Agenda item

The High Court on the 22 July 2016 ordered that the Council’s decisions relating to the reduction in funding for short breaks should be quashed. In light of the judgement the Council is asked to consider its decisions of 1 March 2016 and 31 May 2016 relating to the short breaks budgetary proposal, looking at the issues completely afresh.

Prior to the discussion on this item commencing the Chairman clarified why Members were being asked to consider this matter. On 1 March 2016 and 31 May 2016, the Council made decisions relating to the budget for Short Breaks for disabled children.

Those decisions had now both been quashed by High Court judgement. As detailed in the executive summary in regards to decision 1, Justice Lang concluded that Members did not ask ‘the right questions’ regarding the Council’s obligations under the Equalities Act 2010. In regards to decision 2, Justice Lang assessed that this decision addressed the flaws of decision 1. However, this decision was also quashed, as Justice Lang concluded that Members were not informed as to how to rescind the previous decision should they have been minded to, through suspending standing orders.

The Chairman commented that as a Council, Members and Officers were obviously disappointed with this result. This was particularly so for decision 2, given that Councillors received training regarding the rules of the constitution, including how to suspend standing orders.

The Chairman noted that the Council respected the Court’s judgement and members were being asked to consider the matter completely afresh at this meeting. He invited Councillors to consider the issue with fresh eyes, casting discussions at the previous 2 meetings of Council concerning this matter aside.”

(Councillor(s) * declared a personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item * by virtue of the fact that *. As his/her/their interest was personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest  he/she/they left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor(s) * declared a personal interest in Agenda item * by virtue of the fact that *. As his/her/their interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest he/she/they was/were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Doherty clarified that although she had previously declared an interest in this item as she had now left the employment of a provider in July 2016 this conflict no longer existed.)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) following the High Court  decision on the 22nd July 2016 that ordered that the Council’s previous decisions, made on the 01^st March 2016 and the 31^st May 2016, relating to the reduction in funding for short breaks be quashed.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty  and seconded by Councillor James Fredrickson:

That the Council:

1.    “having considered this Report and its appendices fully agrees that the service redesign, reductions and budgetary measures proposed relating to short breaks funding are appropriate and proportionate following assessment of the statutory requirements.

2.    Instructs that Officers robustly monitor the impact of the budgetary reduction and continue to work in close partnership with local providers of short breaks provision in West Berkshire.”

Councillor Doherty, in introducing this item reminded Members that they were

required to make a new decision on the redesign of short breaks for disabled children, for reasons already explained by the Chairman

Councillor Doherty explained that as elected Members it was their duty to question whether the proposed budget reduction was justifiable in the context of the important need to protect and promote the welfare of disabled children and their carers. She reported that the information set out within the report should enable Members to consider the impact on this extremely vulnerable cohort of residents.

Councillor Doherty commented that she could not fully comprehend the daily difficulties faced by these children or their families. She accepted that  this was a highly emotive decision but that Members were charged with balancing the needs of all residents as well as this vulnerable group.

Councillor Doherty noted that the Council had received a petition containing 4,447 signatures from West Berkshire Mencap the previous day requesting that: ‘West Berkshire Council change their mind on their proposal to cut the funding of disabled children’s short breaks at West Berkshire Mencap’.

Councillor Doherty commented that she had carefully studied the information within the report and attached appendices, met with the services involved, both internal to the Local Authority and External Providers, she had met and heard from parents and she had compared ‘Short Break Services’ data from across the country. As a result she was of the opinion the Council provided a ‘good’ service to these children and their families.

The March 2015 Inspection had highlighted that the ‘specialist team provides good quality child-focused work’, She noted that the Disabled Children’s Team worked hard to provide the support needed through Education, Health and Care Plans and were making good progress with required Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND reforms. This would be tested by the new Ofsted SEND inspections which had just started, but initial feedback from parents was positive.

Councillor Doherty cited an email from a parent received two weeks previously with regard to the Castlegate service: “my younger son who would literally run to their door to be let in so I can only assume he loved to go there and felt safe and secure”.

Councillor Doherty commented that the financial implications were set out in paragraph 6.1 of the report. She asked Members to note that the spend for 2016/17 was actually £1.335,252.00l) which totalled nearly 9% of the total Children’s Services budget.  Short Breaks, which were provided by voluntary groups, should be viewed as a part of a larger service delivered by the Local Authority for disabled children and their families. Members needed to determine if the level of expenditure was proportionate and justifiable in light of other savings that had to be made made. The Council had protected frontline services for disabled children, and invested in at the last Full Council in the Getting to Good Paper. The Council continued to support and investment in its overnight facility Castlegate which provided the largest component of our Short Break Service and enabled the Council to meet its statutory obligations. She noted that there would be no change for the care packages for the highest level of need children.

Paragraph 8.3 explained that it was the discretionary element that might change, particularly for those individuals who did not meet statutory levels of need. Councillor Doherty stated that through her research and working knowledge of this area she believed that an effective service could still be delivered and that the Council would be able to minimise the effect such a reduction would have on the needs of both children and carers within West Berkshire.

The local offer which was promoted to all families would be key in ensuring clear detail in what and where support was available. It contained information not only on current providers who were continuing to deliver but also new providers and new supported services coming to some of our local communities that were self-funded and run by the communities themselves.

Transition Funding was enabling the Council to manage any changes carefully and over an extended period of time as the Council recognised that change could be difficult and even more so for vulnerable individuals.

Councillor Roger Croft commented, albeit that this was a very difficult decision, it was one of many that Councillors had to make . He urged all Members to take careful consideration of their legal duties (set out in section 7 of the paperwork), and the legal processes  they were required to follow. Members had a duty to take account of legal restrictions, balancing the needs of all the District’s vulnerable groups yet at the same time producing a balanced budget.

Members were being asked to consider reducing funding for shorts break for the carers of disabled children. The Council needed to make decisions on the balance of the services it was able to provide  whilst being mindful of the needs of those they served.

Councillor Croft noted that the Council provided lots of services, around 800, all of which were important in varying degrees. The decision before Members was about balancing those difficult options and making decisions that were appropriate and proportionate given the wider context of all the Council’s functions. The Council’s financial position had meant that services had to be reduced in many discretionary areas  including rural buses, neighbourhood wardens, cross boundary waste and recycling services to name but a few.

.

Councillor Croft stated that the Council’s financial position had been well publicised and all decisions needed to take cognisance of the Council’s duty to operate within a balanced budget. Unlike other organisations the Council did not have the luxury of being able to operate a deficit budget.

He asked Members to consider what kind of service would remain if Members were minded to approve this proposal and how that offer compared with other parts of England. 

Councillor Richard Somner asked the Portfolio Holder to explain how this proposal would compare to other Local Authorities offering of Short Break Services.

Councillor Alan Macro Councillor noted that Justice Lang had made mention of the fact that at the 31 May 2016 meeting Members had not been informed about the ability to rescind the March 2016 decision. He had pointed this issue out at the time and his comments had not been well received.

Councillor Macro drew Members’ attention to the statement of Christine Lanehan, the Director of the Council for Disabled Children, set out from page 250 of the paperwork. He made specific reference to paragraph 17 on page 255 where Ms Lanehan stated that the Council had misinterpreted the Government’s intention regarding Aiming High Funding. She commented that in the final year of the ring fenced funding the Regulations and Short Breaks funding statement were introduced which made it clear to both parents and local authorities that it was the Government’s intention that the local provision should continue.

Councillor Macro also commented on paragraph 18 of Ms Lanehan’s statement where she stated that the Council’s distinction between Aiming High short breaks provision and core provision was inaccurate as it carried the same statutory intent. In paragraph 19 she stated that in her view it was not appropriate for local authorities to focus solely on meeting assessed need as stated by the Council. He asked that Members take these comments into account in reaching a decision at the meeting.

Councillor Lee Dillon noted that the report directed Members to consider various pieces of legislation. He stated that Members also had a moral imperative to ensure that the Districts’ most vulnerable individuals and their carers got the care that they required. The Care Act 2004 stated that where appropriate the Council should use reserves to fund services or seek to increase charges elsewhere to meet these costs. He accepted that in West Berkshire Council’s case it would not be appropriate to use reserves but that the report did not set out any detailed analysis of charges that could potentially be increased. He asked Members to consider using some of the 2017/18 Transitional Funding to give more time to consider all the options for this important service.

Councillor Emma Webster sought assurance from the Portfolio Holder that in her opinion this proposal was both proportionate and appropriate given the Council’s financial position.

Councillor Anthony Chadley, the Portfolio Holder for Finance, reminded members of the need to operate within a balanced budget. He noted that Members had been required to make very difficult decisions during the previous financial year and the Council was still in the same financial cycle. The Council would again be required to find additional savings for the forthcoming financial year. In terms of making use of the Council’s reserves both the S151 Officer and the Council’s external auditors were clear that the Council’s current reserves were very close to the minimum reserve levels. Members could use reserves but any depletion would mean that the Council might be unable to respond to any other unforeseen emergencies.

Councillor Pamela Bale queried whether the Council had looked at other options and alternative income generation?

Councillor James Fredrickson stated that Members had a lot of information to consider at this meeting and that it was important to consider the decision afresh. The Council had decided to reduce funding for short breaks by £175k. Members were being asked to decide whether or not that decision could be justified. Members would need to balance the Council’s statutory and discretionary responsibilities whilst being mindful of the needs of all residents and being mindful of the Council’s budgetary environment. He stated that Members would need to determine if this proposal was appropriate and proportionate.

Councillor Fredrickson stated that a number of comments had been made about spending the Council’s reserves. It would be permissible to suspend standing orders and agree to spend the reserves. As the Portfolio Holder for Finance had already stated the Council’s reserves were very close to the minimum prudent level. Should the Council be minded to spend the reserves it might not be possible to react to an emergency or to fund other services.

Members had also discussed attaining other income. Council Tax had been increased already. Other income could be generated from other sources such as staff car parking charges or increasing other fees across the Council. These options were being looked at but were not unique to this proposal. Councillor Fredrickson queried whether cuts could have been made to other services instead. Members however had a duty to be mindful of the needs of all residents and service users and as Members made this decision they needed to be mindful of all the obligations that had to be met. Members needed to consider West Berkshire Council’s offering in terms of this area with those of other authorities.

Councillor Doherty commented that mention had been made of how West Berkshire Council’s offering compared with other authorities. During the research that she had conducted she had established that this Council’s offering was good and would compare favourably with other authorities. The ‘Local Offer’ set out available services and she was pleased to note that new providers and community groups were coming into the market. She stated that the discretionary services would still be provided but just not by the Council.

Transition Funding had already been granted for this area as Members recognised that change was difficult. The funding had meant that the Council was able to work with partners to allow for positive transition to take place.

Councillor Doherty commented that should Members be minded to approve the recommendations she would, as set out in recommendation in 2.3. advocate that this process be continually reviewed to ensure the Council’s offer was meeting need. The Council would however have reduce and realign budgets over the coming years to ensure that it continued to meet its statutory duties. Councillor Doherty commented that although this budgetary reduction might adversely impact on some people, in the light of the Council’s need to appropriately balance all of its strategic aims and priorities and to fairly secure protection and support across the wide range of vulnerable people who need this, the recommendation remained to approve the proposal.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

In accordance with paragraph 4.17.3 of the Constitution immediately after the vote was taken Councillors Alan Macro, Lee Dillon and Mollie Lock asked that their vote against the proposal be recorded.