Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED a) That Cabinet be asked to review the decision on keeping Day Centres in Crymych and Narberth open whilst a pilot is undertaken using a community enterprise model. b) That Cabinet be asked to consider the change in priority since the announcement of South Quay funding and what bridging alterations can be considered whilst the opening of South Quay is awaited. The Chair then advised Members that if there were any ideas or proposals from Committee Members, that they be passed on to Councillor Hodgson, as it was important to work together.
There were no declarations of interest received.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED a) That Cabinet be asked to review the decision on keeping Day Centres in Crymych and Narberth open whilst a pilot is undertaken using a community enterprise model. b) That Cabinet be asked to consider the change in priority since the announcement of South Quay funding and what bridging alterations can be considered whilst the opening of South Quay is awaited. The Chair then advised Members that if there were any ideas or proposals from Committee Members, that they be passed on to Councillor Hodgson, as it was important to work together.
The Chair invited Councillor Huw Murphy, originator of the call-in, to speak on the matter initially. Councillor Murphy wished to further scrutinise the decision made by Cabinet on 9 September 2024 in relation to the Day Opportunities Update, and highlighted that the details of which were contained in his supporting statement within the Agenda. He wished for Cabinet Members to listen to the concerns of Members and residents, especially carers and service users of the outlined Day Centres. He commented that, as the Authority’s Safeguarding Champion, he would not be fulfilling his duty if he did not speak up on such matters that would have a significant impact on many people. Councillor Murphy then urged Members of the Committee to refer the matter back to Cabinet to be reconsidered and to find a way to retain as much of the service provision as possible. He commented that it was a matter of priorities. The Chair then introduced the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Social Care and Safeguarding, Councillor Tessa Hodgson, who raised the following points: • She strongly argued against Councillor Murphy’s comment regarding listening, and believed that Cabinet had listened to the views of Members and residents since before the Covid-19 pandemic. She stated that a consultation was undertaken at that time with an organisation called ‘PeopleToo working’ which aimed to co-produce a new modern version of Day opportunities in Pembrokeshire, and highlighted that it was a very inclusive process. • She referred to the two petitions discussed at a recent Council meeting, and believed that Members and representatives were listened to again, with detailed questions being asked of her and of the people who had submitted the petitions. • Councillor Hodgson highlighted that herself and the Head of Adult Care had visited the Anchorage on numerous occasions, as well as once to Bro Preseli, and to the Lee Davis Centre in Narberth several times. • In regards to statutory services, she highlighted that Day Centre buildings were not a statutory requirement. She explained that the Authority was required to arrange for the provision of preventative services and that this could fall under a variety of different opportunities that would allow people to be based in their communities, with their friends and close to their homes. • Councillor Hodgson stated that she would like to embrace working together with Members, as that was how the services for the future would be shaped, and to ensure sustainable services for staff, service users and their families. The Committee then raised the following questions and observations: • Councillor Di Clements commented on statutory services and that many services were not statutory but were still offered by the Authority, and believed it to be about priorities. She referred to a recent presentation at Scolton Manor, and stated that the supported employment project was excellent work and congratulated the team. She suggested that decisions were being made for people where the impact of change was unknown. She also believed there to be very little support for carers and for those who do not wish to attend new service provision. Councillor Clements then referred to new service providers and questioned the decrease in attendance at the centres. She also sought clarification as to what would be done to support people who found the change too much, as well as support for their families. She also wished for confirmation that the cost savings were guaranteed. Councillor Clements also highlighted that service users and their families were not necessarily against change, but referred to the fact that there could be two changes in as many years, as well as the introduction of transport to the new centre, of which she questioned the cost. • In response, Councillor Hodgson referred to the highlighted changes for service users and wished to emphasise that no one was being forced to go to Meadow Park, and that there were other options within the community. She then suggested that once the South Quay centre was open in a few years’ time, service users may decide to go there, which was completely their choice. She stated that it was about working with service users, along with a senior Social Worker, to plan for their future. She explained that there was a huge demand within Adult Social Care, with over 3,000 people being supported in a wide range of situations, which continued to increase. She stated that Members needed to be mindful that the Service as a whole had to support all of those people. • Councillor Clements referred to the carers and questioned how they were being supported through the change if service users did not want to go to the new centre. She again referred to the decreased attendance numbers and whether this was being reviewed to determine the reasons as to why people were not showing up. • The Head of Adult Care wished to firstly highlight that the service users were the most important factor in this matter, and ensuring that the right care was in place. She stated that the Anchorage was owned by the Authority and highlighted that assessments had been undertaken with each individual attending the Anchorage, to determine what their preferred option was. She explained that South Wales advocacy were also being involved to support service users. Over the last three months, she explained that taster sessions had been provided for service users at their own pace, predominantly in Meadow Park, however there were other options where taster sessions had been carried out, in order to ensure that the service they decided to attend suits their needs and that service users were happy. In response to Councillor Clements’ question, the Head of Adult Care stated that carers were critical to the service and that support for carers was the same as support for the service users, with support also being provided by an external company to answer any questions. She highlighted that Day Centres were not statutory, but wished to emphasise that it did not make them any less important. She believed that there were a lot of opportunities to capitalise on and ensured Members that no one would be without a service. If service users were unhappy, she explained that carers were there to continuously engage with them about this to ensure they remained happy. The Head of Adult Care then explained that this process was to ensure that the transition was as seamless and risk averse as possible, for both the service users and carers. In relation to people not attending Day Centres, she explained that this was the case for the majority of Authorities across Wales, where people may have made alternative arrangements. • Councillor Alistair Cameron referred to the ‘do nothing’ option as outlined in Appendix A to the report, and stated that one of the disadvantages listed under this option was that it would prevent further opportunities to build more preventative, community based opportunities, and asked for this to be expanded on. In response, the Head of Adult Care referred to future needs in Pembrokeshire and the need to support people before they get to a crisis point, and part of assisting with that was to implement a preventative agenda. She stated that if things were done slightly differently, it would provide the opportunity to carry out preventative work. Councillor Cameron then sought specific examples of preventative work, to which the Head of Adult Care referred to working with people in the community, with social enterprises and with independent providers, which would provide the resource and opportunity to work on the preventative agenda. In response to a further question from Councillor Cameron as to whether preventative work would be done across the County, the Head of Adult Care confirmed it was the aim to learn from experience in particular areas and ultimately provide the same in other areas across the County. • Councillor Cameron then referred to the savings projected and raised concern around the figures not fully complying with the budget that was approved in March 2024. He highlighted that one of the reasons for the call-in was to further examine the financial savings, and asked for Councillor Murphy to comment. Councillor Murphy stated that he did not have a clear understanding of what would be saved by moving to a social enterprise model, as well as what would be in place for carers in order to continue to provide care for service users. Councillor Cameron then wished for Councillor Murphy to clarify his concern in regards to the financial savings in relation to the Anchorage. Councillor Murphy explained that there was concern over the structure of the building and that imminent closure had been recommended, and he therefore questioned whether the money being saved was going to offset the cost of transport to Meadow Park, before the option of the South Quay Centre was available. • Councillor Mel Phillips referred to unsuitable toilet facilities in the VC Gallery and Community Centre in Pembroke Dock and asked how this was going to be addressed. The Head of Adult Care stated that the Community Centre had been assessed and that if the Anchorage were to close, there would be an opportunity to provide the necessary equipment in that building. She stated that the VC Gallery was not opposed to the Authority also providing a hoist to support service users, however an assessment was yet to be undertaken, but she explained that work was being done with the VC Gallery and Community Centre to discuss options and to obtain grant funding. • Councillor Mike James referred to the meeting that had taken place at Bro Preseli on 5 September 2024 and that the social enterprise provider, Filltir Sgwar, did not answer many questions, and asked for clarity as to whether Members or carers had received any further information from Filltir Sgwar, following the meeting. He also referred to the decrease in attendance and hoped that Officers were keeping in contact with service users on waiting lists, to update them on their position. The Head of Adult Care wished to confirm that no one was on the waiting list for Bro Preseli, however there were some waiting for Havenhurst in Pembroke. She stated that one of the reasons for this was due to the service needing to assess how many people were expected to make a transition from their current provider to those other services. She explained that there were enough places to facilitate people moving into those services, but the service was trying to avoid moving people twice within a very short period of time. She also stated that regular check-ups were undertaken. In regards to questions around like-for-like care, the Head of Adult Care wished to emphasise that the staff in Bro Preseli would remain there and would carry on working alongside the social enterprise provider. She highlighted that further information had been received from Filltir Sgwar and that it could be provided to Members. • Councillor Maureen Bowen referred to the Anchorage building and wished to clarify that in order for it to stay open, it would need to close for three months this winter for urgent repairs. Councillor Hodgson confirmed this to be the case. Councillor Bowen then questioned whether there was a fee to attend both the Anchorage and Meadow Park. In response, the Head of Adult Care firstly wished clarify that Meadow Park would not be a social enterprise. She then referred to the fees for both centres and stated that it was determined by the benefits that individuals received. • Councillor Anji Tinley referred to the pre-Covid consultation and questioned whether it was still relevant. She also wished to know how many carers accepted the support provided by an external organisation, as previously mentioned by the Head of Adult Care. She also sought clarification as to why the taster sessions were held in Meadow Park. In response, the Head of Adult Care explained that the sessions for carers were held four times at the Anchorage and that there was in excess of 30 people present for at least three of the sessions. In regards to the taster sessions held in Meadow Park, the Head of Adult Care stated that taster sessions were also held in Pembroke Dock Community Hall and that the sessions had been ongoing since 24 June 2024. The Director of Social Care and Housing referred to the pre-Covid consultation and stated that it was not the only consultation that had been undertaken in relation to this matter, and that ongoing engagement and consultation activity with carers and residents, , proved that the Authority was listening. Councillor Tinley then wished to clarify whether the services had received any negative feedback about the centres not working under their current models. The Head of Adult Care ensured Members that the Authority would be immediately aware of any issues at the Day Centres, as they were overseen by the Authority. She also stated that the decline in attendance levels could be that people were more inclined to take control of their own care. She then confirmed that she had not had any information from any of the managers of the day centres to highlight concern about the way that the services were being run. Councillor Tinley sought the exact numbers of the decline in service users. Councillor Hodgson stated that, as outlined in the report, the numbers of people attending a building based service pre-Covid was 334, which had now declined to 136, and it was possible that that number had decreased again since the Cabinet report was published. In response to Councillor Tinley questioning the reduction, Councillor Hodgson explained that people had free choice and that they may have decided to establish their own care in a way that works best for them. • The Director of Social Care and Housing then provided some national context, and stated that the reduction in attendees for Council run buildings based provision was very much in line with national trends. He explained that one potential reason for the decrease in numbers was that, during Covid, alternative options were provided for service users and once Day Centres reopened, many service users found that they did not want to return and instead continued with their alternative provision. He also highlighted the Day Opportunities Information Team within the Authority, who were responsible for working in partnership with various different providers and other organisations, to provide a platform to advertise lots of different day opportunities for people, in order to make it as easy as possible for people to choose and control their care. • Councillor Clements referred to service users finding alternative provision after Covid, and sought clarification as to whether there was any evidence to prove that this was the case. The Head of Adult Care explained that unfortunately a number of people had passed away since Covid and some had chosen not to go to Day Centres, which was known as a result of regular assessments undertaken by social workers. She stated that those who did not to go to their services, had a review of their care every 12 months. In regards to particular figures, the Head of Adult Care explained that the figures were known for how many people were not attending Day Centres, as well as now how many people were receiving direct payments, so there was a natural correlation that could be shared with Members. Councillor Clements then sought clarification as to whether the taster sessions provided for the Anchorage had been costed out. The Head of Adult Care stated that those sessions were cost neutral. She highlighted that taster sessions were not being provided for Bro Preseli or the Lee Davies Centre, as they were not being recommended for closure. She explained that the service level agreements for these providers were being looked into, and confirmed that the proposal was for both centres to continue as social enterprises, with the staff remaining in place. Councillor Clements raised concern that this model was less advanced, to which the Chair agreed and suggested that this model had not yet been sufficiently piloted. He also suggested that it should be piloted in Bro Preseli in the first instance before being implemented in other locations. In response, Councillor Hodgson stated that the aim was keep Bro Preseli and the Lee Davies Centres open with a different model, and accepted that conversations and plans were more advanced in Bro Preseli and that it was a bit untested, but highlighted that it had been tested in other areas of Wales and had been successful. She referred to the need to focus efforts to get the model working, and highlighted that it would be a partnership arrangement with current staff staying in place. The Director of Social Care and Housing further explained that if the social enterprise did not come to plan, then Day Centre attendees would be able to access alternative existing provision, with the same principle that nobody was going to be left with no service provision as a result of such changes. He also wished to clarify that it was not within the Authority's power to determine whether the social enterprises go ahead or not, hence working in partnership with the communities to promote social enterprises as an alternative, as per the Social Services and Wellbeing Act. The Director also appreciated that it was an untested model in regards to Day Centre provision within these areas of Pembrokeshire, however the service wanted to be at the forefront of trying new models of care to create sustainable approaches for the future. • Councillor Bowen sought clarification as to how many people currently attending the Anchorage were also accessing other provision within the area. The Head of Adult Care explained that all service users bar one attended other services within south Pembrokeshire. Councillor Bowen also referred to the social enterprise aspect for Bro Preseli and the Lee Davies Centre and questioned the cost for service users under the new model. The Chair stated that this was a good point and suggested that costs could spiral out of control. The Head of Adult Care highlighted that it was dependent on the threshold of need and that costs would be determined by the social enterprise. She also explained that there were a number of independent providers across Pembrokeshire and that all of their costs were contained within the Authority’s framework, which was used to work towards so that costs would not be escalated. • Councillor Murphy referred to the service level agreement for Bro Preseli in relation to the rent for the building and food contract, and wished to clarify whether any savings made would be lost by leaving the contracts early. The Head of Adult Care explained that the Authority was working with the food contractors and that they had been very understanding. In regards to the rental agreements, the Authority would work with the social enterprise to pick up those costs. • In response to a comment made by Councillor Bowen referring to social enterprises being a form of privatisation, the Director wished to emphasise that despite social enterprises being businesses, they were formed to specifically fulfil a social or environmental purpose and reinvest their profits back into achieving that purpose. He stated that the Authority was not advocating working with a new business that aimed to take profits from the community, but would instead see a social enterprise made of local individuals who want to do good in the community. • Councillor Steve Alderman sought clarification as to whether the Authority could gain any knowledge from the two third party organisations within his ward, Mencap Gardens and Esteam, in regards to how they work and whether this could be implemented in Bro Preseli and Lee Davies Centres. The Head of Adult Care assured Members that the Authority was working with all of the independent and third sectors, to ensure the maximum opportunities were gained within those social enterprises. • Councillor Clements referred to the Cabinet Minutes from the 11 July 2024 meeting, Minute 21 -Financial Assistance to Voluntary/Community Sector Organisations, and sought clarification as to whether the outlined funding would go towards the Day Centres. She also referred to Community Connectors. The Director was unsure of the grants being referred to and stated that he was happy to have a conversation outside of the meeting. He then explained that one of the roles of Community Connectors was to work with local residents who may require being reconnected into their communities, by linking people with existing opportunities but also working with wider communities to shape future options. He added that one of the Community Connectors had been working with the Authority to advance some of the discussions around the potential social enterprise provision at Bro Preseli. Councillor Clements wished to highlight the totals of the outlined funding she mentioned previously, with one total being £115,000 and the other being £63,000. Councillor Anji Tinley then Moved the following Motion: That we ask Cabinet to review the decision based on keeping Day Centres in Crymych and Narberth open whilst we pilot a community group. We also need Cabinet to consider the change in priority since the announcement of South Quay funding and what bridging alterations can be considered whilst we await the South Quay Centres open. The Director then wished to clarify that in relation to Bro Preseli and Lee Davies, work had already been undertaken to draw upon additional grant funding up until the end of the financial year for the two centres to remain open, in order to give the Authority time to continue discussions around alternative models of provision. The Chair stated that there were many unknowns presently in relation to the social enterprise, and suggested that it needed to be piloted properly before Cabinet could make certain decisions on how the model was moved into the Lee Davies Centre. He suggested that the wording be amended to a community enterprise model and this was accepted. The Motion was Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The Chair then re-read the Motion, with some changes, as follows: That we ask Cabinet to review the decision on keeping Day Centres in Crymych and Narberth open whilst we pilot a community enterprise model. We also need Cabinet to consider the change in priority since the announcement of South Quay funding and what bridging alterations can be put in place and be considered whilst we await the opening of South Quay. Councillor Huw Murphy thanked Members for attending the meeting and understood that it was a difficult task, but that it was about the priorities of the Authority. Councillor Cameron wished to clarify where the piloting of the new model would be carried out. The Chair confirmed that it would be the Centre in Crymych and that it would be up to Officers to determine the timescales of the pilot, and that the Committee was simply asking that a pilot take place. Councillor Cameron wished for further clarification from Officers regarding the financing of the pilot scheme and made reference to the Social Care budget. The Chair explained that the budget would be looked at during the next meeting of the Committee and asked Officers to only comment on the potential pilot scheme. In response, Councillor Hodgson stated that this was ultimately a Cabinet decision and that it was premature to ask this information of Officers at this stage. The Chair agreed. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Di Clements, Delme Harries, Michael James, Mel Phillips, Anji Tinley and Michele Wiggins [6] Against the Motion: Councillors Steve Alderman, Maureen Bowen, Alistair Cameron, Nicola Gwynn and Michael Stoddart [5] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED a) That Cabinet be asked to review the decision on keeping Day Centres in Crymych and Narberth open whilst a pilot is undertaken using a community enterprise model. b) That Cabinet be asked to consider the change in priority since the announcement of South Quay funding and what bridging alterations can be considered whilst the opening of South Quay is awaited. The Chair then advised Members that if there were any ideas or proposals from Committee Members, that they be passed on to Councillor Hodgson, as it was important to work together.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.