Agenda item

Members considered the report that sought Member approval on a specific option for the future provision of residential care.

 

Members were advised that the report should not be considered in isolation but this was part of a journey or a story in relation to the modernisation of adult social care. The Director of Social Care, Health and Housing stated that residential care was now the least preferred option among individuals as they wish to remain in their home.

 

The Director advised that over the past few years due to the contract with Gwalia the Council has been spending £1m on beds that have not been used as the contract stated that the Council would purchase 95% of beds that are available. As part of phase two the Council has guaranteed to purchase 80% of available beds. From 1^st April 2022 a new guaranteed number of beds will need to be confirmed for the last phase of the contract. The Director stated that regardless of where the residential care beds were the Council had a duty to manage the whole of Social Services in an efficient and effective manner.

 

Members noted that there were possibly alternatives for the Arwelfa but the Director stated that no specific proposals had been submitted during the consultation period.

 

Officers were asked whether there would be capacity to look after all individuals in their homes should the care homes close. Further clarity was required on whether the persons age was a factor i.e. 65+ or 85+. The Director confirmed that there would be sufficient capacity as the Council would keep the situation under constant review to ensure supply met demand.

 

In relation to continuous review Members asked what would happen if following a review there was a residential care shortage. The Director stated that there would not be a shortage because supply constantly exceeds demand. The Director continued and gave an example that the average number of people per 100,000 population in residential care homes was 614 in 2014 and this had fallen to 467 in 2015. The current figure for Neath Port Talbot was 600 per 100,000 population.

 

Members asked whether option one contained within the report could be selected with a stay of execution to find an alternative. It was confirmed that nothing concrete had been received during the consultation process and it was only verbally that it had been mentioned that plans were a possibility. The Council could not afford to continue to wait for a plan to come through.

 

Members noted that within the report it was stated that the funding that may have been available to the Council in 2012 is no longer available and they asked for clarity on this. The Director stated that since the contract was signed the budget for Social Care Health and Housing had diminished by a fifth and therefore the money no longer exists.

 

Members asked whether the proposals within the report were due to the savings of within the Forward Financial Plan. The Director stated that the savings included within the report were agreed as part of the budget setting process for 2016/2017 and Members would have been made aware during September/October 2015.

 

The Director was asked why it had taken so long to sort out the £1m for the unused beds. It was confirmed that the Council was aware of the situation 3 years ago but could not do anything about it as it was part of the contract that was agreed initially. The Council was unable to do anything until the second phase of the scheme and the terms of the contract have now been negotiated to 80%.

 

Members noted that the situation was an emotive one and hoped that residents are being dealt with on a compassionate basis as the Council is potentially closing homes which the residents feel as “their” homes. The Director stated that this was of paramount importance and the need for compassion was essential if option two or three was selected.

 

The Consultation process was questioned and Members noted that there was no way that the arguments put forward could be ignored and the Council must listen to alternative proposals. The Director stated that the Consultation gave people the options. However, it should be noted that the two localities where the homes are located are not the only stakeholders that would be affected. Members were also asked to consider that the disadvantages of Option One far outweigh any benefits.

 

Members stated that they did not disagree with providing more care at home but also stressed that the valleys hubs are important and that any residential care centres should not be concentrated within the main towns.

 

Members raised concern in relation to families being disadvantaged if Options Two or Three are selected due to having to travel further to visit their relatives. It was confirmed that where it was seen as detrimental to a family then a scheme of relief may be available but each case would be decided on its merits.

 

The Director stated that a commitment had been previously made to the affected communities but in the last three years the budget has shrunk by one fifth and resources now longer exist. The Director further continued that it was a common myth that just because people are getting older there will be more of a requirement for residential care, there are other care and support packages that will allow them to remain at home.

 

Members asked for clarity on why the options had been put forward. Was it to provide a better quality of care/life for the residents or was it purely down to budget issues. The Director responded by highlighting that the Council knows it does not need the new provision which has become unaffordable, which will lead to further financial problems in the Directorate if the current level of service provision was maintained. The Director also noted that there had been no private sector care homes built in the County Borough for at least the last five years.

 

The Director stated that the Council had listened to suggestions during the consultation process and this is why the Option Three had been developed to include the proposal in relation to Tremyglyn. The Director continued and stated that at no point during the consultation were any alternative proposals put forward for Arwelfa.

 

Following consideration of all the options contained within the report and further consideration of the Equality Impact Assessment a motion was put before the Committee that Option One be passed to the Cabinet for Decision. This was voted on and the motion fell.

 

A second motion was put forward that Option Three be passed to the Cabinet for decision. This was voted on and the motion passed.

 

Following scrutiny Option three was voted forward to the Cabinet to make the decision.