Agenda item

NOTED that deputations were made by the following groups/individuals, the main points of which are recorded below:

a.         Save Autism Services (Deputee -Mary Langan) against the budget proposals highlighted in the call-in including:

1.  The level of savings proposed and changes to care packages would put vulnerable people at risk.

2.  Previous representations by service users, families and carers against the closure of day centres had not been taken into consideration.

3.  The Council should consider keeping the day centres open until satisfactory alternative arrangements were in place.

NOTED in response to questioning by the Committee:

4.  The Ermine Road Day Centre, proposed as an alternative to the Roundway Centre, was not suitable provision for people with autism, who needed more specialist support. 

5.  It had taken service users 6 months to settle from the 2013 move from Ermine Road to the Roundway and a further move could be detrimental to their health and progress.

6.  People with autism required consistency of staff working with them and the retention rates for personnel in this sector were low posing further risks to the wellbeing of service users and their carers.

7.  The Acting Director of Adult Social Services explained that in the last 3-4 years the Council had not made any placements at in-house learning disability day centres, as personal budgets were used by service users to manage their care via direct payments.  Some service users opted for the Local Authority to manage their budgets.

b.         Haynes Relatives Support Group (by Heath Martin and Emel Teymur) against the proposals to cut day centre provision, particularly for those with dementia, including:

1.  The Haynes and Grange Day Centres had only recently risen to a good level of service further to the 2011 budgetary cuts.  The Haynes was a centre of excellence and should be protected.

2.  The uncertainty was causing service users and their families distress and short term cuts should not be made until all stakeholders were satisfied that a decent, alternative provision was in place.

NOTED in response to questioning by the Committee:

3.  The level of care and activities provided by individual carers in the home was not comparable to the service provided at a day centre. The proposals would require service users to travel around the Borough, which could prove difficult within personal budgets and would mean additional work for carers and families.

4.  Currently service users were able to spend up to six hours a day at the Haynes Day Centre for £34.  Carers in the home would cost twice as much.  Ms Tarka clarified that day centres were subsidised by more than £400,000 each year for 18 placements a day.  The daily cost to the Council would be provided.

Action: Beverley Tarka

5.  Helena Kania (representative of the Local Involvement Network (LINk)) expressed that the cuts would impact on the physical and mental heath of service users and their carers.

6.  Ms Tarka explained, in response to claims that there would be additional burden on carers, that individuals would be assessed to ensure the correct support package was in place.

c.         Haringey Children’s Centres

            Zena Brabazon, who was a governor at more than one children’s centre in Haringey, including

1.  The proposals to reduce the number of children’s centres in Haringey would impact on the most vulnerable children in society.

2.  Children’s centres had a safeguarding role in addition to the activities provided.

3.  An equalities impact assessment had not been conducted and proposals should be deferred until a full review of risks had taken place including how early help would be managed.

NOTED, in response to questions to Ms Brabazon:

4.  Children’s centres individually recorded data on families reached although the Local Authority measured the numbers of visitors.

5.  The reduction in children’s centres and services provided (which often linked with other agencies) would reduce the ability for staff to form relationships with the most vulnerable families and conduct the preventative work which was currently provided.

6.  The suggestion by Ms Brabazon to use Council reserve funds to maintain current children’s centre levels.  The Assistant Director of Finance, Kevin Bartle, explained that the Council reserves were split into earmarked (for specific use) and unearmarked reserves.  The Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) suggests that the Council will draw down approximately £4m from unearmarked reserves (currently totalling approximately £20 million) at a rate of £4 million each year to balance the budget before a sustainable position is reached by the third year of the MTFS.

Melian Mansfield, Chair of Governors, Pembury House Nursery School and Children's Centre, spoke against the proposals including:

1.  Parents, governors and staff had not been properly consulted on the proposals.

2.  Children’s centres provided a complexity of services, putting children at the centre of planning and responsive care, and were vital in preventing events of serious abuse. Vulnerable families would not travel further to access these services.

3.  The Early Help strategy did not provide for replacing these services.

NOTED in response to questions to Ms Mansfield:

4.  The proposals for fewer children’s centres would result in the loss of very experienced staff.

5.  Stakeholders had not been provided with a clear strategy and evidence that the impact of the proposals on vulnerable families had been considered.

6.  The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Councillor Ann Waters, emphasised that the Council had attempted to hold detailed discussions with stakeholders and further consultation on the children’s centre proposals would begin in June including working with local groups about how best to implement the cuts.  Formal consultation will follow and should conclude by October 2015.

d.         Youth Services

SeemaChandwani, spoke against proposals to cut youth services on behalf of two young people attending the meeting, including that inadequate consultation with young people had taken place and that the proposals to merge youth services with youth offending services, which was a statutory service, would not leave much room for the funding of youth services.

NOTED in response to questions from the Committee:

1.  Officers confirmed that proposals did not include the closure of Bruce Grove Youth Centre specifically and were about new ways of providing services.

2.  The Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture, Councillor Jason Arthur, clarified that the proposals included funding of £3.6 million for both youth services and youth offending services. This meant £1.6 million saving to youth services, leaving £500,000 to provide services in a more efficient manner.

3.  The proposals would provide more universal services in addition to (rather than a replacement of) Bruce Grove Youth Centre.

4.  The Cabinet Member recognised the need for clearer strategy and less jargon in future consultations.