Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2017 be agreed as an accurate record.

1.1  Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July be agreed as an accurate record.

2.1       There were none.

There are none.

3.1       There were none.

Report on children’s social care budgets to follow.

Resolved: that the reports be noted. It was also agreed that officers would provide further details about the financial assessments carried out on residents’ homes to pay for their care costs; and provide some examples of the ways in which some residents’ care packages had been re-evaluated and changed. The Committee agreed that it would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows:

·      The Committee asks that Mayor and Cabinet task officers with considering cross borough strategies for the provision of long-term residential and nursing care. The Committee believes that there may be innovative ways of working with other boroughs to improve efficiency and deliver better outcomes for residents.

4.1      Aileen Buckton (Executive Director for Community Services) introduced an extended presentation (included in the meeting papers). The following key points (in addition to the content of the presentation) were noted:

·         Lewisham had a number of statutory responsibilities to assess residents’ requirements for care.

·         Assessments did not naturally lead to the Council providing support for people in need. This was determined by eligibility criteria.

·         Support provided by the Council was costly and money had to be spent wisely.

·         There were a number of pressures facing the social care budget. People were living longer in poorer health and they required more complex packages of care. Some care packages cost up to £12k per week.

·         There were also high numbers of people with serious mental health conditions across South East London.

·         There were increasing numbers of young people with complex learning difficulties and health care needs.

·         There were increased costs related to the deprivation of liberty safeguards.

·         The adult social care budget was overspent by £5.3m in 2016-17. This year there was currently an overspend of £1.1m.

·         Costs could (and should not) not be controlled by denying people access to services.

·         The challenge for officers was how best to meet identified needs and how best to secure value for money services.

·         Officers had a range of plans to control costs. High cost packages were under constant review. However, the majority of the budget was spent on care and the environment was challenging.

4.2      Aileen Buckton and Dee Carlin (Head of Joint Commissioning) responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         Approximately half of the people being provided services by Lewisham adult social care services were over the age of 85.

·         Work to improve discharge of patients from hospital beds had a positive effect on patients, it also reduced costs for hospitals.

·         The increased rate of discharge had increased costs in adult social care because higher numbers of people were leaving hospital in poor health and with ongoing complex care needs.

·         The improved better care fund paid for some of the increased discharge costs - but not for ongoing care.

·         Work had been carried out to determine why Lewisham had the fourth highest number of autism diagnosis in the country (by head of population).

·         The level of service provision in Lewisham was one factor which could explain the higher numbers of diagnosis.

·         Practitioners were effective at diagnosing autism. It was also thought to be the case in Lewisham that autism was more often diagnosed as a ‘primary need’ for children with complex needs.

·         Cost comparisons with other boroughs were complicated by the costs associated with paying the living wage and the methods that different councils had for allocating short-term and long-term care costs.

·         Some nursing care was paid for by the NHS. There were a number of people who had packages of care that received a contribution from the NHS to pay for their healthcare needs.

·         Charges were raised against some properties to pay for people’s care. Normally the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To follow.

Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet as follows:

•      The Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet tasks officers with developing a forceful communications campaign that focuses on the use of hoardings and billboards in innovative, large and visually captivating ways in order to reach Lewisham residents with messages about the budget.

•      The Committee also recommends officers should also be tasked with considering options for the use of data about Lewisham households to target the Council’s communications about its budget.

5.1      Joe Dromey (Cabinet Member for Policy and Performance) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:

·         The report set out the key messages, key audiences and key communications channels the Council was using to communicate with residents.

·         Communication with residents was increasingly important because, whilst people knew that austerity was an issue, there was concern about increases in council tax combined with a reduction in the level of services.

·         One of the key messages the Council attempted to get across was that Lewisham was particularly susceptible to reductions in government grant and that’s why it had been hit particularly hard by the years of austerity since 2010.

·         It was predicted that there would be a 63% decline in government grant from 2010 to 2020.

·         Another key communications message was that the Council had already made significant savings and that in doing so it had attempted to protect the frontline and the most vulnerable.

·         However, it was also noted that in the next two years the Council needed to make £32m of savings, which meant there would be more difficult decisions to make.

·         There were attempts to ensure that the communications message remained positive – in terms of the services that were still being provided and work that was still being carried out (such as the implementation of the London Living Wage).

·         There were three principal audiences for communications messages: all council tax payers, Lewisham Council staff and, in the case of specific saving proposals, those service users who were affected by the changes.

·         Lewisham Life was a key communication channel. The Council was also increasing its efforts to interact with residents through social media. In the past, council tax letters were an effective way to communicate with residents.

·         Officers also used local meetings and local media to communicate with residents. However, it was recognised that the readership of local papers was very low.

·         Staff and councillors could also help to communicate key messages.

·         The new Head of Communications had been in place for six months. He brought a great deal of public sector experience to the role.

·         The communications team were working to improve message discipline. It was recognised that the key messages had to be regularly repeated in order for people to become aware of them.

5.2      Joe Dromey responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         There might be options to run an engagement exercise (similar to the big budget challenge) in the future.

·         Major engagement activities were labour intensive and the communications team was much smaller than it had been.

·         There would be a change of administration in May, which might change the approach to communications.

·         He would discuss the options for using advertising opportunities to convey key budgets messages (on billboards, hoardings and on vehicles) with officers.

·         There had to be a consistent message about the impact of austerity on the provision of Council services.

5.3       In the committee’s discussions, the following points were also noted:

·         Infographics might be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The most recent management report is available online here: https://tinyurl.com/ydbojg6m

Resolved: that the report be noted.

6.1       Resolved: that the report be noted.

Resolved: that the Committee would share its views with Mayor and Cabinet as follows:

·           The Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet tasks officers with meeting representatives of the Association for Public Service Excellence to consider how best the Council can generate income through the use of its existing assets and resources.

·           The Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet seeks justification from officers about the decision to advertise the new senior procurement role internally rather than externally.

·           The Committee also recommends that the appointment of consultants to support the creation of the new procurement and commercialisation team be delayed until options for income generation have been explored with the Association for Public Service Excellence.

7.1      Selwyn Thompson (Head of Financial Services) provided a verbal update about the Council’s income generation and commercialisation activities. The following key points were noted:

·         Before the summer a report had been provided to Committee about the Council’s plans to develop a new procurement team with the expectation that this team would lead future income generation and commercialisation work.

·         Approval had been given for the recruitment to the lead post in the new team and the job specification and grading had been agreed.

·         The internal advert for the new post would be published in the next two weeks.

·         Officers had met with consultants, who would provide support for the new post holder.

7.2      Selwyn Thompson responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         Officers had previously considered options for working with the Association for Public Service Excellence. This work could be revisited.

·         There were a range of practical activities that the new post holders would be tasked with carrying out. Their initial emphasis would be on procurement and they would review contracts and ensure that the Council was achieving best value for money.

·         There were officers in the organisation that might be able to fulfil the lead procurement role, if it was advertised internally.

7.3       In the Committee discussions, the following key points were also noted:

·         The Association for Public Service Excellence had a range of officers with experience and knowledge that could support the Council in its approach to income generation and commercialisation.

·         Members were concerned about the proposal to recruit the new post holder internally.

·         The Committee was sceptical about the use of private sector consultants.

7.4      Resolved: that the Committee would share its views with Mayor and Cabinet as follows:

·         The Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet tasks officers with meeting representatives of the Association for Public Service Excellence to consider how best the Council can generate income through the use of its existing assets and resources.

·         The Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet seeks justification from officers about the decision to advertise the new senior procurement role internally rather than externally.

·         The Committee also recommends that the appointment of consultants to support the creation of the new procurement and commercialisation team be delayed until options for income generation have been explored with the Association for Public Service Excellence.

8.1      The Committee noted that the Lewisham Future Programme report would provide the principal focus for the next meeting. It was also agreed that an item on ‘pressure on household budgets’ would provide the main focus for the Committee’s December meeting.

Resolved: that the Committee’s views under items four, five and seven be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.

9.1      Resolved: that the Committee’s views under items four, five and seven be referred to Mayor and Cabinet.