Agenda and minutes

(a)  To approve as an accurate record and the Chair to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Health, Adult Social Care and Social Inclusion PAC held on 9 March 2015.

(b)  To note the outstanding actions.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2015 were approved as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

It was noted that the local briefing for Hammersmith & Fulham to be provided by Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust was outstanding.

Apologies were received from Debbie Domb, Councillor Sharon Holder and Liz Bruce and Councillor Joe Carlebach for lateness.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee.

The following declarations of interest were made:

Councillor Vivienne Lukey is a trustee of H&F Mind.

Councillor Joe Carlebach is a trustee of H&F Citizens Advice Bureau.

This report provides: a description of local carers in Hammersmith & Fulham; the interim local results of the recent National Carers Survey, and other recent feedback from carers; the range of support services available to carers living in the borough and information on areas to improve services for carers in future.

Mike Rogers introduced the report, which provided: a description of local carers in Hammersmith & Fulham; the interim local results of the recent National Carers Survey and other  recent feedback from carers; the range of support services available to carers living in the borough; and information on areas to improve services for carers in future.

In the national ONS Census of 2011, 12,330 local residents had described themselves as providing unpaid care to a family member or a friend. The hours of care provided per week by carers in Hammersmith & Fulham were longer when compared with those for inner London, and the carers were more likely to live with the person for whom they cared.

Carers in Hammersmith & Fulham were more likely to be women, retired or not in paid work, most were age 50 plus, half of whom had a health condition themselves.

Carers providing 50 plus hours of care a week were more likely to live in the north of the borough, in College Park & Old Oak and Wormholt & White City ward, areas of relative deprivation and social housing. Fulham Broadway and Sands End also had higher rates of carers, compared with the borough average.

The Care Act 2014 provided new rights to carers and gave local authorities a duty to meet such needs. The report outlined how the Council intended to meet carers’ needs and address carers’ feedback. There had been some improvements in services for carers locally.

Alex Tambourides outlined the role of H&F Mind in providing services for carers over the previous three years and noted the improvement in services.

Mr Tambourides stated that there were a large number of carers looking after people with mental health problems, but the service was not engaging with that number. Whilst 1 in 4 carers were looking after someone with mental health problems, only 1 in 20 were reporting mental health problems themselves, indicating potential hidden mental health wellbeing issues.                                                                

Mr Tambourides agreed that carers should be involved in and consulted on decisions, although there were issues of confidentiality.

Mr Tambourides suggested that carers could be identified through GPs. Carers tended to feel a stigma and it was important to meet with other carers in the same situation.

Sarah Mitchell stated that Carers’ Network was a small local organisation supporting carers in Westminster and, for the previous year, Hammersmith & Fulham.

Ms Mitchell considered that there remained a lot more carers still to be reached. There had been a significant increase in carers over the previous year, a third of whom were new to caring. There were issues in respect of quality of life.

Ms Mitchell was concerned about the quality of advice and information for carers, particularly for those who did not have access to the internet. Provision was mostly in the centre and south of Hammersmith & Fulham. There was little provision in the north, although advice sessions had been held in College Park and Old Oak and Wormholt and White City, areas with the highest numbers of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

This report updates on a review of in-house day and respite services for people with profound and complex learning and physical disabilities across the three boroughs, highlighting the key themes and proposals for the future. The report focuses on Hammersmith and Fulham services at Options and Rivercourt and refers to the developing offer for young people with complex disabilities aged 18-25yrs.

Kevin Williamson introduced the report in respect of in-house day and respite services for people with profound and complex learning and physical disabilities across the three boroughs, highlighting the proposals for the future.

The report focused on Hammersmith & Fulham services at Options and Rivercourt,  and referred to the developing offer for young people with complex disabilities, aged 18-25 years.

The key proposal was to move from a day service/centre model to one of Complex Community Opportunity Services. There would be three elements to the service: buildings, activities and opportunities and support.

There had been initial discussions between Options and Queensmill School to investigate the feasibility of developing an offer to people aged 19-25 with Autism during the day, which would help to improve the transition from Children’s to Adult Social Care.

The report set out the developing partnership work between Options and Mencap to share day facilities. The main driver for people with more complex needs with learning disabilities was to support them to remain or move back into the local borough area. 

Mr Williamson noted that there were issues with agency staff and that a review of staffing arrangements was underway.

Ms Jude Ragan, Head Teacher of Queensmill School, stated that the new school on Askham Road was for children suffering from complex autism and there were 145 children, aged from 2 to 19. The school was currently in the process of applying to get a small proportion of the school registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide respite care to under 19s and also young adults aged 19-25 with Autism on the school site. The proposal was for the school to partner with an external specialist support/care agency to deliver an after school, overnight and weekend offer, which would help to keep children in the borough. The new building would have four overnight beds.

Ms Ragan noted the change in the Special Educational Needs policy to cover those up to 25 years.

Mr McVeigh was concerned that the report, in describing service users, appeared to propose a one size fits all. In addition, journey times could be significant. Mr McVeigh stated that he had personal experience of the respite services at Riverside House and of an out of borough placement which had had a good outcome. However, he knew of one family who did not receive any respite care and queried the alternative.  

Mr Williamson assured members that it was not proposed that one size fits all. The pilots highlighted the need to look at care and support allocated to people on an individual basis, depending on the complexity of their needs.

Councillor Barlow commented on recruitment of the right people to this specialist role, with the right contract, wages and training, and queried what was offered by the agencies. Mr Williamson responded that recruitment was an issue across the three boroughs. Whilst there were some better agencies, there remained a need for more training and the development of core specialties. It was intended to partner  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The presentation sets out the Council’s proposed approach to addressing digital exclusion in the Borough.

Mike England presented the Council’s proposed approach to developing a Digital Inclusion Strategy for Hammersmith & Fulham. Digital exclusion affected some of the most vulnerable and socially disadvantaged people. Whilst there was a good range of wi-fi provision in the centre and south of the borough, communities in the north particularly within College Park and Old Oak and Wormholt and White City wards were less well served.

The Council provided access to online PCs in public buildings across the borough. The level of access to the People First website had grown quite rapidly.

The Council’s Housing Services had appointed an Inclusion Officer to further digital inclusion for tenants. The Council was committed to providing broadband internet access across the whole of the housing stock.

The Council had set up a Cabinet Member Social Inclusion Forum, a cross-departmental “social inclusion unit” to provide a co-ordinated Council wide response to social inclusion issues across the Borough and a Digital Inclusion Working Group was being put together by the Forum to take things forward and develop the H&F Digital Inclusion Strategy. The Group would map local needs and there would be input from the local voluntary sector and businesses.

Simi Ryatt and Phil Storey, H&F Citizens Advice Bureau tabled a summary report ‘Learn My Way’. 40 volunteers had been identified for training as Digital Champions. Their role would include assessing individuals’ skills and the support required. Fairly intensive support tended to be required initially. The report set out the potential partners in the borough.

Olex Stepaniuk, H&F Age UK stated that many older people had never accessed digital communications during their working life and it could be confusing. In addition, they could not justify the cost, resulting in lost opportunities and increased social isolation, and possibly even unplanned emergency hospital admission.

Ms Stepaniuk considered that the H&F Age UK cyber café was a good model to assist older people to become digitally included. The café was open from 10am to 4pm, Monday to Friday. Volunteer tutors were available and people could also bring their own laptop or tablet.

Ms Stepaniuk suggested that digital inclusion needed: the right infrastructure (the right equipment including tablets, and not outdated equipment, compatible with equipment used elsewhere and wi-fi); and the right leadership (paid tutors to support and also for outreach and community engagement, special skills were needed to teach older people and they needed to visit people at home).  

Councillor Chumnery stated that Old Oak Community Centre had an IT site, offering free broadband and the trainer was excellent. The facilities were open from 9am to 5pm, and would possibly be extended. In addition, there were five schools, which allowed use of their IT facilities.    

Councillor Fennimore responded that the most vulnerable in the community were the first priority. Extensive work around all areas of exclusion was ongoing, and internet access would be a stepped process. Working with schools would bring intergenerational opportunities in sharing skills. Online applications could be essential in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

The Committee is asked to consider its work programme for the first meeting of the next municipal year.

The draft work programme for 2015/2016 was noted.

 This is the last meeting of the municipal year.

This was the last meeting of the municipal year.