Issue - meetings

Report ACH19018

The Committee considered a report presenting options in respect of the contract to provide a respite service for carers of older people with dementia to help them maintain their caring roles in recognition of the current contract expiry date and the pressure upon the allocated budget.  The report sought Portfolio Holder agreement to progress in accordance with the recommended Option 2 detailed in the report which was to extend the contract with Bromley, Lewisham and Greenwich (BLG) Mind for one year at increased rates and introduce charging for services in 2020/21, moving to direct payments in 2021/22.

Noting that there was a Part 2 report accompanying the Part 1 report, a Member questioned whether the Part 2 minutes could be published following the award of contract.  The Committee discussed the suggestion and another Member advised that even once the contract was awarded there would remain sensitivities around some of the commercial information reflected in the Part 2 report.  The Member suggested that it may be possible to publish information around scoring as this would need to be provided to all tenderers however, there needed to be a clear commitment to respect that sensitive commercial information would remain in Part 2 following award of contract.

Members of the Committee expressed a number of concerns with the proposals. The Integrated Strategic Commissioner confirmed that financial assessments would focus on the service users.  However, Members were concerned that in many cases spouses took on caring responsibilities and in these cases the household income would be subjected to the financial assessment.  The Committee was further concerned that, to date, no equalities impact assessment had been completed.

Turning to the financial impacts of the decision, Members were concerned that the report contained no detailed explanation of any additional costs to the Council that may arise as a result of the proposals.  A Co-opted Member highlighted that unpaid carers were a very valuable and much needed network and nothing should be done to discourage unpaid carers.  Another Co-opted Member expressed concern that there could be safeguarding implications for carers arising from the proposals if some service users took the decision not to pay for respite care.  A Member noted that the report did not provide any indication of the cost to the Council in the event that carers were unable to secure respite care resulting in the person with dementia needing to move into a care home.  Ultimately, a number of Members expressed the view that it could be a mistake to introduce charging.  Members noted that the charging would be means tested however there was no clear indication of what the impact of charging would be and this information was essential to enable the Committee to make an informed decision.

The Head of Complex and Long-Term Commissioning explained that BLG Mind had indicated that the contract could not be extended without a change to the hourly rates.  It was also being proposed that there was a move to direct payments in line with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39