Purpose of the item:To agree the minutes of
the previous meeting of the Adults and Health Select Committee as a
true and accurate record of proceedings.
To follow
following the publication of the draft minutes of the October
meeting.
Purpose of the item:All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter:
I.Any disclosable pecuniary interests and /
or
II.Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting.
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner).
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Purpose of the report: This
report provides the Adults and Health Select Committee with an
overview of the progress made with the delivery of the Adult Social
Care’s Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy.
Liz Uliasz –
Deputy Director for Adult Social Care
Adrian Watson –
Programme Director, Adult Social Care (Land &
Property)
Simon Montgomery
– Senior Programme Manager for Accommodation with Care and
Support Strategy
Kirsty Gannon-Holmes
– Senior Commissioning Manager for Mental Health
Anna Waterman –
Head of Commissioning for Disabilities
Maria Millwood, Board
Director – Healthwatch Surrey
Dan Stoneman –
Head of Commissioning Older People)
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Senior Programme
Manager presented slides which provided context to the item (Annex
1) and highlighted the importance of the Accommodation with Care
and Support Strategy (AwCSS) in integrating residents into the
community and having fulfilled lives.
The Chairman asked
whether the views received in the consultation about sharing with
others were expected. The Senior Programme Manager explained that
the views varied dependent on the client group. For those with
learning disabilities, it was emphasised that they wanted the
choice of living alone or living with others. The shared occupancy
option would have facilities for social workers to be present for
those with higher needs. In terms of those with mental health
issues, single occupancy accommodation would be prioritised as per
the views of the consultation.
A Member queried
whether the pandemic had an impact on the progress of the AwCSS and
asked about any measures taken to overcome such challenges. The
Programme Director explained that the pandemic had minimal effect
on the early-stage planning of the programme, as they were still in
the preparation stage and conducting due diligence. The greatest
impact was on the Pond Meadow site, as procurement of the project
was delayed. Acceleration and identification of pipeline sites had
continued to take place and the programme was on track to achieve
agreed targets. Additional resources to enable this had been
secured. In terms of Adult Social Care (ASC) support, the pandemic
limited the ability to fully support residents in their new
accommodation.
A Member enquired
about the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on the programme. The
Programme Director shared that the rising inflation and increased
costs had impacted the cost of construction. Although, financial
planning and pre-market testing had included appropriate provision
for construction-related inflation. The impact on extra care
housing was not known yet. The Senior Programme Manager added that
supported independent living was for those with eligible care needs
and extra care housing was trying to increase the availability of
affordable housing in the sector.
In response to a
question on the AwCSS’s contribution to the delivery of
Surrey Community Vision for 2030, the Senior Programme Manager
explained that currently there was too much reliance on residential
care which limited independence, especially for those with learning
disabilities and autism (LD&A). Therefore, the Strategy linked
to empowering communities and tackling health inequalities, as well
ensuring no one was left behind. The Deputy Director added that for
those with mental health needs, the Strategy involved helping them
back into employment and independent living.
Rachel Crossley, Joint
Executive Director for Public Service Reform (Surrey County Council
and Surrey Heartlands ICS)
Lucy Clements, Health
Integration Policy Lead (Surrey County Council and Surrey
Heartlands ICS)
Kate Barker, Joint
Strategic Commissioning Convenor – Children
Liz Williams, Joint
Strategic Commissioning Convenor – Learning Disability and
Autism and all age Mental Health
Clare Burgess, Chief Executive of Surrey Coalition of Disabled
People
Key points
raised during the discussion:
The Joint Executive
Director explained that the Mental Health Investment Fund (MHIF)
was all age and there was delegated authority for both health and
the Council, and therefore, it was run as a joint fund. The MHIF
did not need to be spent completely in the current financial year
(2022-23); some larger procurements may be supported. The first
round of the grant process was expected to take place prior to
Christmas (2022) and to then run every two to three months.
Opportunities could include early help projects for winter
pressures. The work would also be linked in with the key
neighbourhoods of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy (HWB
Strategy).
The Chairman asked
about other organisations that were approached to be involved in
the MHIF and their responses. The Joint Executive Director
explained that the Council approached Surrey Heartlands ICS
(Heartlands) and Frimley Health and Care Integrated Care System
(Frimley). Frimley were supportive but did not have the finances to
invest in the fund at the time and the conversation remained open
for future opportunities. Heartlands had funding available and
contributed £4 million to the fund. District and Borough
Councils did not formally want to pursue the opportunity. Community
Foundation Surrey was able to raise a substantial amount of
funding. Private sector funding was not explored and the Police and
Crime Commissioner nor the Chief Constable did not indicate
interest.
The Chairman asked
how the priorities of the MHIF synergised across the organisations
involved. The Joint Executive Director explained that the fund was
separate to allow focus on the Mental Health Improvement Plan
(MHIP), however, prioritises would be assessed against priority two
of the HWB Strategy.
The Chairman queried
whether there were plans to increase the funding available in the
MHIF and asked about the length of funding. The Joint Executive
Director explained that they were looking at seed funding, where
they would get a project off the ground which would enable them to
access longer term funding elsewhere. The Council could look to
agree a different approach to the ring-fencing of the funding,
which would enable more opportunities. The Joint Strategic
Commissioning Convenor for Children added that there were two
parallel work programmes, one on prevention and one on
intervention, but a collaborative decision was taken to merge the
work programmes, and this has resulted in improvements.
In response to a
question on the amount of money available for investment at a time
of increasing demand, the Joint Executive Director responded that
officers shared the concerns. In terms of prevention work, this
money increased the capacity and opportunity. They needed
...
view the full minutes text for item 42/22
Purpose of the item: For the
Select Committee to review the attached recommendations tracker and
forward work programme, making suggestions for additions or
amendments as appropriate.
PDF 301 KB