Report of the Strategic Director of Transformation and Resources.

A report by the Strategic Director – Transformation and Resources set out the work of the three Policy and Performance Committees regarding the scrutiny of the 2016/17 budget options.  This followed a series of workshops held in January for Members of each of the Committees to explore in more detail the various budget options being put forward.  A separate report was provided for each Committee and these were attached to the report as Appendices 1 – 3.  Each of these reports contained a brief summary of the options reviewed with the comments of Members in attendance.  The Committee was requested to acknowledge these reports as the scrutiny response to the 2016/17 budget proposals and refer these on to the Cabinet.

Councillor M McLaughlin informed that the Policy and Performance Committees had adopted the same workshop approach as they had in the previous year.  She also informed the Committee that it would not be debating the budget proposals at this meeting.  That would be done by the Council at its budget meeting.  The report was presented to inform Members of the views expressed on the consultation.

Councillor M McLaughlin reported on the proceedings of the Policy and Performance Committee - Families and Wellbeing’s Workshop which had been very well attended and had gone well.  Fourteen Members had attended and everyone had contributed something.  The discussions held were against a backdrop of the requirement to make huge savings as a result of the Council having experienced grant reductions and the need to balance that with the need to do as much as possible to protect those services which support our most vulnerable residents.

The Workshop had examined both positive and negative impacts and made suggestions on how to mitigate negative impacts.  It had also considered how Leisure concessions could operate in the future.

Councillor P Gilchrist made reference to an email he had sent to each of the Committee’s Members the previous day regarding the proposal to close Girtrell Court – a respite centre. 

Councillor M McLaughlin informed that the areas Councillor P Gilchrist had highlighted in his email had been explored at the Workshop and she did not want to change the narrative of resulting report.

However, Councillor P Gilchrist considered that it was legitimate to receive information later as there had been concerns raised at various other meetings since the Workshop and they should be reflected upon.

Councillor M McLaughlin did not agree with the point being made and informed that she did not want to change the emphasis of the Workshop report as feedback from other consultation exercises would be fed into the process.

Councillor P Gilchrist informed that he had circulated a summary and some suggestions.  He was aware some Members may not have seen it.  He asked Members if any were in agreement to these being put forward.

With the Committee’s agreement Councillor P Gilchrist proceeded to read out his email as follows:

  ‘Dear Chair, Members and Officers,

The recent ‘tradition’ at Co-ordinating Committee has been that the Committee has received the report from the deliberations of the working parties.  Onward transmission of the Committee’s views has not often led to lengthy debate.

The process was reviewed in February 2015.

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=28024

In broad terms the deliberations of the working parties have been transmitted to Cabinet as they covered the range of views expressed by Members.

I have also looked back at the scrutiny review of the original Girtrell Court project considered in Nov 2014.

It is worth recalling that the re-provision of the service has been under consideration for some time.

This is a summary of the issues raised recently -

Since the budget option on the services at Girtrell Court was outlined a number of parents have attended the Wirral South and Wirral West Constituency Committees.

In addition details of various alternative services known to be available have been circulated to carers.

Officers have embarked on a series of one to one consultations with carers.

Doubts have been raised about the suitability of the alternatives.

Requests have been made for developing alternatives that must meet the quality of experience at Girtrell.

Anxieties have been expressed that the alternatives might not be accessible or might not provide for the age ranges attending Girtrell Court. 

The Department of Adult Social Services has recognised that detailed work is required to ‘commission’ services tailored to the needs of the service users. There has been a recognition that individual services at Girtrell Court should continue until alternatives are properly developed.

As we are only a few days from the Cabinet meeting on Monday morning I think that the Co-ordinating Committee should submit a specific, updated comment on the Girtrell Court issues.

I would like to offer this proposal  – 

That this meeting of the Policy and Performance Co-ordinating Committee wishes to highlight the concerns expressed by Members at the budget scrutiny working party relating to services offered at Girtrell Court.

During those deliberations it was recognised that

‘The key challenge is to match the needs of individuals with what can be provided’. …

And that…

‘Assurances were sought about availability and quality of the independent sector provision and also how each person would have their needs assessed.

It was also reported that …All respite will be honoured until March 2016, but provision will be continued until all reviews are complete and all users have alternative provision in place’

In view of the concerns raised since the Workshop met it is even more important that attention is given meeting the detailed needs of the families involved.

Services need to be offered at Girtrell Court until it is clear that a range of providers are in place and lined up to offer services truly tailored the physical, recreational and emotional needs of the users and are demonstrably  appropriate to their ages and circumstances.

In view of the tight timescales that have caused concern the officers and Cabinet need to ensure that the transition to future provision is appropriately managed with clients able to use services at Girtrell Court until such time as alternatives are duly commissioned’.’

This Motion was seconded by Councillor W Clements.  It was put to the vote and lost (6 for, 8 against, 1 abstention).

A Member wished to ask a question on Government funding but was told that the appropriate Officers were not in attendance at the meeting to answer questions and it was not the intention for the Committee to debate the budget proposals.

Councillor J Williamson informed that the Policy and Performance Committee – Transformation and Resources’ Workshop had been held on 14 January 2016.  It had provided the Committee with the opportunity to examine in greater detail a number of proposals affecting services that fell under its remit.  Those budget proposals selected for further examination were those deemed to be of greatest significance in terms of value and the public interest.  Overall the Workshop had been very beneficial and there had been some good discussions around the budget options, some agreement and some split opinion.  Members were aware that the Policy and Performance Committee – Transformation and Resources would receive an update on welfare reform in March 2016.

Councillor Mike Sullivan the Chair of the Policy and Performance – Regeneration and Environment Committee informed that it had been agreed by the Group Spokespersons that all six budget proposals which were out to public consultation would be scrutinised at the Workshop as they were all considered significant in either the savings provided or the value of the service.  To ensure that there was sufficient time for appropriate scrutiny to take place, the scrutiny of these budget proposals had been carried out through two dedicated workshops held on 11 and 18 January 2016.

The Workshop had discussed various issues and as a result it had been agreed that some task and finish work in relation to them would be carried out by the Committee.

Members reported that there had also been comments at the Regeneration and Environment workshop on the charge for garden waste and the potential impact on the cost of landfill.  There had also been a difference of opinion in respect of the condition of the highway network.

A Member informed that she found it difficult “to bring the voice of the community” to the Committee.  There was some agreement in respect of this and it was considered that there should be some discussion on how the process could be refined.  There were issues associated with timing but not just in relation to the budget but on other matters too e.g. how the Wirral Plan was being implemented.

RESOLVED: That

(1)  the three budget scrutiny reports as the scrutiny response to the 2016/17 budget proposals be noted; and

(2)  these reports be referred to the Cabinet for consideration.