Agenda and minutes

Noted that the meeting was webcast.

None.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 9 below).

None.

The Chair declared a personal interest as a Homes for Haringey leaseholder.

a.         Deputation

Received a deputation from Mary Langan (parent of a person with autism and severe learning disabilities) on behalf of the Haringey Learning Disabilities Partnership Board (LDPB) and the Haringey Autism Working Group (AWG), on the proposals for people with learning disabilities within the Corporate Priority (pages 149-150, reference 12 -13). 

Noted, from Ms Langan’s deputation:

i.          The proposed cuts in services included reduced spending on care packages, the closure of the only residential facility in the borough and three out of four day centres, including the only one dedicated to people with ASDs for people with autism and learning disabilities.

ii.         The suggestion that the proposed cuts in services in Haringey should be rejected for the following reasons:

·         The cuts would heavily affect the most vulnerable people in the community and impose an increased burden of care on families and other carers – despite earlier commitments to protect vulnerable groups from austerity measures. Not only was there no evidence to support this policy, it defied the results of the Bubb Report in the journal Learning Disability Today in November, which confirmed the value service users attached to day services and their concerns about services being withdrawn.

·         The cuts were likely to prove a false economy, as the increased burden on home carers would lead to the collapse of existing arrangements precipitating urgent hospital admissions to Winterbourne View-type institutions. Which the Bubb Report, aimed to prevent.

·         The cuts had been proposed in the absence of proper consultation with those likely to be affected, including service users, families and other carers. After the end of year holiday period, with just a few weeks before the budget was set.

iii.        The LDPB and AWG had submitted the following proposals to the Council:

A.        Rescind all proposed cuts in services pending an inquiry into alternative means of meeting budget constraints;

B.        Commitment to making no changes to care packages without comprehensive assessment of needs;

C.        Extend consultation period.

iv.        Beverley Tarka, the Interim Director of Adult Social Services, welcomed feedback from services users and their parents and carers. In response to comments about consultation:

·         Ms Tarka explained that formal consultation could not have commenced prior to the publication of the budget proposals and that the Council was committed to a clear consultation process.

·         Ms Tarka had presented the proposals to the Learning and Disabilities Partnership Board on 10 December. 

·         Letters to service users (available in accessible formats) would be dispatched and published on the website the following week and made available through day service and transport provisions.

·         Ms Tarka would also be attending service user and carers forums through out January in addition to the Council arranged forums on 6 and 9 January 2015.

RESOLVED that the Committee’s budget scrutiny recommendations would reflect some of the concerns expressed above.

b.         Question

Mr Lauritz Hansen-Bay questioned why people over 74 would be excluded from the mandatory Health Checks proposed in Priority 2, reference 20, page 157 of the agenda pack.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To note the report detailing the budget scrutiny process and timetable.

Noted the briefing on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee budget scrutiny process (pages 1-6 of the agenda pack).

To consider and comment on the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Received the Corporate Planning covering report (pages 7-18 of the agenda pack) cover report and Corporate Plan 2015-16 (pages 19 – 266).

Councillor Arthur, Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture, introduced the areas of the budget proposal within his portfolio, including that it was necessary to remodel the delivery of Council services and relationships with residents, businesses, voluntary sector and community groups, and, that a 3-year budget plan was the right approach to ensure clear outcomes in order to stimulate growth and manage the rising cost in social care.

Consideration of the areas of concern within the Committee’s responsibility are noted below.

a.         Corporate Priority 4 – Drive growth and employment from which everyone can benefit (summary page 187)

i.              Item 49 – Economic Development – Film Office

The Committee requested a briefing note on the proposal to outsource the Film Service.

Action: Dan Hawthorn

(Post meeting note: briefing circulated to OSC on 7/1/15)

ii.         Item 51 – Reduce funding for Alexandra Palace and Park Trust (p.195)

A member expressed concern that cuts to Alexandra Palace and Park funding would impact a well used community facility and risk losing the current Heritage Lottery Fund project bid. Cllr Arthur recognised the importance of Alexandra Palace for Haringey and that support would continue to assist the Palace to achieve a more sustainable position. 

The Committee was concerned that the Council would continue to subsidise the Palace at the expense of other Council priorities. Councillor Arthur sympathised with this view and highlighted the Council’s statutory responsibility regarding continued support for the Palace and Park.

iii.        Item 52 – Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bid for Bruce Castle Museum (p.196)

The Committee questioned the impact of cutting £218k funding from Bruce Castle, a much needed facility in a very deprived area, in the third year and the consequence of the HLF bid being unsuccessful. 

Cllr Arthur acknowledged that Bruce Castle was important to the community and ran good events but also that the building required repairs.  The HLF bid was part of the regeneration project for Tottenham and included options for a sustainable future for the facility.  In the unlikely event that the bid was unsuccessful there was scope for other options including the use of capital funds.  In response to concerns about any decisions on the transfer of any assets or leases being open and transparent the Cabinet Member assured the Committee that any options and implications would be open to consultation and presented to Cabinet.

iv.        Item 54 – Cultural Strategy (investment proposal, p.198)

The Cabinet Member explained, in response to a question, that the figures for Year 2 were in brackets to demonstrate that this money would be removed from Year 2 funding.

The Committee raised concerns about how participation in culture would be delivered with reduced funding and that areas of the Borough were often ‘forgotten’. Cllr Arthur emphasised that rather than provide direct funding, the Cultural Strategy would focus on providing active support (such as granting necessary licences, assisting in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To review and discuss draft recommendations from the Scrutiny Panels.

TO FOLLOW

Vice-Chair, Councillor Connor, took the chair during this item

Received tabled copies of the draft minutes of the Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel, Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel, Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel and the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Panel meetings which each considered their individual areas of the Medium Term Financial Plan.

a.         Recommendations of the Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel – 11 December 2014

            i.          Priority 2, Item 11 – New Pathways for Older People (p.148)

(A)      The Haven

The Committee listened to a member of the public express their frustration at the amount of IT expenditure proposed in comparison to the proposed closure of the Haven Day Centre, which provided much needed support to the elderly and their carers.

Committee members expressed their support for the Haven and were concerned about the removal of professional services and leaving these services  to be delivered by volunteers.

(B)       The Haynes

The Vice-Chair reported that prior to the meeting the she had received a response to the budget proposals from The Haynes Relatives Support Group.  The Group’s response was provided in writing, including the following points:

·         People with dementia were fully dependent on others for all their needs 24/7, could not be left along, had a progressive disease with their needs increasing over time, were very vulnerable, need stability, familiarity, minimal change, stimulation and protection and for their carers to be well and healthy.

·         The Haynes Day Care Centre was a Centre of Excellence, providing care for people with dementia at an advanced stage.  Proposals would mean that this would be difficult to sustain.

·         Day care centres provided stimulation, social contact, emotional, physical support, range of activities and specialist expert care by experienced skilled staff – these helped people with dementia, and their carers, to stay healthier and independent longer.

·         Day care was a preventative service both for the cared for, and their carers, helped to extend staying at home and in the community.  In the absence of such services, carers suffered serious ill-health over extended periods often needing hospital stays.

·         Day Care made financial sense.  Carers wanted to delay the need for more costly residential and nursing care for loved ones or hospital admissions and to stay healthier themselves, day care was necessary to achieve these aims.  Day care costs also much less than care at home.  The Group had submitted  estimates of increased costs to the Council in 2011, and we felt they were still valid.

·         The planned consultation was inadequate.

The Committee noted that the concerns raised by The Haynes Relatives Support Group were not reflected in the proposals.

RESOLVED to recommend that, before moving forward with the proposals, Adult Services clarify the  proposals, including more detail about consultation, how respite services would be provided if closures went ahead and how specialist dementia services would be provided.

ii.         Priority 2, Item 13 – New Pathways for People with Learning Disabilities – Day Opportunities (p.150)

The Committee heard from a Member of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

None.

Monday 26 January 2015 and Thursday 26 March 2015

Noted the dates for future meetings:

Monday 26 January 2015 and Thursday 26 March 2015.