Agenda item

It was reported that there had been six representations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme in relation to item 4  (2011-12 Health and Adult Social Services Budget Proposals).

A member of the public spoke out against the proposed cuts to mental health services contained within the budget proposals. She explained that a friend of hers had received support through council funded services for which she was grateful and had been doing well as a result, but that as a result of receiving a reduced level of care due to NHS cuts her friend had had to spend more time in hospital which she pointed out leads to problems of transition back into the community. She stressed that cuts were not cost effective to the Council and asked the Executive Member not to reduce services to disabled people nor remove ring fencing.

A representative of the Salvation Army spoke against the proposed cuts to prevention services. She provided examples of where York Salvation Army projects save money stating that their projects were high quality, inexpensive and in some instances subsidised by themselves. She stressed that prevention was cost effective  and critical to future years where ongoing savings would need to be made. She pointed out that cutting prevention work would increase costs in many other areas of the Council’s budgets and other statutory areas. She advised that the speed of changes to those delivering front line services needed to be carefully managed and new partnerships, including developing relationships, policies, protocols etc, needed time to work and that if providers were not given time to make these changes, services would fail.  

The Co-Chair of the Valuing People Partnership Board spoke in relation to savings proposal ref ACE 115 (Learning Disability Development Fund). He stated that the money had previously been ring-fenced for this fund but would now fall within the base budget and be subject to a reduction. He explained that the schemes paid for through this fund were small and with a good return on investment. He asked the Executive Member to protect the remaining services and allow as much flexibility as possible in the future.

A Unison representative spoke against the proposed cuts to some services. She advised that outsourcing services was not a robust principal and left the services too far removed from accountability and would make them difficult to monitor. They raised concerns that there had been no discussion with Unison prior to market testing services but stated that she understood that they would now  be consulted. She asked that more effort be put into looking at in-house options as an alternative to outsourcing. She also raised concerns about the proposed removal of one AMPH post from the Mental Health team, the effects this would have and that no consultation had taken place with the team in question. She asked the Executive Member to consider the implication of any cuts to services and urged great caution in recommending them.

Councillor S Fraser raised concerns about various aspects of the budget proposals including:

• Proposed changes to the Reablement Service – He warned that  no consultation had taken place with York Hospital Trust regarding the proposed changes stressing the importance of these services to hospital discharge procedures. He stated that, following the failed privatisation of long term care services in homecare in 2006, there had been a large increase in delayed discharges from York Hospital  due to social care arrangements not being in place.

• Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) – He questioned whether these had been carried out for the proposals contained in annex 3 bearing in mind the majority of staff working within these services were female and asked how the Executive Member had satisfied himself that the EIA had been shown to be robust in this respect.

• Service Pressure Proposal Ref ACEG07 (Direct payments and demographic increases in the Adult Care Population)  - He asked the Executive Member to explain the disparity between the £2million of additional government funding that the council, in conjunction with the PCT, was expecting to be able to access in 2011-12, as quoted in Annex 2, and the £499,004 figure he had been given. He asked what the basis for the £2 million was, what  guarantee he had been given and how he had assured himself that this would be forthcoming.

Councillor T Simpson-Laing spoke in relation the budget proposals. Firstly, she queried what involvement the Executive Member had had with plans for the proposed GP consortiums for the area and raised concerns that these GP consortiums may face difficulties in applying for funding if they were not seen as providing a service for the general public. Secondly, she stated that an article published on the front page of theInside House publication had announced  a 48.1% cut in the Supporting People budget for York. She advised the Executive Member that Nottingham Council had been threatened with a legal challenge in respect of their proposed funding cuts and raised concerns that York had not had time to discuss whether they faced a legal challenge too. To conclude, Councillor Simpson-Laing explained that she had worked for the last 16 years within learning disabilities and mental health and witnessed many cuts. She warned that both people receiving services and carers suffer from these cuts and questioned whether there was in fact a market to provide these services. She stated that in her opinion savings would not be made and would lead to a continued overspend in this portfolio area.