the Council¹s withdrawal from Drop-in Centres will have created) and finance, that the department was currently already working on.

In making this recommendation the Committee took into account evidence that:

·        There was a universal perception that drop-in services were generally well run and popular; also that their proposed withdrawal, in advance of putting adequate alternatives in place, would have an immediate real impact on the quality of life of a large number of vulnerable people in the borough who were currently using them.  It would also undermine the current system of preventative measures in the borough which was likely to lead to further future costs to the authority as well as avoidable distress to numerous low income residents.

·        The vast majority of those affected were low income people, with significant proportions from vulnerable groups; whilst almost any reductions in Adult Services was likely by definition to also have a disproportionate impact on low income and vulnerable groups of local people, there were concerns expressed that at the corporate level the outcomes of the recent consultation exercises and Equality Impact Assessments had not had the chance to influence the broad brush allocation of cuts between different services.

·        There were promising possibilities for partly re-providing some of these services through different means, of securing alternative sources of funding or support for certain aspects, of reducing costs in some cases through the introduction of a small voluntary levy on users and of enabling in some cases the users and other support organisations to take them over and continue them at a minimal or no cost to the authority.  It was evident that the department had been working hard on most of these possibilities, but also that little concrete agreement had as yet been secured, mainly due to the short timetables imposed and the need to proceed carefully at each stage.

·        The savings involved, especially in the remaining of the current financial year were relatively small and a delay in finalising the decision to the end of the financial year could be contained within the current year’s contingencies.  Such a delay would have no impact on the long-term financial plans of the council, i.e. the base budget and therefore it would not derail the integrity of the current budget process.

·        The proposals as they stand had started undermining the confidence of at least some of the users, potential users and their advocates in the future ability of the Council to provide an adequate service to low income and vulnerable elderly residents. Since maintaining the public’s confidence on the service is essential component of delivering an efficient service in this field, it would appear that allowing a bit more time for officers to work with users and other organisations to concretise some of the alternatives and enable a smooth transition would demonstrate the authority’s determination to listen to the concerns expressed and to minimise the impact of the proposed cuts on the ground.

Part Four Section H (Call In Procedure Rules) Paragraph 10 (b) of the Constitution requires that when the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides to refer a decision back to a decision maker then the decision taker has 5 working days to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision.

The following documents are attached –

1. Report of the Monitoring Officer;

2. Report of the Director of Adult and Housing Services;

Additional documents for information –

3. Copy of the ‘Call In’;

4. Published minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 7 June 2011;

e.   Report of the Director of Adult and Housing Services considered by the Cabinet on 7 June 2011.

NOTE BY HEAD OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND MEMBER SERVICES

In accordance with Part Four Section B Paragraph 17 of the Constitution only the items set out in this notice may be considered at the special meeting, and no other business shall be considered.