Agenda item

6.1     This agenda item was moved forward on the agenda to be discussed directly after agenda item 4.  

6.2     Joan Hutton introduced the information on savings proposal A14 Managing the demand for formal social care and achieving best value in care packages. The following key points were noted:

o  This savings proposal is a continuation of the savings agreed in 2015-16. Commissioners are now required to consider what people can still do for themselves, and work with families to establish this. Care needs of individuals are reviewed more often to ensure the packages of care provided are timely, cost effective and proportionate to need.

o  The case studies included in the report provide a flavour for the kind of changes to care packages that are being implemented.

o  There is a process in place to ensure people can raise issues with officers if there are problems with the care package. This change is difficult for many people, as some residents have been provided with a certain level of care for a very long period and the adjustment if care is reduced can be hard. If levels of care are reduced this is done gradually. The process is being managed carefully and at the time of the meeting there had not been any complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman.

6.3     Joan Hutton responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

o  The website is being developed to be more accessible to people.

o  Several options are considered when discussing and deciding on care arrangements with residents. Although 7 hours of care a week for a very elderly resident may seem like a limited amount of contact, some people don’t want much interaction with social services.

6.4     The Committee made the following comments:

o  The Committee thanked officers for the detailed case studies, which were very useful for the Committee to be able to assess what the savings proposal would entail.

o  It may be difficult to make these new ways of providing care, including via the website, accessible to people who are not already engaged. Sometimes making website more accessible can lead to them becoming more accessible to people already using them – not to the sites being used by people who weren’t using them before.

6.5     RESOLVED: the Committee noted the report.

6.6     Danny Ruta introduced the information on savings A16 Public Health. The following key points were noted:

o  The Council currently spends £200k a year on providing free swimming from its Public Health grant. This funding is spent on providing free swimming for under 16 year olds, as the leisure centre contracts provide concession for over 60 year olds.

o  Just under 14.000 residents in Lewisham used free swimming over the last financial year. This is a sizeable chunk of Lewisham’s population. 23% of the residents younger than 16 used the free swimming provided at least, while 8.7% of the 0-16 population swim at least once a month. Only 20 children or young people use the available free swimming more than 3 times a month.

o  Physical activity needs to be sustained to obtain public health benefits. This programme has very little impact on obesity compared to other money spent from the Public Health Grant.

6.7     The Committee commented that:

o  The figures indicated that continuing to fund free swimming in light of the budget cuts that need to be across the Council, may not be the most effective use of public health funding.

o  It is concerning that the swimming ability of children and young people in Lewisham is poor, but this may be better dealt with via school swimming lessons.  

6.8     RESOLVED: the Committee noted the information provided, and agreed to provide the Chair of the Children and Young People Select Committee with a note of their discussion.