To receive information from Kevin McDaniel, Executive Director of People Services.

Kevin McDaniel, Executive Director of People Services, introduced the item by stating that this item was proposed for the September meeting which was cancelled due to the arrangements of HM The Queen’s funeral. At this point this item included reforms that would have been brought in in October 2023, but this had been affected by the Chancellor’s Autumn statement. The statement included the proposal that the social care funding reforms would go back until at least October 2025 and as a result, the presentation had been changed to remove a large chunk of this element but there were still some changes in adult social care that were relevant, particularly the way the service would be reviewed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Katharine Willmette stated that the charging reforms had been pushed back so no work was ongoing on this area at either a local or nation level. The big reform agenda was now centred around the CQC which currently regulated and inspected both health services and provider services which provided personal care. For the last 10-12 years, statutory adult social services hadn’t been inspected, and the proposal was to reintroduce regular inspection. The CQC were currently working through an assessment framework which would be used when the inspection regime started, with an expected start date of April 2023. This wouldn’t mean that RBWM would be inspected in April 2023, but the process would begin at this point. A large amount of work was currently being undertaken to ensure that the council was focused on quality improvement and making sure that services were the best they could be. A quality assurance process had been put in place which Optalis were working through, which would ensure that RBWM were as prepared as possible for when inspections began.

There were two main points that the Panel should be made aware of. The first was that when RBWM was inspected by the CQC, the date of which was unknown, it would result in a single word rating of either adequate, inadequate, good, or outstanding. Katharine Willmette highlighted the importance for RBWM and its residents to get the best possible outcome. The second point was that it would be useful for the Panel to be updated in either February or March 2023 on where the borough was in terms of the inspection process, the areas that needed to be improved upon and what the expected strengths would be.

Kevin McDaniel highlighted that this was a new process for all councils, not just RBWM, and it would be important to include regular updates on the work programme going forward. RBWM were working towards being ready for an inspection in April, though it may be two more years before the inspection occurred.

Councillor Carole Da Costa asked if the inspection featured a list of categories that would have to be met to receive a particular rating, and if RBWM knew what those categories were.

Kevin McDaniel confirmed that there would be, but the framework was still under development.

Katharine Willmette confirmed that this framework was in draft and had been delayed in getting signed off because of changes at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The draft framework set out the various themes that would be inspected and the kind of evidence expected to be seen. The DHSC had been working with local authorities over the past year to get feedback on the framework and to get an understanding of any issues surrounding clarity.

ACTION: Katharine Willmette to share the draft framework with the Panel.

Councillor Del Campo asked if there was any anticipated additional administrative burden that this inspection would place on RBWM, and asked for written updates if possible in advance.

Katharine Willmette stated that there probably would be an additional burden in terms of the inspection itself. Everything that RBWM were doing should be happening anyway, and this service and quality improvement was now happening in a more systematic way which was thanks to the hard work of Optalis. In the long term, it would be hard to say but the burden would depend on how the inspection framework rolled out over time. The framework would be likely to evolve over time, and DHSC had recognised that local authorities were under enormous pressure and didn’t want to make the process any more administratively onerous than it needed to be. DHSC had discussed using performance data that was already publicly available as part of the evidence used in the inspection.

Kevin McDaniel stated that it was officers’ intention to provide written updates against the framework to enable the Panel to scrutinise how well things were working. With regards to resource implications, the reality of a scheme such as this by the CQC was that it would have an impact on the capacity of the council to deliver it. The council’s experience in children’s services over the last number of years was that to be securely good in this process, it was important to ensure that the council were focused and asking the right questions. The framework gave a helpful way of structuring this, but there would be added burdens. However, these were appropriate, and it was not unreasonable for a regulator to take a view at the council’s strategic work.

The Chairman thanked Kevin and Katharine and stated that she looked forward to regular updates.