To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Carroll, Diment, Lenton and Majeed.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on November 21^st 2018.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the meeting held on November 21^st as a true and accurate record.

To comment and agree recommendations as set out in the Cabinet report.

The Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning highlighted from the report summary that the Adult Social Care Levy would be kept at £74.74 for a Band D property. Funds from this Levy and other grants had brought in £20.7million for adult social care over the past five years, while there had been a total spend of £21.4million in the same timeframe. The summary also set out that some proposed efficiencies had been identified in children’s and adults services; however, it was more difficult to predict from one year to the next where service demands would be in adult social care, compared to children’s services, due to a constantly changing demographic. Members were informed however that the proposed efficiencies would not have any detrimental impact on frontline services.

Members were told that £900,000 of the demography pot was available to adult and children’s services to offset any increased level of demand which could not be met from the base budget. This was also to account for the fact that the areas with the biggest increases in demand, for nursing placements and mental health placements and provision, were becoming increasingly expensive due to a volatility in the market for providing services. This demography pot sat with the Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning, rather than Achieving for Children or Optalis.

Cllr Yong asked for clarification on which budget head the £2.1million New Homes Bonus would go to, as she wanted more information on who the new homes would be provided for. Cllr Yong stated that she hoped they would go to key workers. The Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning said she would confirm and report back to Members.

Responding to a question from the Chairman, the Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning stated that efficiency savings in provision of home care would not have any impact on the delivery of the service, nor have any impact on residents. The contract worked in such a way that providers were incentivised to encourage service users to be ‘reabled’ – i.e. to become independent and provide support for themselves following discharge from a healthcare setting – as quickly as possible. Work was being carried out with health colleagues to avoid delayed transfers of care, as keeping patients in a hospital or other healthcare setting was more expensive than enabling them to return to their own homes as early as possible. For example, there was a move away from insisting that all assessments be carried out in a hospital. Members agreed that it would be useful to have a presentation on the impact of this work at a future meeting.

Cllr Yong stated her belief that there needed to be a culture shift to make people aware that a care home was sometimes the most appropriate setting for an elderly relative. She said that people were often reticent to put their older relatives into a care home because of the costs involved, even though they may not be capable of looking after themselves in their own homes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

To consider the report and make recommendations to Cabinet.

Members were reminded that the Royal Borough was required, as part of its public health duties, to provide open access to specialist sexual health services to residents. A joint competitive tendering process, along with Slough Borough and Bracknell Forest Councils, was carried out and a preferred bidder chosen. Members were told that each council’s percentage share of contributions towards the cost of the contract was determined by the equivalent percentage use of sexual health services by residents. As Royal Borough residents accounted for 29.7 per cent of attendances, it had been determined that the Council would need to contribute a figure in the region of £550,000, which had been budgeted for. This figure took into account the fact that there had been a reduction in out of Borough costs as a result of robust negotiation with London boroughs.

Improved access to online services was also included in the tender. Information was included on the Royal Borough’s website, alongside those of the Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust and Safe Sex Berkshire. A publicity campaign for the service was also planned.

Members were told that the shared public health team based in Bracknell, together with representatives of  the three councils, would be responsible for monitoring the service. The three year contract would be reviewed every quarter.

It was

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Members noted the report and:

i) Approved the award of contract for the provision of an integrated sexual and reproductive health service to Bidder 1 over three years from 1 July 2019, at a total cost of £5,604,851 for three years across the three local authorities in East Berkshire.

ii) Delegated authority to the Deputy Director Strategy and Commissioning, in consultation with the Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health, to finalise the details of the contract award in relation to the Royal Borough.

To note the contents of the report.

Members were reminded that it was a statutory requirement for local authorities to set up Safeguarding Adults Boards, and the Royal Borough’s Board was operated jointly with Bracknell Forest Council. The key duties of the Board were outlined in the main report, along with details of the key achievements. Members were informed that a large number of agencies had membership of the Board, which was viewed as both a help and a hindrance. Two Safeguarding Adult Reviews had been conducted during the timeframe the report looked into, with a third being started but not completed in time to be included in the report.

It was noted that the number of safeguarding concerns raised progressing to a full enquiry was broadly similar when comparing the Royal Borough against the south east regional average and the national average. The figure was lower for Bracknell Forest, which was attributed to there being a different recording methodology and/or concerns raised later being recategorised so it was no longer considered to be a safeguarding issue.

Members were informed that awareness of the Safeguarding Adults Board was done with residents who had been identified as potentially being in need of the service, before any issues they had were escalated to become a safeguarding problem. It was noted that many residents were unaware they may be victims of a safeguarding and/or neglectful situation, so identifying these residents to raise awareness was viewed as a priority.

Members noted the contents of the report.

To receive a verbal update.

Members were reminded that a complex case involving a woman with learning difficulties who it was believed had been illegally trafficked into the country had previously been discussed at Panel, after a complaint had been made. The woman was in contact with the DASH charity, who suggested a series of actions for future cases. The Assistant Director – Statutory Services said he and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health had met with DASH and a full action plan had been produced. All the actions had been implemented and there had been no substantive comments or complaints received since implementation.

To review the ongoing Work Programme.

Members were informed that it was unlikely that a Green Paper on funding for adult social care would be produced before the next meeting, so it was agreed to defer this item. It was also agreed to add the presentation on the peer review of delayed transfers of care.

Members noted the contents of the ongoing work programme.

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act".

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the motion to exclude the public for the remainder of the meeting.