Agenda item

This report has been circulated late to enable the latest budget information, including from the provisional local government finance settlement, to be incorporated within the papers.

Mr Hitesh Jolapara highlighted the key points on the corporate overview of the revenue budget and Medium Term Finance Strategy (MTFS), namely the MTFS position, the budget assumptions, the Government grant, fees and charges (main expceptions to the standard increase), budget risks/balances/earmarked reserves, 2016/17 and beyond, the Autumn statement and expenditure and resources forecast 2014/15 to 2021/22.

The proposed savings overall was £23.8million for 2015/16 and £40.9million for  2016/17 (cumultative savings). The Council Tax would be reduced by 1% in 2015/16. There were further reductions to be made and by 2019/20 there would have been a reduction in total of around 57%.

Mrs Rachel Wigley highlighted the key points in respect of Adult Social Care, namely the service vision, the major changes for 2015/2016, the budget headlines, LBHF/ASC Efficiencies, Fees and Charges, the Gross Spend Plan 2015/2016, Risks and Plans for the Future. The presentation set out the Better Customer Experience by Increasing Efficiency and Partnership Working totaling £6.5 million.

It was proposed to abolish charging for home care services; reduce the cost of meals on wheels to £3; and freeze charges for Careline.

The report set out the Public Health budgets and issues. Savings of £366k general fund were proposesd to make Public Health a fully grant funded service.

Councillor Carlebach queried the savings in respect of the reconfiguration of services with the Learning Disabilities client group. Mrs Wigley responded that there were three measures: a review of customers placed in out of borough supported accommodation; maximising in house day care provision; and a review of residential care home facilities.

Councillor Lukey stated that the proposals were in line with feedback that: out of borough placements were unpopular because of high transport costs; there should be a range of housing options; and the proposal to close the in-house learning disabilities service was rejected.

Mr McVeigh noted that some specialist care was provided out of borough and this might be difficult to replicate.

Councillor Lukey stated that whilst this was a finance driven strategy, there were other important isssues and specifically safeguarding, and finance would not determine where people were placed. 

In respect of the Independent Living Fund (ILF), all social care support would be provided by the Council and ILF funding would be transferred to the Council via a grant. Confirmation of funding levels was awaited. However, the Council had agreed that current ILF users would continue to receive ILF funding until 30 June 2016, if they were still eligible.  Mr McVeigh stated that officers should be breifed to give this assurance. Councillor Lukey responded that she had written to 55 individuals, and she had thought that this was eveyone in receipt of the ILF. There had also been a number of meetings.

Councillor Brown stated that the overall budget was disappointing, and specifially the Adult Social Care savings of £6.5 million, especially when money was being received from the NHS throught the Better Care Fund. Councillor Brown queried whether the dependency on better integration of care with the NHS was seen as a risk. Mrs Wigley responded that investment from the Better Care Fund, approved by Cabinet, would help fund the requirements of the Care Act.  In addion, by working together with the NHS, it was hoped to make between £1.6 million and £2.5 miilion savings which was included in the total figure of £6.5 million.

Councillor Brown queried the criteria for paying for home care services and the percentage of people currently paying the charges. Mrs Wigley responded that 25% of people were currently paying the charges. Mr Daryanani added that, in line with current legislation, ability to pay was assessed on the basis of income. Capital and disability related income were disregarded. Charges for home care services were £12 an hour.

Councillor Brown suggested that the wealthier people would benefit from this policy. Councillor Lukey responded that people on benefits would not have paid for the service, whereas people in the middle would have had to pay the full charge, which might have been a  deterrent to using the service.

Councillor Cowan staed that should people not use the service because of cost they could be placing themselves at risk. The abolition of charges would result in a loss of income of £441,000. This could be funded through savings made in the PR budget and senior management posts.

Councillor Brown stated that whilst he was not oppossed to this policy, it would mean that there would have to be deeper cuts elsewhere.

Councillor Cowan stated that the Administration had gone though the budget to look at where better and more intelligent support could be given, such as meals-on-wheels and pre-funding the ILF. It was intended to completely review all services and move to a zero based budget approach.

Councillor Scmid stated that a large part of the £6.5 million cuts was acutally investment from the NHS. There had been over £2 million investment. The Council was looking robustly at the detail of the agreements which it was making. The same type of approach had been taken with suppliers and developers ot get the best possible deal across all budgets.

Councillor Brown referred to the proposed Public Health savings of £346k from the general fund. Mrs Wigley confirmed that Public Health could be funded through the ring fenced budget.

Councillor Brown stated that the funding of third sector grants from the Public Health budget was a major concern for the Public Health community, and asked for a rough estimate of the amounts invlolved. Councillor Schmid responded that there had been a £3 million under spend and to use this under spend, the Council had worked with voluntary bodies to deliver good public health outcomes.

Mr Jolapara stated that only items with a direct link to public health had been charged to this budget. In addition, the account would be audited at the year end.

Councillor Carlebach queried why home charges had been abolished for those who could afford to pay, and suggested that it would be better, for example, to invest in heating for the elderly. Councillor Cowan responded that the abolition of home care charges was part of a cohort of plans which the Administration would be rolling out going forward. Councillor Lukey stated that these people had been assessed as in need of home care and the money saved on these services and on meals on wheels could be spent on heating.   

Mr Naylor queried how many people were currently affected and whether it was expected that demand would rise and the likely cost. Mr Daryanani responded that there were 1,266 service users of whom 313 were contributing to the cost. On a previous occasion, only ten people came back into the system.

Councillor Lukey stated that people might not need the same level of service, but a more appropriate service.  The Council was working with the NHS on the reconfiguration of services.

Mr Naylor stated that he would like to see a link between these services and loneliness and isolation. He would like to see more work and more budget allocated, particularly for older people. Councillor Lukey responded that the Council was working on more community based initiatives and referred to the discussion in respect of meals on wheels at the previous meeting. The Council would look at new models of service delivery as isolation could be a major issue in the borough as older people no longer had their networks.

Councillor Fennimore updated that she would be  meeting with the Casserole Club on the following Monday and hoped to get Hammersmith & Fulham into a project with them. She was pro-actively following up opportunities to work with third sector organisaitons and make much stronger relationships.

Mr Lines stated that the Council was using the Public Health ring fenced budget  in an innovative way to invest in community projects with a range of organisations. A report  setting out the projects was tabled.

Councillor Brown queried the eligibility criteria for home care, which was currently upper moderate. Councillor Lukey responded that  whilst the Care Act abolished local discretion and set its own care standards, there were no local plans to remove anyone from the service.

Mr Jolapara responded to Councillor Brown that the Council was satisfied that it had adequate reserves.