Apologies were received from Councillor Rita Palmer and co-optees, Martyn Kingsford and Margaret Dangoor.

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.

Elected members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government and 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.

Councillor Butler declared a personal interest by virtue of knowing one of the speakers, Nan Bunn.

The Committee is asked to consider the report produced by the Intensive Day Care Centre Task group and approve the recommendations within it for submission to Cabinet for consideration.

Councillor Jones introduced the report of the Intensive Day Care Centre Task Group and explained to the committee that approval of the report and its recommendations was sought in order that it could be presented to the Cabinet on 24^th January for consideration alongside the decision on the Adult Services budget.

The Committee heard representations from those members of the public who had registered to speak:

Mrs Nan Bunn addressed the committee:

·               She referred to the task group recommendations relating to voluntary sector involvement in the running of IDCC’s and in particular Tangley Hall.  She expressed concern that volunteers were not sufficiently skilled to work with those patients with severe dementia.  In addition there could be problems with the reliability and consistency of voluntary help and this would cause problems for continuous care and for the reliability of the transport service. 

In response to questions form the committee Mrs Bunn made the following additional remarks:

·               She confirmed that her mother had attended Tangley hall, four days a week, until her condition had worsened to the point where it was no longer possible for her to attend.  She had benefited greatly from the service provided there.

Mrs Alison Swift addressed the Committee

·               Mrs Swift praised the creation of the task group and the work it had done in such a short time.  There were two issues that she wished to address within the report:

1) She questioned whether a council decision to close the two centres     would be in line with the national agenda for care at the present time.  In particular she was concerned that should a move of patients take place this would go against the government policy of treating individuals with dignity and respect.

2) Mrs Swift also argued that the closure would be detrimental to the future ambitions of central government, Richmond Council and the PCT to create a more joined up approach to health and social care.

Mr Richard Hunter addressed the Committee

·               He praised the Task Groups work and confirmed that he would welcome the recommendations in the report, although it would have been useful to have more detailed financial information to accompany some of those.  It had been interesting to review new ideas on the closures and the financial saving stand in particular the proposal to save the money in stages was one which should be explored further.

·               However, he argued that the transport services to Tangley hall should remain as part of the local authority responsibilities and not be transferred to either the private or the voluntary sector unless it was as an alternative to stopping the service.

·               He argued that the transport and services available to Tangley Hall users were the best that they could be at present and that they shouldn’t be changed.

·               He expressed the view that Homelink, although a very good organisation, would not be able to take on all of the patients that currently attended Tangley Hall and asked the Committee to consider where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

 The Committee received a report of the Director of Adult and Community Services the purpose of which was to give details of the background and outcome of the consultation and in particular the outcome of the consultation in relation to the proposal to reconfigure Intensive Day Care Centres from four to two.

• The Director presented the report to the committee; in particular she referred to the following: Key themes to emerge from the consultation in relation to the proposed closure of Tangley Hall were:
  • Transport issues and journey times.
  • Concerns regarding the maintenance of staffing levels and quality of service provided
  • Suggestions for alternative proposals

The Director explained that these alternative proposals were included in the report along with the council responses to those proposals.  In addition she referred to the proposal received from Ms Pinnell and Mr Hunter described in the public representations heard in the last item.  A letter of response had been circulated to members for this proposal.  The consultation had been open and clear and all suggestions and comments considered carefully, in particular they had been assessed in terms of their ability to deliver the same level of service and provide continuity of care for all users.

In relation to journey times, the council had received two formal complaints regarding its research and assessment of possible journey times under the proposed arrangements for two centres, one at Sheen and one at Ham.  She explained that there were certain assumptions required to make the assessment such as numbers transferring to other centres and that further work would be done to ensure minimum journey times on a person by person basis when any changes did occur.

Finally the Director referred to the report provided by Dr Turner, she apologised for the lack of specific information but explained that Dr Turner had been drafted in late on after the withdrawal of the intended author on the grounds that she felt compromised in performing the task.  Dr Turner’s report however was useful and independent and would inform any future decision making.

The Committee heard representations from those members of the public who had registered to speak:

Mrs Nan Bunn addressed the Committee:

• She referred to the journey times contained in the report.  She felt that they were misleading as they were based on the transferral of all the people from Tangley Hall to Ham which she didn’t think would be the case.
• She asked the committee to address 3 issues:
  • The need for person by person transport assessments based on individual care needs
  • How the results of any new strategy would be measured against the Department of Health’s desire to see greater local accountability
  • That the local authority should strive to secure shares of any new funding to facilitate their work in Social Care

In response to questions from the committee Mrs Bunn made the following additional comments:

• That she believed the council would suffer financially from people who would stop using the service as opposed to moving from Tangley  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.