The Committee received apologies from Councillor Jaeger.  Councillor Lee Parsons attended as her substitute.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter.  Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

Margaret Dangoor declared a personal interest in the Budget Review item as her husband is a user of Intensive day care services.

Councillor Bouchier and Councillor Mathias declared a personal interest on any discussions regarding Help the Aged

This report contains the results of the Base Budget Review exercise undertaken by Leading Members and officers over the last 3 months in response to reducing public funding and the Council’s aim of minimising Council Tax.

Report of the Director of Adult and Community Services attached.

Councillor Urquhart addressed the committee; she gave a political steer on the information contained within the report.  She referred to the national agenda and the economic era of austerity which we had unfortunately entered.  She emphasised that although there would be changes to the care provided by Richmond Council which until now had been generous and above statutory requirements, the council would continue to provide for those most in need and their carers.  She also stressed that the budget proposals before the committee tonight were for consultation and comments and ideas would be taken very seriously and each one investigated.

Cathy Kerr, Director of Adult and Community Services addressed the Committee, she guided committee members though the information contained in the report and in particular referred to the three main changes:

(i)      Changes to SDS payments in particular the removal of the current cap (£320) for those with the financial means to pay more and changes to take disability benefits into account when assessing a person’s financial contribution.  

(ii)    Changes to eligibility criteria and reduction of eligibility bands from 3 (moderate)to 2 (substantial).  Comparisons with other local authorities showed that Richmond had been particularly generous in the past.

(iii)   Rationalisation of intensive day care centres which would result in reducing sites from 4 to 2 specifically closing Tangley Hall and Twickenham Day Centres and providing additional care at Sheen and Ham Day Centres.  These sites had been chosen as they had room in which to incorporate care for those displaced from the closures and also to create additional services in environments that could become centres of excellence for these types of care.  The level of service would not be affected only the place in which it was provided.

Other savings would be made from work underway already where efficiency measures suggested by PWC and internal investigations had been put into practice.  These were not part of the consultation and did not affect front line services. These additional savings would contribute to the total 26% savings that the council must make in the next 3 years. 

The Director repeated the message of the Cabinet Member and reminded the Committee that the proposals outlined were all subject to thorough and genuine consultation which would continue until December 10^th 2010 with re-worked proposals being considered by Cabinet on the 17^th January 2011.

[Please note: Cabinet meeting will now take place on 24^th January 2011]

Representations were heard from members of the public:

Mrs Alison Swift addressed the Committee

·         Mrs Swift informed the committee that her mother was a user of Tangley hall.  She asked the committee to consider how the closure would sit within the national agenda of individual care.  Her mother received a very personalised service at Tangley and she didn’t consider that this would be possible in the larger environment that would be created at Ham.  The care her mother had received at Tangley Hall had seen a dramatic improvement in her mood and ability to communicate.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.