CABINET - 4 SEPTEMBER 2008 PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS

CABINET - 4 SEPTEMBER 2008
PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
None received.
B.
QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS
Note: questions received have been circulated to Cabinet members and are
available on the Council's web site. Copies of the answers will be placed in the
meeting room one hour before the start of the meeting.
C.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
Item 5 - Residential futures - greater independence and choice for
older people needing care
1.
Mrs J Sallabank
2.
Linda Bartlett & Nanette Ball, UNISON (Note: UNISON have also asked that
their previous statement (copy attached) to the 21 July meeting of the Adult
Community Care Select Committee be included, to accompany this representation).
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
D.
Mrs R A Richards
Mrs I Baylis
J Harvey
Rowena Hayward, GMB
Cllr Geoff Gollop
Cllr Mary Sykes
Richard Lyle, Bristol PCT
Cllr Bev Knott
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS
None received.
1
CABINET - 4 SEPTEMBER 2008
ITEM 1
PUBLIC FORUM - QUESTION & ANSWER
Note - in accordance with the executive procedure rules, copies of the written
replies to questions will be made available in the meeting room ONE HOUR
before the start of the meeting.
The following question has been received for this meeting of the
Cabinet:
-
QUESTION TO CLLR DEREK PICKUP, EXECUTIVE MEMBER
FOR CARE, TACKLING DEPRIVATION AND CRIME
From: Miss B Filer
Subject: Residential Futures
Q.
Was the valuation of the land the over-riding factor in the
decision taken to close Greville EPH (PWD) at Stockwood ?
With lots of available land to build on - the single storey
purpose built PWD home is set in a very quiet residential
location - but residents of Greville now have to move to the
two storey Hollybrook home (not formerly used for patients
with dementia) on the Hareclive main road in Hartcliffe.
Surely the costing of refurbishment would have been similar
for both homes!
A.
Dear Miss Filer
re: Residential Futures & Greville
Thank you for your question to Cabinet regarding the
proposals in relation to Greville.
Firstly, I would like to emphasise that the Council’s homes do
not meet current minimum standards set by the Commission
for Social Care Inspection (the regulating and inspecting
body for care homes). The Council wants to ensure that its
homes are fit for the future and offer the quality and services
that people want and need in the 21st century.
As explained at meetings with relatives at Greville, the
proposal is for the Council to improve and modernise every
one of its care homes for people with dementia. With this in
mind, the Council asked an independent architect to
undertake a survey to see which of the homes might be
suitable for development. The survey has influenced the
1
decision as to which homes should be retained for
development.
Unfortunately, Greville is not a home that could be developed
and modernised because there is not enough land to enable
us to develop the number of larger bedrooms with en-suite
facilities that are needed. Greville is, as you acknowledge,
set within a residential area and as such there would be
restrictions on the height of any new building which could not
exceed one storey. Major refurbishment of Greville would
provide us with fewer bedrooms overall and an awkwardly
designed building that would not be suitable for people with
dementia and which would hinder plans to improve our
staffing model. Hollybrook EPH on the other hand, provides
an excellent opportunity to develop a care home and services
that are designed to better meet the needs of people with
dementia.
I would like to explain that the valuation of land on which the
Council's care homes is sited was only one of a range of
criteria that was considered when developing proposals for
the modernisation of homes. Officers have also taken into
consideration a wide range of other factors including:- the home's proximity to local shops, facilities and other
community services
- the availability of other care services in the local area
- the need to ensure that people have access to Council
owned services across the city
- the range and quality of services available to local people.
As you know, the Council has consulted widely on its
proposals and taken into consideration all comments
received. The proposals have been amended following
consultation to ensure that all current residents in our homes
for people with dementia:
- only need to move once
- can move to an improved home and
- will have the choice of remaining in a Council run care
home.
I would explain that if anyone is not happy to relocate to one
of the Council's new care homes, they still may choose to go
to a care home run by an independent sector organisation.
Adult Community Care staff will always be on hand to support
everyone in a move of their choice.
2
Mrs J Sallabank
7 Peverell Close
Henbury
BRISTOL
BS 10 7LE
LETTER TO CABINET - FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES
I am here today to ask you to accept the report of recommendation before
you.
I am asking all party support for the proposal as laid out in Thursday's
Cabinet Papers.
This issue has been unresolved since November 2005. The stress for
residents, relatives and staff have been enormous, now is the time to
come to a decision, of course, the outcome will not suit everyone.
The closure of so many homes will disappoint many but at least the pain
is spread equally across the city.
The previous proposal to retain only 4 EPWResource Centres in adjacent
wards in the SE corner of the city was clearly impossible in terms of
fairness.
It is also disappointing to see that the Council will not provide in-house
residential care for future clients.
This is not just about buildings, this is about elderly people. I am
concerned about the future of the staff working in council homes.
They are the reason that the present service is so highly valued by
residents and their relatives. They must be fully supported during the
major upheaval.
It is also about the human rights of the elderly people of this country.
The generation who fought for this country's fieedom and liberty. The
generation who gave their to-days for our tomorrows.
J SALLABANK (MRS)
Mrs J Sallabank
7 Peverell Close
Henbury
Bristol
BS10 7LE
ask for
telephone
email
our ref
date
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
9th September 2008
Dear Mrs Sallabank
Statement to Cabinet – Residential Futures
Thank you for your statement asking the Cabinet to accept the Residential Futures report.
The Cabinet notes your comments and agrees that improvements are needed to the
Council’s care homes. As you point out, modernisation of our care homes has been
unresolved since 2005 and before this Cabinet was in administration. Since taking over
administration, this Cabinet have been keen to rectify the situation for residents, carers
and staff.
Under the Residential Futures strategy, the Council will be able to continue to offer a place
to existing residents and will have time to consider the impact of reducing council-owned
residential care for potential future residents before undertaking a review of the Resource
Centres two years into the programme of improvements.
I note your concerns about the future for the council’s staff and would assure you that we
are working with Trade Unions and staff to ensure fair solutions and opportunities for them.
This Cabinet has given a guarantee of no compulsory staff redundancies – an
unprecedented commitment that demonstrates the level of our support and how keenly we
recognise the value of our care staff.
I hope that I put your mind at rest in regard to the other worries you had regarding the
residents at Brentry House in my comments to the Bristol Evening Post.
I hope that the Cabinet’s decision to approve the Residential Futures strategy on 4
September 2008 alleviates your concerns and would like to thank you for your comments.
If you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
0
N
u N1
-
BYis to B Yaf l ch
Bristol Branch
~ ~ ~ ~ rFaiqax
F ~Street
~ ~ s e ,
Bristol BSI 3BN
Tel: 01 17 940 5002
Fax: 01 17 925 2346
E-mail: [email protected]
UNISON REPORT TO CABINET COMMllTEE 4THSEPTEMBER 2008
Report on Residential Futures by Linda Bartlett and Nanette Ball - Broomhill EPH
workers, UNISON Stewards and group members of Residential Futures Project
We are staff members who joined in the Residential Future Project Group, which took
place over the summer.
We found joining a group which made decisions about our future jobs and the lives of
the residents we currently help to look after within our team, made a very interesting
experience.
When your employer and the big noises as I call them take time out to listen to us and
work with us in a way that helps us understand the bigger things that effect our jobs, the
homes we work in and the welfare of the people we care for, then change is less
threatening, we also are able to accept why change must happen.
We know that we and our team mates at Broomhill and all other residential workers in all
the homes are going to be facing a very difficult time over the next five years.
We think it only right and proper that the people we care for now should have a home for
life in a council run home, if that is what they want. We know froni our time on the
Futures Project that this will be very expensive for the Council to do, but for once the
politicians and big noises will be doing the right thing. As council taxpayers we do not
care how much it costs, we are just pleased and happy that the people we care for will
have peace of mind and security for the future.
We would like to ask all the politicians to accept that this is morally and ethically the right
thing to do and ask you to please respect this decision and not distress the residents
any more than they have to during this time. Please do not call the decision in on the
basis of cost as we all know that the five year plan is expensive, but the staff and
residents need to move on from today and start for us what has been and will continue
to be a worrying time as we prepare to look after our future. We need peace of mind to
put all our energies into looking after our residents and make sure that they move with
the least amount of disruption into their new homes.
You will appreciate that to us these residents are like family, they are individuals who
have got a good rapport with the staff in their home. We do not need the politicians
playing political football with us at this time. We have had enough uncertainty and whilst
we would all love to keep the 13 homes open and refurbished to a high standard it will
cost 27 million pounds. So if you have a better idea to keep more than 7 homes open
then we would love to hear it, or perhaps you have 27 million pounds available? If you
have neither, then please, once the decision has been made, let us get on with the job
that we are trained to do.
UN160N z;lz=,z+~
Bristol Branch
Sixth Floor
s&eet
-
B r i to
~ Bra lz ch
Tel: 01 17 940 5002
Fax: 01 17 925 2346
E-mail: [email protected]
UNISON'S response to the Cabinet Proposal on 4 t h September
with reqard to Residential Futures
UNISON would like to point out that any items in this report in ITAI-ICS
are either a direct lifting of current legislation or the work of another
organisation, namely APSE (Assoc of Public Service Excellence). We have
given Cabinet Members a copy of the document that it was taken from for
further reading. We hope they take the time to read it and digest and use
the information in a positive way that benefits the public (the electorate),
the service users, stakeholder groups and staff and their trade unions.
Any questions highlighted by bold text are questions for wt-rich UNISON
require a much more detailed response verbally at Cabinet and a much
more detailed response in writing, to ensure we are all clear and
understand the positions and directions you are taking.
UNISON'S report on Residentidl Futures
UNISON notes with some concern that the Cabinet and Adult Community
Care has a plan to close homes and refurbish three to a high standard
with no real thought to the 4 resource centres except for a rrrillion pound
in the current figures to allow for minor works.
UNISON welcomes the change in the proposal to offer all existing
residents a home for life in a council run care home, the comrr~itmentto
provide excellent service for those suffering with dementia, and the
commitment to redeploy staff with no compulsory redundancies.
UNISON requires a response in writing as to how the Authority will meet
its obligations under the 2006 Equalities Act in dealing with
redeployment o f mainly low paid female workers to evidence you have
given due consideration to your duties, and how you will deal with the
Disproportionate lmpact this group will suffer.
UNISON will fight any resistance and/or apathy this administration or any
future administration may have in not providing a plan for future
services, work and strategy around using the anti-discriminatory
legislation to ensure that we keep a vibrant public service workforce who
are positively and proactively managed, trained, enthused and motivated
by the need to have and deliver public services.
UNISON is deeply concerned about the absence of a comprehensive
Equalities lmpact Assessment within the Residential Futures Work on -the
duties required by the Public Sector bodies to promote equality; the
duties represent a significant change in how employers delivering public
services must address inequalities. Whilst the equality lmpact assessment
has gone a little way to look at the needs of a diverse city and consider
age, gender, disability, religion and race within the context of equality in
delivering services to the user, the assessment itself makes very little if
any reference to the promotion of equality on the workforce.
UNISON Central Health Branch has fed their concerns to this Branch on
the reduction of so many Elderly Peoples Homes and has grave concerns
that the 3 Dementia Homes will not adequately meet the needs of the
Health Service who no longer provide long term wards. Unison Central
Health Branch will talk to their Health Authority about the potentials of
purchasing/using the 6 homes for closure or entering into a partnership
arrangement with the local Authority to provide a service that really does
meet the needs of an ageing population. UNISON health has grave
concerns that many of our current homes offer Safe Haven beds which
are invaluable to them as a resource. If we truly had meaningful
consultation on a proposal that affects health then why was our UNISON
health branch not invited to take part? We could have then considered
current health directives that should have formed part of the proposals.
The two Public Services are inter-dependent on each other and often
desire similar outcomes.
Unison is requesting a response in writing from Cabinet as to how Bristol
City Council will be able to defend and provide evidence that it has taken
it's responsibilities seriously if the Equality and Human Rights
Corr~missionis called upon in it's statutory responsibility to enforce
compliance with the public duties on equalities. How will this authority
cope if:
a) it is sent a minded letter with EHRC intent to investigate whether they
are complying with the legislation.
b) If EHRC seek a judicial review, if this local authority is in breach of its
statutory duty or this authority's failure to a "Comprehensive Equality
lmpact Assessment".
c) There is no evidence within the report despite the facts that the
workforce is predominately female to suggest that Disproportionate
lmpact of ,the Cabinet's proposal has explored this issue in any detail
what so ever, this i s a statutory requirement of the 2006 Equalities Act.
d) To provide the evidence of any impact on the Health Service and how it
may benefit or be disadvantaged by this proposal. There is no mention in
the report as to how these changes are being complemented or not with
our National Health Service.
The public sector equality duties take a fundamentally different approach.
Public authorities are now legally obliged to promote equality of
opportunity and eliminate discrimination for service users and staff,
rather than waiting for individuals to complain.
UNISON is requesting a detailed formal response on how you will deal
with any complaints that may arise from your lack of a detailed
Comprehensive Equality lmpact Assessment.
The @odesof practice
77E~liZydub'srebtimtDmI
d1~ilitya7dgmcH-are
bidakin bw mi
mliwtim & g v i d ~ b y ~ o f p /~~cbt y
?U ~ @ ~ I i Z y ~ h t f ? m R / ~ i s
Qmn%im&#a.
mmisepnsib&fbrW~M
d~@im;zrxliw~MUk?
~
a&sofprxOct? W i & 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ b y lfp.OjCaumwitis~llav
~ r / i m t
@~~mBofpU
~ c~ ty?a~r e / i k ~ ~ ~ Uk?&
~w1~b"7
~ o f m e M s i s ~ m W j n t D a ~ l W W ~ g M U k ? b ~ ~ i n
~ m j C d u b ' s & ~ t D h e / P ~ b l i c ~ tb"7egmml
i s ~ Wduty:
All of them must be implemented.
What are the general duties?
This predon~inatelyfemale workforce was only mentioned once in relation
to staff training without any details or assessment of training needs not
just for the future proofing service requirements but how the Authority
would build into and promote life skills and professionally related
training to equip the workforce with the skills not only to deliver
excellent public services, but also the promotion of equality for women.
There are no statistics within the report of disabilities this group may
have, although ethnicity and age is covered; 7% of the workforce is from a
Black or other ethnic minority group which demonstrates this
predominately female group suffer multi-discriminatory behaviour.
UNISON believes that discrimination on any grounds is unacceptable and
that the principles underpinning the race, disability and gender duties
should also be applied to sexual orientation, age and religious/belief.
UNISON is requesting in writing a detailed response from Cabinet as to
how it will meet its statutory obligations to this group of multidisadvantaged female workers.
Women are less economically active than men, and suffer
disproportionate; a good example of this i s lack of public transport for
late-night shift working in a city as large as Bristol which delivers linear
routes in and out of the city with no regard for circular routes to keep
communities in touch. Women are less likely to have access to private
transport than men, and have greater fears about travelling on public
transport at night. Therefore the local authority should have at least
explored the need to provide a dedicated transport service which,
although also available to men, is designed to promote equality of
opportunity for women. Really vigorous discussions should be taking
place between Elected Members and Officers about building effective
ways to support an infrastructure in this city around transport and how
that promotes and frees up all multi-disadvantaged groups to live and
work in a city safely and affordably.
The lack of redeployment opporturrities in the home closure plan in the
north of the city should have had this Authority jumping from a high
moral position to seek and promote effective ways o f assisting the
women to make transitions in a female dominated care sector on low pay.
The Officers have agreed to make a nominal payment available for any
additional expenses incurred due to home closures, but this is for a
limited time. Where bus routes are known to be difficult or a journey o f
over an hour and involving more than one bus, no long term solutions
have been suggested. Where staff have shown a commitment to care for
the older people they have a key working responsibility; there appears
resistance to ensure staff incurs no expense during this time. The older
people are the responsibility of the Council and should they ask and
involve staff in the Service Users disruption any move will cause, to
ensure they have continuity of care, then the Authority must pick up the
cost not the employee. Care Assistants may keyword up to 5 older people
who could be in 5 different locations. The Equalities Impact Assessment
makes no mention of any of these real issues facing real women, who
may also be multi-discriminatorily challenged. The assessment makes no
case for the continuity of care by a familiar face that older people with
dementia need. The older people themselves are a multi-disadvantaged
group and any consideration that requires the Authority to exercise i t s
duty of care to the service user must be considered. How staff are utilised
at this time needs further negotiation with the trade unions.
LlNlSON is requesting in writing a detailed response from Cabinet as to
how it will meet its statutory obligations to this group of female workers.
UNISON is further requesting, what mechanisms and procedures are to be
implemented?We would also add that this Cabinet with the trade unions,
Officers, staff and stakeholders need to explo~emechanisms for further
skills training and career progression you will be offering this female
group. How will that work and how will you facilitate the female workers
to achieve this? A Residential Futures Working group did look at this area,
but there are still many details to be finalised and agreed. A commitment
and statement as to how this will be achieved needs to be given?
UNISON also requires a mechanism and implementation plan as to how
this work will be done in partnership with the trade unions and ways that
will make it a sustainable relationship that benefits the electorate, those
people who use the services?
UNISON requires further negotiating procedures and a detailed plan for
how staff may wish to be involved in the change process for Service
Users.
W
s in mespecific duties?
n 7 e ~ ' f i c d u f i u f i s r e@
B m,
ti~ dlj;3bi/itym~m/itvarea//sligW
d i m t ; .meyarec+xnWinft///inm r e / e m t m & p m .
w m s
a r m ~ r r - ~ w t m
&me$xzific dufia:
- b " l e p u b / i c ~ ~ ~ p u b l M ; ~ 7 a c(7WmxItv
t i m p ~in 019 dub&asa
~qrn~itysctwm
mmmitin~t~ft/~~i~~~ms~i~icdrn~mm
owall&j~
- theaub"Kxty9mklinw&mp~,m&m,lzx1Elv7&;u7do~in
m r f wb
C
7
e
mb " l ~ W / d i / x : l ~ & &1mii~6@a/itk
~/e
crweredbyll~
mrtiCUBr9m?E
- the scheme should take into account information the authority has gathered or considers
relevant on how its policies and practices affect equality in the workplace and in the delivery of
services.
mm9mklsetw
- tbe w i n WMC7mh96 m W i ~ l i t i ~ 5 W b y m e ~ ~ W
inwn/edin me
d%%xYYmtofme- b"7eactmb"7ea&n7tymC&mf
win&nc$tv&ke,~
~
~
asewmtsm if5 wmtmMu/2?policisandpHa55;b"7ismldimn'& if5
~
l
m f i X l i m p a c t assessment
- tbea7mtllem7mtymmmfwintmc$@
Me, m g n u x m m a t x x / t
mm5Gtofif5
policisaxlpmOa55m~k
mi-gi~wliti2sin
U~mofft/mt7'm
inc1Wlmmpbjnm1;mDbmip?dm~/ja?
MWy
- t b e a ~ f i X l m i ~ m e i inmiwBrinmMwtlle
n ~ m ~
~
o
f
t
b
e
~
m
p
~
m
i
n
~
- the actions the authority has taken or intends to take to:
~
-mb"7ein~Bm*ewp~mmb"7ei~m~moftlle~s
a5jWWs
- ~ / 2 ? 6 " l i 7 t ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 j1 7~ e S
a U/ O Z
X M?V W
~ .~ .
m w l N ~ 1 ; b ~ a s P ; u t o f i f 5 ~ l a n m lm:
- ~ e ~ l t s o f i n ~ m g # m ~ f i k / d i ~ mWb"7ismWw
ihx7~;
indwl&;a'ldm
mhas&nrnx&cn'meimm
- m t m m t y m m w m ~ y &mr & l i w i f 5 ~ w l i t y m f
d.1i7atedkmin~imbm~
p~~wlityofqopwh/nityaro'mu/2?
it ismetZw its
- p m m m m m ~ i x 7 0 f m m ifn t l u ~ m a c b ~ m m w a x l
~ i - g ~ wVMrnin
m m
my&~ofpr/bli-tim ofm-unmit
is
lntEl25wwk ormmwbk m &a.m m - t y m f l w t l l e m a t
l e ~ r n m ~ ~ s .
Despite some very strong duties placed on the Local Authority it has
failed on the following two accounts in relation to this piece of work on
Residential Futures; the work undertaken did not include any mention of
the following:
Unison is requesting a response in writing from Cabinet as to how Bristol
will be able to defend and provide evidence it has taken its
City Co~~ncil
responsibilities seriously if the Equality and Human Rights Commission is
m
called upon in it's statutory responsibility to enforce compliance with the
public duties on equalities, how will this authority cope if:
a) it is sent a minded letter with EHRC intent to investigate whether they
are complying with the legislation.
b) If EHRC seek a judicial review, if this local authority is in breach of it's
statutory duty or this Authority has failed to produce a "Comprehensive
Equality Impact Assessment".
We have been involved in the Project work but the driving force for
change was resource led and discussions did not fully explore the impact
of promoting opportunities for any staff who may work in this
environment and how the Authority planned to continue promoting real
job redeployment opportunities, once a decision to close homes had
been taken. This outsourcing or job cuts to save on efficiencies alone
without really taking all the facts into considerations i s an appalling
attempt on the Local Authority to do nothing but just save money. The
need for residential care will persist whether the Local Authority is a
provider or commissioner of such services and in comrr~issioningfrom
the lndependent Sector does not abdicate the Authority's duties under
anti-discriminatory legislation. No Work or mention in the Equality Impact
Assessment has been done to gather information on lndependent sector
work profiles, or their plans and monitoring systems to ensure they meet
the standards required in delivery public services for the Local Authority
under this legislation. UNISON believes this is likely to lead to a serious
breach of the Legislation in regards to how Bristol City Council views i t s
responsibilities in promoting and underpinning its equality duties.
UNISON has tried to engage with this administration and Officers in
promoting in-house public services that would offer real choice to
women and put forward ideas on a sensible alternative to Personal
Assistants, a role created to address the needs of those service users who
may choose to take Direct Budgets or in the new Personalisation Agenda
Individual Budgets. UNISON in Scotland were given funding to do a piece
of research on the issues surrounding this new role and ways of offering
people real choice. Firstly:
1. There appears to be a thought process towards offering Independent
Living centres (ILC) the option to consider administering the budget on
behalf of Service Users. No one has considered the cost to ILC in doing
this and no doubt the money will have to come from the Service Users
lndividualised Budget. This money will not go the whole way in meeting
peoples needs and no doubt Service Users will be expected to be as
frugal with the public purse as Local Authorities. They have to spend this
much needed money on their personal care and there will be precious
little left for administration costs. I cannot see the ILC being able to
provide this service free. If there are plans to employ disabled people on
good terms and conditions to offer this service, then I could see that the
Local Authority was reaching out to take i t s duties seriously under
equalities duties and promoting the need of multi-disadvantaged groups
under the legislation by treating them more favourably. The Local
Authority should and could go one step further by actually creating a role
within the local authority, to employ and maintain the administration of
budget within a public service setting, ensuring their
the lndivid~~alised
skills and experience are utilised offering them secure employment with
good terms and conditions that a Local Authority should have in place to
be leaders and motivators of best practice.
2. lndividualised Budgets which may aim to reduce the overall need for
local authorities to provide in-house services by the creation of a myriad
of different employers, need to work with experienced in-house staff,
Service Users and their carers, trade unions and other stakeholder groups
to ensure that this new approach is well thought out and delivered in a
way that does offer real choice to people.
Many older people will not want the responsibility of becoming an
employer, but would consider an lndividualised budget i f the monies
could then be spent back into the secure environment of the Local
Authority if it were to create a team of Personal Assistants that could be
deployed in this way. We then open up choice for redeployment for
Residential Workers who are, on the whole, female, which would offer
continuing good terms of employment for this group and again meet the
needs of the duties in treating women in a favourable way. The legislation
should also be used to favour those likely to suffer discrimination and
actively use the legislation to positively promote employment
opportunities for all groups likely to be discriminated against.
3. The Personalisation Agenda is relatively new and research on this
ongoing change which first started in Sweden has now shown that Older
and Disabled People are often left to cope with Employee and Industrial
Relation issues that were never really thought through.
The other question that will need to be addressed is, i f they are in receipt
of public funds from the Local Authority to commission their own care
then does that absolve them and the local authority from the equalities
duties placed on the Local Authority? Can the Local Authority manage and
monitor their responsibilities when such a potentially large number of
employers would result if lndividualised Budgets were to be a success?
How do you potentially protect employees from bad employer practices
and the never ending job description that will no doubt sour Industrial
relations? UNISON in Scotland has already done research on these areas
by working with those Older and Disabled People and their employees in
this area, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. A case where sharing
knowledge and experiences are often savers of time and money.
4. Lastly would not the lndividualised Budget agenda be much more
successful i f Older and Disabled People had some confidence and control
but with the knowledge that a role had been created by the Local
Authority, in consultation with Service Users, Officers, Trade Unions and
Staff, to ensure the roles were properly thought through, had been fairly
and equitably evaluated under the Councils Single Status Scheme and any
issues around employment law were properly taken care of by the Local
Authority. Most Older People and Disabled Adults would we are sure
appreciate that those who are employed to provide them with a much
needed and very personalised service, were paid and treated well for
those services. It is also a work area where the Authority could and
should use their duties under the legislation to promote and treat
favourably those groups covered by the anti-discriminatory legislation.
The Local Authority could further discharge it's responsibilities by
offering the best training opportunities available to ensure a multiskilled, flexible workforce that was empowered to deliver equality
proofed services to those most in need; this would be setting a standard
based on excellence and positive outcomes and best practice guidelines
to all those that aspire to provide public sector work in the third sector.
These sectors will still need to demonstrate via commissioning that they
are meeting the Local Authority duties under the legislation.
With these kind of robust measures in place then the Local Authority
would have a clear way of providing the evidence needed to ensure they
can demonstrate they have put the legislation to work and will have
tangible recordable outcomes for those they have a responsibility to, in
that they are elected by us the people to serve us the people. This would
mean you truly fulfil the general duties listed next.
How would an older person manage their employees' sickness absence,
employee's carer's responsibility, annual leave, pensions arrangements,
general and serious disciplinary issues? How do they protect themselves
against tribunal cases on a host of different employment law related
issues? Including 2006 Equalities Act. How will this be implemented,
monitored, reviewed and what procedures will be in place?
UNISON has tried on several occasions to offer sensible and workable
solutions to the problems as above but as yet this Administration has
given no indication it has heard or what its intentions may be.
UNISON requires a formal response to address the lack of response on
our ideas, proposals in 1,2, 3, and 4 from above.
UNISON also wants a full account of this Authority's procedures in
monitoring, and how it deals with those in the 3rd sector commissioned
to provide public services and how the independent and voluntary sector
meet the 2006 Equalities Act? How is this implemented, acted upon,
evidenced, and how is compliance achieved and maintained? How is noncompliance dealt with?
General duties
WlitvsWnsarz?--to
bt$mi&atm,
sopr/blica~tie9mkl
W mm,
iesif3'ciiXnti%b&~ ~ & h ~ l i c ini the
i a ;
m i a m d M m a ~ & ~l i~n a ~ m f i t v ~ f W m Ei lkm 3 ~ .
Um@ttr?wymtk~ib& t D ~ m ~ m k e a l l i ~ o f i ~ l @ h a
wrmaa M m i 3 e m H ~ 1toh m&
the
nmtsijgri3'mtp/abm.
w
me
It may have escaped this Labour Administration's notice that these
concepts around Anti-Discriminatory Legislation, Equal Pay, Minimum
Wage, Worklife Balance have been introduced by a Labour Government,
which have gone further than any other political party probably would go
in making our lives much better. This local administration needs to give
serious thought on how i t interacts with the trade union activists within
the council and how i t promotes real opportunity for all citizens living
and working in Bristol. We hope that past mistakes produce a valuable
learning experience and for the first time ever a party with real values
could and should use its experienced female leader in achieving positive
results for 50% of the population who happen to be women and ensure
that, through good policy and working relationships with their trade
union supporters, she should achieve a long and happy life in a seat o f
influence that could offer the kind of changes that women and men
would appreciate and vote for.
In the above passage i t seems odd that EIA's would even be considered to
be onerous. Bringing about positive changes for the citizens of Bristol
should be viewed as a pleasure and an exciting challenge for us all. We
need to build on the positive coming together, the Futures Project work
has achieved, to look at how things can be improved upon and the
benefits that could be achieved in a partnership approach. We will always,
no doubt have the same or similar pressures around budgets, but the
willingness to share the information and resources available, so all can
participate in an open, creative, innovative way to problem solve the
realities. All those interested parties may be happy or disappointed with
the outcomes but we will all understand how we got there and why. It is
important for us to remember that being part of the solution means we
do not become part o f the problem. This kind of empowerment should
not be feared by any administration and some credit and thanks needs to
go to this Labour Administration for having the courage to adopt this
approach. Being in power does not mean you have the right to
disempower those you serve. Something I hope the electorate will come
to understand - that politics affects us all.
UNISON will continue to appreciate being actively and meaningfully
consulted on any issues that affect our members but is concerned that
the Labour Administration is missing and or ignoring key duties under
2006 Equalities Act. It is not too late to put this right and work with
UNISON on addressing the serious shortfalls the Local Authority has
made. We would appreciate a formal response on how you w o ~ ~ proceed
ld
with this request?
The above is not difficult to achieve if you truly value empowering people
and adopting a positive action plan in relation to the anti-discriminatory
legislation and find ways to enable participation in a process. This needs
to more fully explored in any future plans especially around multi-area
agreements, LSP (local strategic plans) partnership working. -the whole
philosophy around equalities needs to be vigorously applied to the
Business Transformation Programme to which these changes in Adult
Care are firmly linked. Don't think we hadn't noticed!!!
Poole Council made a commitment fairly recently that all their partners in
delivering outcomes from police, health, LA, voluntary and independent
sector would have the same computer packages and technology to
ensure that this never stood in the way of good working partnership
practices. In Bristol the Council departments don't always have
compatible systems, and then when we have to deliver tangible outcomes
with health, police e t al, we are often immobilised by incompatible
systems.
UNISON'S proposals on a strategy to provide alternative roles and
responsibilities, and jobs with meaningful professional training and skills
for our female nienibers that would meet the 2006 Equality Act and a
firm plan needs to be worked out in partnership with the trade unions as
soon as possible. A formal response to your strategy on this is needed?
How this authority plans to work with other public services and their
trade unions in delivering key electorate friendly policies to the citizens
of Bristol?
The failure to conduct the Assessment in partnership with stakeholders
and consider consequences is a serious breach of the 2006 Equalities
Act. How is this Authority going to protect itself from this failure?
When assessments identify negative impact or a missed opportunity to promote equal
opportunities, the specific duties say the public authority must have due regard to the need to
modify the policy or practice.
The Authority has failed on the above, and we would like a detailed
response on how you will put this right?
This current Residential Futures report is essentially about producing new
ways of working with an increasing number of older and disabled people
over the next 10-20 years. In essence we are all here being asked to join
in and comment on a system that we will be in receipt of. Frightening
thought as no one wants to lose their choice or their independence. Care
i s still done by predominately female workers, in a sector which most
citizens will still have an outdated and discriminatory view of "it's
women's work", therefore not valued, potentially still considered
unskilled, not worth much in wages. UNISON finds these stereotypical
views rather frightening and very offensive. How skilled do you have to
be, to be able to offer a very frail and vulnerable older person the dignity
and the respect they are due with the sensitivity to care for all their
personal needs and give a quality of life to a another human being at the
end of their life.
Ask most men and some women to do it and they would run a mile; this
kind of skill can be developed and should be supported by training, good
management practices, that ensure and monitor the best care practices
that underpin this type of work, it is highly skilled and requires the type
of person that has abilities that most of us lack. It also has to have the
right management structures in place and we need to ensure we continue
to employ managers who understand the theory behind care practices,
have the ability to work with a diverse group and be a leader in achieving
and maintaining excellence. Professional Carers need to be properly
supported, enthused, motivated and professionally developed to ensure
they meet the needs of a diverse group of Service Users who in the future
whilst living longer will have a variety of complex care needs.
The Council though may need to give serious consideration on how it
supports and maintains these necessary standards within the
management structures. Special consideration needs to be given as to
how those managers with a proven track record of positive working and
leadership skills in achieving change with a diverse group of workers are
challenged by the Authority to find a way of making this normal practice,
rather than the exception. We should explore how we let good
management roam to spread the practice without unduly putting a strain
on them causing burn out.
If we continue to ask those that have the right skills in management to
have to keep producing themselves in a myriad of different meetings
often with councillors, who fail to notice that by taking up the time of
these valuable resources they may find it increasingly difficult to deliver
on the objectives you pay them for.
Whatever happens today Adult Community Care has delivered on budget
for the last three years, have achieved change on a scale thought
impossible a few years ago and now need space to build upon their
successes. We would offer the suggestion that the degrees of pressure
you have put ACC under to perform well should now be used in Education
as this department with ACC was the laughing stock of many a meeting a
few years back. The same cannot be said of Adult Community Care today;
wish we could say it about Education. If you have the energy to scrutinise
and hold accountable then maybe you are doing i t in the wrong
department now.
This brings me to a final point in this paragraph; UNISON recently gave
the pioneering work that Manchester City Council with UNISON have been
achieving with a Warwick Agreement that all were happy to own; this has
enabled public services to remain in-house and there has been some
serious work and links to schools to develop the next generation of
young workers in all areas of employment. Social Care and the continuing
professionalism of this area has to be achieved if we want the next
generation looking after us. A commitment from this administration to do
the same will be met with elation from UNISON.
UNISON would like a formal response on this Local Authorities
commitment to enter into a local Warwick Agreement with the trade
unions, for the betterment of improving public services, not outsourcing
them. A key issue for the electorate. LlNlSON recently undertook a private
poll and 79%of those asked were clear that they felt Public Services with
public service workers and democratic accountability were important to
them. This is quite clearly a vote winner, something that put this
Administration in power just over a year ago because the citizens of
Bristol thought it was wrong to outsource Homecare.
As you can see ,from the points UNISON have made the current Equality
Impact Assessment falls very short. This is a relatively new requirement
and hopefully Bristol City Council and its staff will only get better. The
staff have been trying in the face of adversity to be the good advocates
they are supposed to be, for those in our society who are treated less
favourably on grounds of sex, race, age, and disability. They just never
had the legislation before, just their determination to see that things are
done as they should be. UNISON and its members will not apologise for
holding the equality principles at the heart of our union's policies and for
using any means at our union's disposal to underpin the principles o f
equality UNISON hold so dear.
LINISON's Public Service workers have always had the drive and ambition
to be the best, deliver the best, challenge the bad and enjoy the job
satisfaction that goes with achieving positive outcomes for the people
they are employed to serve.
UNISON wants and needs a political commitment from this Cabinet to
endorse the points in this report, take them on board, continue to work
in partnership with us, give our members the dignity and respect they
deserve, carry out its duties under the current anti-discriminatory
legislation, you look after us we look after the citizens of Bristol.
UNISON members want to be well managed, equipped and trained to do
the job for which they are employed and appreciated for always giving
the added extra when needed. Value for money is a key buzz word in
today's world o f work; they are the best value you are ever going to get.
This Cabinet needs to make a firm commitment on future service
provision and have a will and desire to use the experience of the existing
workforce, use favourable treatment to keep the women and multidisadvantaged groups in employment and work with the trade unions on
positive outcomes to ensure we can and do deliver the Care contracts to
the Very Sheltered Housing schemes, take a pride in the Mental Health
Service and its on going partnership with AWP, continue to provide and
grow the in-house Homecare Service, take a pride in the therapeutic
Intermediate Care Service, good Day Care and outreach working for those
with Learning Difficulties, take pride in the work the PWD's have already
started and build the workforce into specialists with the new Dementia
homes and ensure that STAR really does do what it says on the tin and
offer very real preventative work and respite care to all those thousands
of no doubt women in our communities who take care of loved ones,
often at the expense o f the quality of their own life, who have no real
opportunity to have a much needed break, as a city o f this size and
wealth does not consider a respite service that could and should favour
and promote equality for women carers. Make a firm commitment to
creating an in-house team of personal assistants to give piece of mind to
those who did not need to be bothered by all that goes with being an
employer.
UNISON is concerned that the Equality Impact Assessment and your
proposal on Residential homes has not made any consideration for
Disproportionate Impact assessment on the needs of the 5,000 unpaid
carers who currently live in our city, the affect your proposals will have on
them, no statistics to show who they are, but UNISON is mindful as the
assessment was, that they may be women. Respite care and Carers
Assessments must take into account 2006 Equalities Act. UNISON is
requesting the work needs to be done to cover the Authority's duties.
There is no mention of the impact it has on this group or their families or
the communities they live in. UNISON is requesting a detailed response
from the findings, the mechanisms, the implementation plans to any
findings and how it intends to reniedy any statutory breach of the 2006
Equalities Act.
We have taken an except from an APSE (Assoc of Pubic Service Excellence)
an organisation UNISON feels would be much better placed as a
consultant to work on redefining Public Services than KMPC, it is as
follows:
UNISON will ask the Cabinet to read the APSE report and pay close
attention to local people involved in communities with their employment
within public services, often serving their communities well in
highlighting and dealing with social problems, vulnerable citizens,
community involvement and the ability to take their pay packet back to
their local communities to spend. This administration and UNISON have
and will no doubt continue to discuss the past history of Bristol and the
vital roles businesses like WD & HO Wills, Mardon's, and the Avonmouth
Docks played. They were highly trade unionised workplaces and often
considered social employers, in that they gave good terms and conditions
to their workforce. Most women were desperate to work for Wills and the
Bedminster area was a thriving inner city area because of their ability to
spend within their local communities. Wills shut and Bedminster
collapsed leaving a desolation that i t has never fully recovered from.
Lastly we should not forget our most recent mistake which was the
selling off of our airport. The Local Authority could have done it just the
same i f not better; we take you back to Homecare, something everyone
thought could not be done. As Elected Members you make decisions that
citizens pay for in the long run, how many times did we hear, yes we can
do that the airport money will pay for it. Well, now the airport money is
gone and someone else is reaping the benefits o f a thriving service.
Local people with local accountability providing services that people really
need without the constant harassment of having to meet targets, savings,
putting valuable tax payers' money into managing, more often than not,
expensive contractual arrangements. Not often you hear business people
say that will cost you absolutely nothing. Public Service Workers never say
that, they have an ethos more along the lines of well i f it needs doing put
i t down I'm sure I will get to i t as soon as........ Never mention what the
cost will be ........often free .........often done with a good heart .......often
done without even noticing they are being put upon .....
True business people have to count the cost, have to build it in, always
charge for the extra bit, nothing is free, everything has a price. It's the
philosophy that gets Local Authorities time and again, and ends up
costing the tax payer more with no tangible outcomes that could be said
were value for money or better than the Public Service they replaced. The
only thing in life that sometimes comes free is the will to be better, the
desire to do it well, cover the need, can't go home and leave it as it is,
address the emergency, answer the phone call just in case, all after the
worker should have gone home, which is the best way I know of
describing the PUBLIC SERVICE WORKER.
UNISON welcomes the involvement we have played in the Futures Projects
and this clearly falls within the Employment Rights Act 1 996 (as
amended) and the Trade Union Labour Relations (consolidated) Act 1992.
UNISON is asking how this can be built upon by including Trade Unions in
Local Strategic Partnerships, the involvement in Comprehensive Equalities
Impact Assessments, Business Transformation Programme (as the work
had already been done and it was a consultation exercise in its basic
form) How, who and why the Local Authority are using Consultants and
the effect they have when they ignore or do not have any knowledge of
the Authority's duties.
A clear plan, with implementation, strategy, procedures and ground rules
for working with the trade unions on these issues we are sure that with a
sustainable working relationship with us may prove we will all do a far
better job, have creative and innovative ideas on how to improve Public
Services without the need to get Consultants in that make a vast profit off
the tax payers' money, unlike the diverse amount of knowledge the trade
union membership has that comes free.
UNISON'Sfinal point is about devolving power and empowering
communities, fragmenting and privatising public services. These two
things are not mutual compatible. If public services continue to be
privatised, then Councillors are reduced to pillars of uselessness, the
public will have no reason to get involved in anything, there will be no
democratic accountability and people will see no reason to come out and
vote. Whatever your political persuasion most of you would have taken up
public life to make a difference. Labour needs to consider what those
basic principles were for the Labour Movement. Small budgets to bring
about small changes in your local wards will not be enough to interest
your constituents. Real issues about the things that affects us the most
like public services, safe communities, reducing poverty, reducing crime,
equality of opportunity, education and social housing are high priorities
for our communities and for UNISON. Are they yours?
UNICON
-
Bris to Bra I2 ch
Bristol Branch
Sixth Floor
Tower House, Fairfax Street
Bristol BS1 3BN
Tel: 01 17 940 5002
Fax: 01 17 925 2346
E-mail: [email protected]
Select Committee on 21 st July 2008
Dear Committee members
You will find attached UNISON's response to the Residential Futures Proposal. UNISON are not preempting any cabinet decision as UNISON feels that the proposal will not change radically in that there will be
at the end of the process any more or less than seven homes.
UNISON would urge you to read our proposals in regards to future service provision and redeployment
options for staff. UNISON feels without this plan Bristol City Council will find it extremely difficult to
uphold their no compulsory redundancy statement ' .
UNISON would ask the other two political parties to spend time putting forward their own proposals as
UNISON's philosophy and ethos along with our own policies make it vital that services remain public.
UNISON would suggest this can be done and would appreciate all political parties working towards achieving
this.
The Key points from UNISON's response to cabinet are as follows:
UNISON would like to ask for support to review the training that was delivered on Equality Impact
Assessment to determine whether it was fit for purpose.
The report raises serious concerns about redeployment for what is a disproportate impact on a predominately
female workforce who are affected by the residential care report and in Adult Community Care by wider
ongoing changes. UNISON would appreciate your support in raising this with cabinet members.
An agreement that these services are kept in-house and a commitment to undertake and develop redeployment
opportunities i.e. Personal Assistance and very sheltered housing care contracts and that all 3 political parties
take this on board
That citizens of Bristol are offered political ideas and proposals which are electorate friendly and offer
democratic accountability
Can detailed discussions take place with the Trade Unions about the Equality Duties Act 2006, as this will not
only affect in-house provision and changes but will not absolve this local authority's statutory duties when
commissioning services. The commissioning strategy needs to include a mechanism for monitoring,
implementing and evaluating, those services which are commissioned and that they evidence compliance of
statutory duties.
Unison Labour link recently passed a motion in July 2008 and it will be asking The Government about
providing Rights to older people living in privately run nursing and care homes ( as they can currently be
evicted) that this authority consider some safeguards around giving rights to older people in their
commissioning strategy
This report will be presented by Tracy Churchward and Jackie Fleming Bristol UNISON.
UNISON'S response to the Cabinet Proposal on 31 st July in
r
l
UNISON would like to point out that any items in this report in ITALICS
are either a direct lifting of current legislation or the work of another
organisation, namely APSE (Assoc o f Public Service Excellence). We have
given Cabinet Members a copy of the document that it was taken from for
further reading. We hope they take the time to read it and digest and use
the information in a positive way that benefits the public (the electorate),
the service users, stakeholder groups and staff and their trade unions.
Any questions highlighted by bold text are questions for which UNISON
require a much more detailed response verbally at Cabinet and a much
more detailed response in writing, to ensure we are all clear and
understand the positions and directions you are taking.
UNISON notes with some concern that the Cabinet and Adult Community
Care has a plan to close homes and refurbish three to a high standard
with no real thought to the 4 resource centres except for a million pound
in the current figures to allow for minor works.
UNISON welcomes the change in the proposal to offer all existing
residents a home for life in a council run care home, the commitment to
provide excellent service for those suffering with dementia, and the
commitment to redeploy staff with no compulsory redundancies.
UNISON requires a response in writing as to how the Authority will meet
its obligations under the 2006 Equalities Act in dealing with
redeployment of mainly low paid female workers to evidence you have
given due consideration to your duties, and how you will deal with the
Disproportionate Impact this group will suffer.
UNISON will fight any resistance and/or apathy this administration or any
future administration may have in not providing a plan for future
services, work and strategy around using the anti-discriminatory
legislation to ensure that we keep a vibrant public service workforce who
are positively and proactively managed, trained, enthused and motivated
by the need to have and deliver public services.
UNISON is deeply concerned about the absence of a comprehensive
Equalities Impact Assessment within the Residential Futures Work on the
duties required by the Public Sector bodies to promote equality; the
duties represent a significant change in how ernployers delivering public
services must address inequalities. Whilst the equality Impact assessment
has gone a little way to look at the needs of a diverse city and consider
age, gender, disability, religion and race within the context of equality in
delivering services to the user, the assessment itself makes very little if
any reference to the promotion of equality on the workforce.
UNISON Central Health Branch has fed their concerns to this Branch on
the reduction of so many Elderly Peoples Homes and has grave concerns
that the 3 Dementia Homes will not adequately meet the needs of the
Health Service who no longer provide long term wards. Unison Central
Health Branch will talk to their Health Authority about the potentials of
purchasing/using the 6 homes for closure or entering into a partnership
arrangement with the local Authority to provide a service that really does
meet the needs of an ageing population. UNISON health has grave
concerns that many of our current homes offer Safe Haven beds which
are invaluable to them as a resource. If we truly had meaningful
consultation on a proposal that affects health then why was our UNISON
health branch not invited to take part? We could have then considered
current health directives that should have formed part of the proposals.
The two Public Services.are inter-dependent on each other and often
desire similar outcomes.
Unison is requesting a response in writing from Cabinet as to how Bristol
City Council will be able to defend and provide evidence that it has taken
it's responsibilities seriously if the Equality and Human Rights
Commission is called upon in it's statutory responsibility to enforce
compliance with the public duties on equalities. How will this authority
cope if:
a) it is sent a minded letter with EHRC intent to investigate whether they
are complyi~igwith the legislation.
b) If EHRC seek a judicial review, if this local authority is in breach of its
statutory duty or this authority's failure to a "Comprehensive Equality
lmpact Assessment".
c) There is no evidence within the report despite the facts that the
workforce is predominately female to suggest that Disproportionate
lmpact of the Cabinet's proposal has explored this issue in any detail
what so ever, this is a statutory requirement of the 2006 Equalities Act.
d) To provide the evidence of any impact on the Health Service and how it
may benefit or be disadvantaged by this proposal. There is no mention in
the report as to how these changes are being complemented or not with
our National Health Service.
The public sector equality duties take a fundamentally different approach.
Public authorities are now legally obliged to promote equality of
opportunity and eliminate discrimination for service users and staff,
rather than waiting for individuals to complain.
UNISON is requesting a detailed formal response on how you will deal
with any complaints that may arise from your lack of a detailed
Comprehensive Equality lmpact Assessment.
The codes of practice
The equality duties relating to race, disability and gender are laid out in law. Their application is guided
by codes ofpractice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)r. The EHRC is
responsible for writing, developing and issuing the codes of practice which have been approved by
Parliament. If public authorities follow these codes of practice, they are likely to comply with the law.
Each of the duties is broken down into a general duty which gives the broad outlines, and specific
duties designed to help public authorities comply with the general duty. All of them must be
imalemented.
What are the general duties?
All three general duties state that "due regard must be
given to:
- the elimination of unlawful discrimination
- the promotion of equal opportunities.
This predominately female workforce was only mentioned once in relation
to staff training without any details or assessment of training needs not
just for the future proofing service requirements but how the Authority
would build into and promote life skills and professionally related
training to equip the workforce with the skills not only to deliver
excellent public services, but also the promotion of equality for women.
There are no statistics within the report of disabilities this group may
have, although ethnicity and age i s covered; 7% of the workforce i s from a
Black or other ethnic minority group which demonstrates this
predominately female group suffer multi-discriminatory behaviour.
UNlSOlV believes that discrimination on any grounds i s unacceptable and
that the principles underpinning the race, disability and gender duties
should also be applied to sexual orientation, age and religious/belief.
UNISON is requesting in writing a detailed response from Cabinet as to
how it will meet its statutory obligations to this group of multidisadvantaged female workers.
Women are less economically active than men, and suffer
disproportionate; a good example of this i s lack of public transport for
late-night shift working in a city as large as Bristol which delivers linear
routes in and out of the city with no regard for circular routes to keep
communities in touch. Women are less likely to have access to private
transport than men, and have greater fears about travelling on public
transport at night. Therefore the local authority should have at least
explored the need to provide a dedicated transport service which,
although also available to men, i s designed to promote equality of
opportur~ityfor women. Really vigorous discussions should be taking
place between Elected Members and Officers about building effective
ways to support an infrastructure in this city around transport and how
that promotes and frees up all multi-disadvantaged groups to live and
work in a city safely and affordably.
The lack of redeployment opportunities in the home closure plan in the
north of the city should have had this Authority jumping from a high
moral position to seek and promote effective ways of assisting the
women to make transitions in a female dominated care sector on low pay.
The Officers have agreed to make a nominal payment available for any
additional expenses incurred due to home closures, but this i s for a
limited time. Where bus routes are known to be difficult or a journey of
over an hour and involving more than one bus, no long term solutions
have been suggested. Where staff have shown a commitment to care for
the older people they have a key working responsibility; there appears
resistance to ensure staff incurs no expense during this time. The older
people are the responsibility of the Council and should they ask and
involve staff in the Service Users disruption any move will cause, to
ensure they have continuity of care, then the Authority must pick up the
cost not the employee. Care Assistants may keyword up to 5 older people
who could be in 5 different locations. The Equalities Impact Assessment
makes no mention of any of these real issues facing real women, who
may also be multi-discriminatorily challenged. The assessment makes no
case for the continuity of care by a familiar face that older people with
dementia need. The older people themselves are a multi-disadvantaged
group and any consideration that requires the Authority to exercise i t s
duty of care to the service user must be considered. How staff are utilised
at this time needs further negotiation with the trade unions.
UNISON is requesting in writing a detailed response from Cabinet as to
how it will meet its statutory obligations to this group of female workers.
UNISON is further requesting, what mechanisms and procedures are to be
implemented?We would also add that this Cabinet with the trade unions,
Officers, staff and stakeholders need to explore mechanisms for further
skills training and career progression you will be offering this female
group. How will that work and how will you facilitate the female workers
to achieve this? A Residential Futures Working group did look at this area,
but there are still many details to be finalised and agreed. A commitment
and statement as to how this will be achieved needs to be given?
llNlSON also requires a mechanism and implementation plan as to how
this work will be done in partnership with the trade unions and ways that
will make it a sustainable relationship that benefits the electorate, those
people who use the services?
UNISON requires further negotiating procedures and a detailed plan for
how staff may wish to be involved in the change process for Service
Users.
What's in the specific duties?
The specific duties relating to race, disability and gender equality are all slightly different; they are
described in full in the relevant code of practice. However this common approach incorporates most
aspects of the specific duties:
- the public authority should publish an action plan (referred to in the duties as an equality scheme)
showing how it intends to fulfil its general and specific duties and setting out its overall objectives
- the authority should involve employees, service users, trade unions and others in preparing the
scheme; this should include people facing inequalities covered by the particular scheme
- the scheme should take into account information the authority has gathered or considers
relevant on how its policies and practices affect equality in the workplace and in the delivery of
services.
The scheme should set out:
- the way in which people facing inequalities covered by the scheme have been involved in the
development of the scheme
- the actions the authority has taken, or intends to take, to conduct equality impact assessments on
its current and future policies and practices; this should include its method for impact assessment
- the actions the authority has taken, or intends to take, to gather information about the effect of its
policies and practices on people facing inequalities in the performance of functions including
employment, education and service delivery
- the arrangements for using the information gathered, in particular in reviewing the effectiveness of
the action plan and in preparing subsequent equality schemes
- the actions the authority has taken or intends to take to:
- use the information to review progress on the implementation of the scheme's objectives
- ensure that the scheme's objectives are implemented. The authority should report annually (possibly
axpart of its general annual report) on:
- the results of information gathering (including monitoring); what this evidence indicates; and what
use has been made of the information
- what the authority has done over the past year to deliver its equality scheme, eliminate
discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and ensure it is meeting its targets
-progress on the implementation of the scheme, including actions for gathering and using
information within three years of publication of the scheme unless it is unreasonable or impracticable
to do so. The authority should review the scheme at least every three years.
Despite some very strong duties placed on the Local Authority it has
failed on the following two accounts in relation to this piece of work on
Residential Futures; the work undertaken did not include any mention of
the following:
- the gender duty specifies that trade unions should be consulted in addition to staff
- the disability duty goes further and says that disabled people must be involved - i.e. more than just
being consulted; the code states that involving trade unions and their networks will provide information
and advice to "help ensure that all relevant issues are addressed
Unison is requesting a response in writing from Cabinet as to how Bristol
City Council will be able to defend and provide evidence it has taken its
responsibilities serio~~sly
if the Equality and Human Rights Commission is
called upon in it's statutory responsibility to enforce compliance with the
public duties on equalities, how will this authority cope if:
a) it is sent a minded letter with EHRC intent to investigate whether they
are complying with the legislation.
b) If EHRC seek a judicial review, if this local authority is in breach of it's
statutory duty or this Authority has failed to produce a "Comprehensive
Equality Impact Assessment".
We have been involved in the Project work but the driving force for
change was resource led and discussions did not fully explore the impact
of promoting opportunities for any staff who may work in this
environment and how the Authority planned to continue promoting real
job redeployment opportunities, once a decision to close homes had
been taken. This outsourcing or job cuts to save on efficiencies alone
without really taking all the facts into considerations i s an appalling
attempt on the Local Authority to do nothing but just save money. The
need for residential care will persist whether the Local Authority i s a
provider or commissioner of such services and in commissioning from
the lndependent Sector does not abdicate the Authority's duties under
anti-discrirr~inatorylegislation. No Work or mention in the Equality Impact
Assessment has been done to gather information on lndependent sector
work profiles, or their plans and monitoring systems to ensure they meet
the standards required in delivery public services for the Local Authority
under this legislation. UNISON believes this is likely to lead to a serious
breach of the Legislation in regards to how Bristol City Council views its
responsibilities in promoting and underpinning its equality duties.
UNlSOlV has tried to engage with this administration and Officers in
promoting in-house public services that would offer real choice to
women and put forward ideas on a sensible alternative to Personal
Assistants, a role created to address the needs of those service users who
may choose to take Direct Budgets or in the new Personalisation Agenda
Individual Budgets. UNISON in Scotland were given funding to do a piece
of research on the issues surrounding this new role and ways of offering
people real choice. Firstly:
1. There appears to be a thought process towards offering Independent
Living centres (ILC) the option to consider administering the budget on
behalf of Service Users. No one has considered the cost to ILC in doing
this and no doubt the money will have to come from the Service Users
lndividualised Budget. This money will not go the whole way in meeting
peoples needs and no doubt Service Users will be expected to be as
frugal with the public purse as Local Authorities. They have to spend this
much needed money on their personal care and there will be p r e c i o ~ ~ s
little left for administration costs. I cannot see the ILC being able to
provide this service free. If there are plans to employ disabled people on
good terms and conditions to offer this service, then I could see that the
Local Authority was reaching out to take i t s duties seriously under
equalities duties and promoting the need of multi-disadvantaged groups
under the legislation by treating them more favourably. The Local
Authority should and could go one step further by actually creating a role
within the local authority, to employ and maintain the administration of
the lndividualised budget within a public service setting, ensuring their
skills and experience are utilised offering them secure employment with
good terms and conditions that a Local Authority should have in place to
be leaders and motivators of best practice.
2. lndividualised Budgets which may aim to reduce the overall need for
local authorities to provide in-house services by the creation of a myriad
of different employers, need to work with experienced in-house staff,
Service Users and their carers, trade unions and other stakeholder groups
to ensure that this new approach is well thought out and delivered in a
way ,that does offer real choice to people.
Many older people will not want the responsibility of becoming an
employer, but would consider an lndividualised budget if the monies
could then be spent back into the secure environment of the Local
Authority i f it were to create a team of Personal Assistants that could be
deployed in this way. We then open up choice for redeployment for
Residential Workers who are, on the whole, female, which would offer
continuing good terms of employment for this group and again meet the
needs of the duties in treating women in a favourable way. The legislation
should also be used to favour those likely to suffer discrimination and
actively use the legislation to positively promote employment
opportunities for all groups likely to be discriminated against.
3. The Personalisation Agenda is relatively new and research on this
ongoing change which first started in Sweden has now shown that Older
and Disabled People are often left to cope with Employee and Industrial
Relation issues that were never really thought through.
The other question that will need to be addressed is, if they are in receipt
of public funds from the Local Authority to commission their own care
then does that absolve them and the local authority from the equalities
duties placed on the Local Authority? Can the Local Authority manage and
monitor their responsibilities when such a potentially large number of
employers would result if lndividualised Budgets were to be a success?
How do you potentially protect employees from bad employer practices
and the never ending job description that will no doubt sour Industrial
relations? UNISON in Scotland has already done research on these areas
by working with those Older and Disabled People and their employees in
this area, there i s no need to re-invent the wheel. A case where sharing
knowledge and experiences are often savers of time and money.
4. Lastly would not the lndividualised Budget agenda be much more
successful i f Older and Disabled People had some confidence and control
but with the knowledge that a role had been created by the Local
Authority, in consultation with Service Users, Officers, Trade Unions and
Staff, to ensure the roles were properly thought through, had been fairly
and equitably evaluated under the Councils Single Status Scheme and any
issues around employment law were properly taken care of by the Local
Authority. Most Older People and Disabled Adults would we are sure
appreciate that those who are employed to provide them with a.much
needed and very personalised service, were paid and treated well for
those services. It is also a work area where the Authority could and
should use their duties under the legislation to promote and treat
favourably those groups covered by the anti-discriminatory legislation.
The Local Authority could further discharge it's responsibilities by
offering the best training opportunities available to ensure a multiskilled, flexible workforce that was empowered to deliver equality
proofed services to those most in need; this would be setting a standard
based on excellence and positive outcomes and best practice guidelines
to all those that aspire to provide public sector work in the third sector.
These sectors will still need to demonstrate via commissioning that they
are meeting the Local Authority duties under the legislation.
With these kind of robust measures in place then the Local Authority
would have a clear way of providing the evidence needed to ensure they
can demonstrate they have put the legislation to work and will have
tangible recordable outcomes for those they have a responsibility to, in
that they are elected by us the people to serve us the people. This would
mean you truly fulfil the general duties listed next.
How would an older person manage their employees' sickness absence,
employee's carer's responsibility, annual leave, pensions arrangements,
general and serious disciplinary issues? How do they protect themselves
against tribunal cases on a host of different employment law related
issues? Including 2006 Equalities Act. How will this be implemented,
monitored, reviewed and what procedures will be in place?
UNISON has tried on several occasions to offer sensible and workable
solutions to the problems as above but as yet this Administration has
given no indication it has heard or what its intentions may be.
UNISON requires a formal response to address the lack of response on
our ideas, proposals in 1,2, 3, and 4 from above.
UNISON also wants a full account of this Authority's procedures in
monitoring, and how it deals with those in the 3rd sector commissioned
to provide public services and how the independent and voluntary sector
meet the 2006 Equalities Act? How is this implemented, acted upon,
evidenced, and how is compliance achieved and maintained? How is noncompliance dealt with?
General duties
Equality schemes are designed to bring about change, so public authorities should focus on outcomes,
ie specific identifiable improvements in policies, in the way services and functions are delivered, and in
equality outcomes for employees. Even though it may not be possible to address and resolve all
issues of inequality in a three-year period, authorities should begin to tackle the
most significant problems.
It may have escaped this Labour Administration's notice that these
concepts around Anti-Discriminatory Legislation, Equal Pay, Minimum
Wage, Worklife Balance have been introduced by a Labour Government,
which have gone further than any other political party probably would go
in making our lives much better. This local administration needs to give
serious thought on how it interacts with the trade union activists within
the council and how it promotes real opportunity for all citizens living
and working in Bristol. We hope that past mistakes produce a valuable
learning experience and for the first time ever a party with real values
could and should use its experienced female leader in achieving positive
results for 50% of the population who happen to be women and ensure
that, through good policy and working relationships with their trade
union supporters, she should achieve a long and happy life in a seat of
influence that could offer the kind of changes that women and men
would appreciate and vote for.
ElAs do not have to be onerous. The assessment process will depend on the size of the authority smaller bodies like schools can use small-scale, flexible processes. However, ElAs all require good
information and consultation with staff, service users and trade unions. Authorities need staff in
relevant posts to have the skills to be able to analyse the implications for equality.
In the above passage it seems odd that EIA's would even be considered to
be onerous. Bringing about positive changes for the citizens of Bristol
should be viewed as a pleasure and an exciting challenge for us all. We
need to build on the positive coming together, the Futures Project work
has achieved, to look at how things can be improved upon and the
benefits that could be achieved in a partnership approach. We will always,
no doubt have the same or similar pressures around budgets, but the
willingness to share the information and resources available, so all can
participate in an open, creative, innovative way to problem solve the
realities. All those interested parties may be happy or disappointed with
the outcomes but we will all understand how we got there and why. It is
important for us to remember that being part of the solution means we
do not become part of the problem. This kind of empowerment should
not be feared by any administration and some credit and thanks needs to
go to this Labour Adrr~inistrationfor having the courage to adopt this
approach. Being in power does not mean you have the right to
disempower those you serve. Something I hope the electorate will come
to understand - that politics affects us all.
LlNlSON will continue to appreciate being actively and meaningfully
consulted on any issues that affect our members but is concerned that
the Labour Administration is missing and or ignoring key duties under
2006 Equalities Act. It is not too late to put this right and work with
UNISON on addressing the serious shortfalls the Local Authority has
made. We would appreciate a formal response on how you would proceed
with this request?
The authority should look at the needs, experiences, concerns and priorities of different groups and
involve people from marginalised groups in conducting the assessment. The unintended
consequences of a policy should also be considered.
The above is not difficult to achieve if you truly value empowering people
and adopting a positive action plan in relation to the anti-discriminatory
legislation and find ways to enable participation in a process. This needs
to more fully explored in any future plans especially around multi-area
agreements, LSP (local strategic plans) partnership working. The whole
philosophy around equalities needs to be vigorously applied to the
Business Transformation Programme to which these changes in Adult
Care are firmly linked. Don't think we hadn't noticed!!!
Poole Council made a commitment fairly recently that all their partners in
delivering outcomes from police, health, LA, voluntary and independent
sector would have the sanie computer packages and technology to
ensure that this never stood in the way of good working partnership
practices. In Bristol the Council departments don't always have
compatible systems, and then when we have to deliver tangible outcomes
with health, police et al, we are often immobilised by incompatible
systems.
UNISON'S proposals on a strategy to provide alternative roles and
responsibilities, and jobs with meaningful professional training and skills
for our female members that would meet the 2006 Equality Act and a
firm plan needs to be worked out in partnership with the trade unions as
soon as possible. A formal response to your strategy on this is needed?
How this al~thorityplans to work with other public services and their
trade unions in delivering key electorate friendly policies to the citizens
of Bristol?
The failure to conduct the Assessment in partnership with stakeholders
and consider consequences is a serious breach of the 2006 Equalities
Act. How is this Authority going to protect itself from this failure?
When assessments identify negative impact or a missed opportunity to promote equal
opportunities, the specific duties say the public authority must have due regard to the need to
modify the policy or practice.
The Authority has failed on the above, and we would like a detailed
response on how you will put this right?
This current Residential Futures report i s essentially about producing new
ways of working with an increasing number of older and disabled people
over the next 10-20 years. In essence we are all here being asked to join
in and comment on a system that we will be in receipt of. Frightening
thought as no one wants to lose their choice or their independence. Care
is still done by predominately female workers, in a sector which most
citizens will still have an outdated and discriminatory view of "it's
women's work", therefore not valued, potentially still considered
~~nskilled,
not worth much in wages. UNISON finds these stereotypical
views rather frightening and very offensive. How skilled do you have to
be, to be able to offer a very frail and vulnerable older person the dignity
and the respect they are due with the sensitivity to care for all their
personal needs and give a quality of life to a another human being at the
end of their life.
Ask most men and some women to do it and they would run a mile; this
kind of skill can be developed and should be supported by training, good
management practices, that ensure and monitor the best care practices
that underpin this type of work, it is highly skilled and requires the type
of person that has abilities that most of us lack. It also has to have the
right management structures in place and we need to ensure we continue
to employ managers who understand the theory behind care practices,
have the ability to work with a diverse group and be a leader in achieving
and maintaining excellence. Professional Carers need to be properly
supported, enthused, motivated and professionally developed to ensure
they meet the needs of a diverse group of Service Users wlio in the future
whilst living longer will have a variety of complex care needs.
The Council though may need to give serious consideration on how it
supports and maintains these necessary standards within the
management structures. Special consideration needs to be given as to
how those managers with a proven track record of positive working and
leadership skills in achieving change with a diverse group of workers are
challenged by the Authority to find a way of making this normal practice,
rather than the exception. We should explore how we let good
management roam to spread the practice without unduly putting a strain
on them causing burn out.
If we continue to ask those that have the right skills in management to
have to keep producing themselves in a myriad of different meetings
often with councillors, who fail to notice that by taking up the time of
these valuable resources they may find it increasingly difficult to deliver
on the objectives you pay them for.
Whatever happens today Adult Community Care has delivered on budget
for the last three years, have achieved change on a scale thought
impossible a few years ago and now need space to build upon their
successes. We would offer the suggestion that the degrees of pressure
you have put ACC under to perform well should now be used in Education
as this department with ACC was the laughing stock of many a meeting a
few years back. The same cannot be said of Adult Community Care today;
wish we could say it about Education. If you have the energy to scrutinise
and hold accountable then maybe you are doing it in the wrong
department now.
This brings me to a final point in this paragraph; UNISON recently gave
the pioneering work that Manchester City Council with UNISON have been
achieving with a Warwick Agreement that all were happy to own; this has
enabled public services to remain in-house and there has been some
serious work and links to schools to develop the next generation of
young workers in all areas of employment. Social Care and the continuing
professionalism of this area has to be achieved if we want the next
generation looking after us. A commitment from this administration to do
the same will be met with elation from UNISON.
UNISON would like a formal response on this Local Authorities
commitment to enter into a local Wawick Agreement with the trade
unions, for the betterment o f improving public services, not outsourcing
them. A key issue for the electorate. UNISON recently undertook a private
poll and 79%of those asked were clear that they felt Public Services with
public service workers and democratic accountability were important to
them. This is quite clearly a vote winner, something that put this
Administration in power just over a year ago because the citizens of
Bristol thought it was wrong to outsource Homecare.
Equality impact assessments (EIAs) play a key role in the implementation of the duties and they are a
legal requirement for authorities covered by specific duties.
They aim to:
- ensure that no groups are disadvantaged on equality grounds by an authority's decisions and
activities
- indicate where public authorities can promote equality of opportunity.
As you can see from the points UNISON have made the current Equality
Impact Assessment falls very short. This i s a relatively new requirement
and hopefully Bristol City Council and i t s staff will only get better. The
staff have been t r y i ~ ~ingthe face of adversity to be the good advocates
they are supposed to be, for those in our society who are treated less
favourably on grounds of sex, race, age, and disability. They just never
had the legislation before, just their determination to see that things are
done as they should be. UNISON and its members will not apologise for
holding the equality principles at the heart of our union's policies and for
using any means at our union's disposal to underpin the principles of
equality UNISON hold so dear.
UNISON'S Public Service workers have always had the drive and ambition
to be the best, deliver the best, challenge the bad a.nd enjoy the job
satisfaction that goes with achieving positive outcomes for the people
they are employed to serve.
UNISON wants and needs a political commitment from this Cabinet to
endorse the points in this report, take them on board, continue to work
in partnership with us, give our members the dignity and respect they
deserve, carry out its duties under the current anti-discriminatory
legislation, you look after us we look after the citizens of Bristol.
UNISON members want to be well managed, equipped and trained to do
the job for which they are employed and appreciated for always giving
the added extra when needed. Value for money is a key buzz word in
today's world of work; they are the best value you are ever going to get.
This Cabinet needs to make a firm commitment on future service
provision and have a will and desire to use the experience of the existing
workforce, use favourable treatment to keep the women and multidisadvantaged groups in employment and work with the trade unions on
positive outcomes to ensure we can and do deliver the Care contracts to
the Very Sheltered Housing schemes, take a pride in the Mental Health
Service and its on going partnership with AWP, continue to provide and
grow the in-house Homecare Service, take a pride in the therapeutic
Intermediate Care Service, good Day Care and outreach working for those
with Learning Difficulties, take pride in the work the PWD's have already
started and build the workforce into specialists with the new Dementia
homes and ensure that STAR really does do what it says on the tin and
offer very real preventative work and respite care to all those thousands
of no doubt women in our communities who take care of loved ones,
often at the expense of the quality of their own life, who have no real
opportunity to have a much needed break, as a city of this size and
wealth does not consider a respite service that could and should favour
and promote equality for women carers. Make a firm commitment to
creating an in-house team of personal assistants to give piece of mind to
those who did not need to be bothered by all that goes with being an
employer. '
UNISON i s concerned that the Equality Impact Assessment and your
proposal on Residential homes has not made any consideration for
Disproportionate Impact assessment on the needs of the 5,000 unpaid
carers who currently live in our city, the affect your proposals will have on
them, no statistics to show who they are, but UNISON is mindful as the
assessment was, that they may be women. Respite care and Carers
Assessments must take into account 2006 Equalities Act. LlNlSON is
requesting the work needs to be done to cover the Authority's duties.
There i s no mention of the impact it has on this group or their families or
the comrr~unitiesthey live in. UNISON is requesting a detailed response
from the findings, the mechanisms, the imple~iientationplans to any
findings and how it intends to remedy any statutory breach of the 2006
Equalities Act.
We have taken an except from an APSE (Assoc of Pubic Service Excellence)
an organisation LlNlSON feels would be much better placed as a
consultant to work on redefining Public Services than KMPG, it i s as
follows:
(a) Traditional benefits of public employment
Pioneering work by the Webb's at the turn of the 19th century2 on public employment
and direct employment, and subsequent work by local authorities who critiqued the
work of contractors3, served to influence the creation of the welfare state. In this, the
debate surrounding public employment went to the very heart of the values surrounding
the local and central state. We believe that it continues to do so.
This early philosophy surrounding the benefits of direct public sector employment
centred around two arguments - that of the protection of the public interest and that
of the advancement of social justice. Firstly, direct employment was historically considered
to be in the public interest because where the suppliers of services were only
contractors, there was judged to be both a considerable rise in price, and a decrease in
the standards achieved.
Secondly, in support of the drive towards social justice, public sector employees were
adjudged to be more likely to receive fair and appropriate wages for the trade concerned.
More importantly, public sector provision was seen to prevent the commodification
of a number of services that have, at their core, social objectives, for example
education and health care. In these cases direct public sector provision was considered
essential because of inherent social objectives, particularly the demand for equality
and continuity of provision, and the inability or lack of interest of the market in meeting
these objectives.4
However, in recent years, it is these very twin pillars of public employment that have
been progressively contested as a result not least of the shift from public administration
to new public management.
The Public sector dim~ru.st~es
the effectiveiless of t l ~ e
private sector
Public services are alleged to be parasitic upon the wealth created by the private sector, and to impose too
heavy a burden on it. The 'crowding out'proposition argued that the growth of public expenditure in the postwar period absorbed investment, which would otherwise have gone into 'productive' use in the private
sector.
The Public sector 1s isolated from market disciplines and is overly controlled fro!??a central
level
The relative imperviousness of the public sector to the disciplines of the market, it is claimed, interferes with
the effective operation of price mechanisms and competition in the marketplace. It places undesirable
constraints on the workings of the whole economy, over wages particularly but more generally by protecting
large sections of the workforce from the full implications of their behaviour. The so-called "subsidy culture" in
the public sector 'featherbeds' inefficient activity and inhibits enterprise. On the one hand, public services
tend towards inefficiency and poor quality because they are controlled by public monopolies. On the
other hand, they also create dependency among a stratum of people passively reliant on public provision.
Importantly, the public sector also allows political involvement into the delivery of public services with
Ministers and Departments driving activity from a central level.
The Puhlic Sector is pmciucer orientated
Public services have been operated more in the interests of their producers than their consumers. The
customers/consumersof public services should have greater choice and voice in the provision of services,
including choice between a range of providers. Public choice theory has been critical of vested, offen
professional, interests within the public sector, and even of representative democracy itself, on the
grounds that these have stood in the way of accountability to, and choice for, consumers of public services.8
Box I . TIE C U I ~ ~ I T ~critique
OI?
of public employment
distinctiveness of public employment in terms of high levels of job security or even
"jobs for life" has disappeared over the past two decades, specifically because reform
of the public sector has seen some functions moved into the private sphere .
As many services have come under pressure to become more efficient and effective
(particularly as a result of the 2004 Gershon Review) while maintaining the volume and
quality of services supplied to the public, we have indeed witnessed the introduction
of various 'private sector' management techniques namely, a shift from process driven
approaches to managing for performance. This has resulted in the adoption of a range
of new approaches to management, budgeting, personnel and institutional structures
in pursuit of improved performance. The focus on performance has also motivated
changes to public sector employment such as the introduction of performance-related
pay. 7 It is worth noting in particular that many local authorities and their front-line
services have implemented modern management practices and these are effectively
embedded in their organisational culture. The achievement of challenging Gershon
efficiency targets and Comprehensive Performance Assessment improvements bears
witness to such developments.
However, alongside such developments, both the strategic case for the public sector as
an employer, and the managerial practices associated with public employment, have
come under sustained challenge. The public sector is increasingly seen as a provider
who must make its own business case and compete against other private, community
or voluntary sector providers to deliver services. Indeed, despite its interpretation as
a 'corrective' to new public management, even the contemporary thinking around
public services and the production of public value9 does not view public sector providers
as exercising a monopoly over a public service ethos that is committed to public
accountability, universal access, responsible employment practices and community
well-being. Instead, it views practices within the public domain as quite distinct from
those that govern the private or commercial sector, but suggests that private organisations
as well as voluntary and community organisations can adopt or share the values
and ways of working inherent in an ethos of public service.
UNISON will ask the Cabinet to read the APSE report and pay close
attention to local people involved in communities with their employment
within public services, often serving their communities well in
highlighting and dealing with social problems, vulnerable citizens,
community involvement and the ability to take their pay packet back to
their local communities to spend. This administration and UNlSOlV have
and will no doubt continue to discuss the past history of Bristol and the
vital roles businesses like WD & HO Wills, Mardon's, and the Avonmouth
Docks played. They were highly trade unionised workplaces and often
considered social employers, in that they gave good terms and conditions
to their workforce. Most women were desperate to work for Wills and the
Bedminster area was a thriving inner city area because of their ability to
spend within their local communities. Wills shut and Bedminster
collapsed leaving a desolation that it has never fully recovered from.
Lastly we should not forget our most recent mistake which was the
selling off of our airport. -the Local Authority could have done it just the
same if not better; we take you back to Homecare, something everyone
thought could not be done. As Elected Members you make decisions that
citizens pay for in the long run, how many times did we hear, yes we can
do that the airport money will pay for it. Well, now the airport money is
gone and someone else is reaping the benefits of a thriving service.
Local people with local accountability providing services that people really
need without the constant harassment of having to meet targets, savings,
putting valuable tax payers' money into managing, more often than not,
expensive contractual arrangements. Not often you hear business people
say that will cost you absolutely nothing. Public Service Workers never say
that, they have an ethos more along the lines of well if it needs doing put
it down I'm sure I will get to it as soon as..... ... Never mention what the
cost will be........often free .........often done with a good heart .......often
done without even noticing they are being put upon .....
True business people have to count the cost, have to build it in, always
charge for the extra bit, nothing is free, everything has a price. It's the
philosophy that gets Local Authorities time and again, and ends up
costing the tax payer more with no tangible outcomes that c o ~ ~be
l d said
were value for money or better than the Public Service they replaced. -the
only thing in life that sometimes comes free i s the will to be better, the
desire to do it well, cover the need, can't go home and leave it as it is,
address the emergency, answer the phone call just in case, all after the
worker should have gone home, which is the best way I know of
describing the PUBLIC SERVICE WORKER.
UNISON welcomes the involvement we have played in the Futures Projects
and this clearly falls within the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as
amended) and the Trade Union Labour Relations (consolidated) Act 1992.
UNISON is asking how this can be built upon by including Trade Unions in
Local Strategic Partnerships, the involvement in Comprehensive Equalities
Impact Assessments, Business Transformation Programme (as the work
had already been done and it was a consultation exercise in its basic
form) How, who and why the Local Authority are using Consultants and
the effect they have when they ignore or do not have any knowledge of
the Authority's duties.
A clear plan, with implementation, strategy, procedures and ground rules
for working with the trade unions on these issues we are sure that with a
sustainable working relationship with us may prove we will all do a far
better job, have creative and innovative ideas on how to improve Public
Services without the need to get Consultants in that make a vast profit off
the tax payers' money, unlike the diverse amount of knowledge the trade
union membership has that comes free.
UIVISON's final point is about devolving power and empowering
communities, fragmenting and privatising public services. These two
things are not mutual compatible. If public services continue to be
privatised, then Councillors are reduced to pillars of uselessness, the
public will have no reason to get involved in anything, there will be no
democratic accountability and people will see no reason to come out and
vote. Whatever your political persuasion most of you would have taken up
public life to make a difference. Labour needs to consider what those
basic principles were for the Labour Movement. Small budgets to bring
about small changes in your local wards will not be enough to interest
your constituents. deal issues about the things that affects' us the most
like public services, safe communities, reducing poverty, reducing crime,
equality of opportunity, education and social housing are high priorities
for our communities and for UNISON. Are they yours?
L Bartlett/N Ball
Unison
6th Floor
Tower House
Fairfax Street
Bristol
BS1 3BN
ask for
telephone
email
our ref
date
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
9th September 2008
Dear Linda and Nanette
Statement to Cabinet – Residential Futures
Thank you for your statement which provided the Cabinet with valuable insight into the
work you undertook on the Residential Futures working groups. I was pleased to note that
you took an active role in the groups and felt that your views had been taken into account
as intended.
The work undertaken by yourselves and others has been greatly valued and has enabled
the development of a strategy that has been informed by a wide range of people with
expert knowledge.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
Ian Bird
Democratic Services
Room 404
The Council House
College Green
Bristol
BS1 5TR
10 Eaton Close
Stockwood
Bristol
BS14 8PR
3 1 August 2008
Dear Mr Bird
Iam writing to make a representation at the Public Forum (Cabinet Meeting) on
4th September 2008.
The proposal for Broomhill EPH is very welcome as it provides security and peace
of mind for the existing residents.
As Ihave a relative at Broomhill, Ihave been particularly concerned that any
disruption to residents is minimal. Elderly people need certainty in their lives and
keeping long term care at Broomhill achieves this. The change to becoming a
care home/Resource Centre is a positive step as it meets the needs of two
different groups of vulnerable people.
Those needing full-time care are being acknowledged by the care facility
remaining and those needing short term care will get this in the Resource Centre.
It is essential that the existing residents continue t o receive the care from the
committed staff in surroundings that have become their home.
As Ihave said previously, my relative receives excellent care from the dedicated
and caring staff, who Ihave got to know well. This is a brilliant and well run
home with staff who really care for the residents.
I hope that the Cabinet will support these proposals for Broomhill and end the
uncertainty that has been ongoing for such a long time.
Yours sincerely
n
R A Richards (Mrs)
Mrs R Richards
ask for
telepho
email
our ref
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
date 18th September 2008
Dear Mrs Richards,
Cabinet Meeting - Residential Futures Report
Thank you for letter to Ian Bird outlining your support for the proposals that are to be
considered by the council's cabinet on the 4th September. I am pleased to read that you
welcome the recommendations being proposed for the future of Broomhill which if
approved will mean minimal disruption for the existing residents.
The creation of a resource centre in the home will bring some changes over time, however
as acknowledge the benefit of the proposal for the home will mean that existing residents
will continue to receive care in the existing building whilst at the same time new services
for future older people will be developed in part of the home.
Clearly a programme of this size does mean that the future for all homes is not as positive
as that being proposed for Broomhill; however I am aware that the home previously faced
the prospect of possible closure over two years ago and I am sure the the current
proposals will help bring peace of mind to the existing residents and enable people in the
home to feel settled.
I am really pleased to read that you appreciate the high standard of care provided to the
residents by the staff at Broomhill and that you appreciate the efforts that go into ensuring
that the home is well run. My cabinet colleagues and I do have very difficult decisions to
make in order to modernise the services for older people in Bristol, and I do appreciate
your letter outlining the reasons why you support the recommendation being made for the
future of Broomhill and see this as a positive step in developing services for older people
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
Please can you help save our home? It is an
elderly's person home and there are 40 of us living
here. We have been told that we are to be evicted as
they want our land for some other purpose. I have
already been through this once before and I find it
very upsetting to be put through it again and this
isn't just me as everyone here, has become very
upset. We are all of ages between 80-100. Where
can they put 40 of us? What about the staff? What
will happen to them? We are a really happy home
here. Sorry to worry you but please help us if you
can.
Maesknoll EPH 101Barnfield Road WhitchurchBristol
Yours Faithfully
z.
a+J%
P.S. Old people from all over the city are being
looked after in this wonderfbl home. We should be
considered first, shouldn't we? We have worked all
our lives to help keep our people where they are. I
am not being unkind but it seems that people from
other country's seem to look after there elderly
better then we do, and we need to be cared for. We
should be cared for,
Thank You
w e d by Samuel Dunfor4 as MRS Iris Baylis couldn't access a
Mrs I Baylis
ask for
telepho
email
our ref
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
date 18th September 2008
Dear Mrs Baylis
Maesknoll
Thank you for your letter concerning the future of Maesknoll. I am very sorry to read that
the recent news that was shared with you with the other residents of the home about the
proposed changes for the future of the home has caused you to be upset.
Clearly having to advise people that the new proposal for the home being recommended to
the cabinet was for eventual closure of Maesknoll, and not for the home to be retained as
a resource centre was a difficult one for the officers to share, and obviously difficult for the
residents to hear. I would like to emphasise to you in that proposing the change for
Maesknoll, officers did take into account the disappointment and upset that this change
would cause residents, relatives and staff, and have therefore proposed that the home
should not close for a number of years. Whilst this will still not affect the overall outcome of
for the home, however, I do hope that this will bring some comfort in that the current
residents will be able to stay in the home for the next few years before having to prepare
for a move into another home.
Over the past few years the council has unfortunately had to close a number of its care
homes and I would like to reassure you and all other residents that when the council plans
for the closure of any home, that great care is taken to ensure that we are able to find each
resident a suitable alternative home, and provide lots of support and assistance in order to
ensure that a move is handled as carefully and sensitively as possible with each resident
and their relatives. Long before any home is closed, the council does make sure that
residents have the chance to look at all available homes and have choice about where
they would wish to move to. Part of this process involves halting admissions in homes at
some stage to make sure there are enough beds available for the residents to move into.
Officers have been working closely with the trades unions to make sure that all staff who
will be affected by the residential futures programme will be fairly treated and equally, and
that all efforts will be made to ensure that we are able to provide staff with a choice of jobs
that they could be offered. We hope that for the majority of staff the implementation of the
residential futures programme will not result in major disruption to them nor the services
that they provide, so it is possible that at Maesknoll there may not be major changes to the
staff that provide care to the residents.
I am really pleased to hear that you feel you are being well looked after in Maesknoll and
that you obviously appreciate that the high quality of service provided. I would like to
reassure you that the views and feeling of residents will be fully taken into account before
any final decision about the future of Maesknoll is taken. A final decision on the home will
not be taken for a number of years.
Finally I feel it is important to emphasise that the residential futures programme is about
providing services for older people in the future, however there is a need for this council to
make changes so that in the future the services that people do need and want, are better
able to respond to their needs and this does involve reducing the number of care homes
run by the council.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
ON 24th June 2008 a t Maesknoll Elderly Persons Home we were told the home
was t o become a resource centre up stairs on the 1st floor and residents on the
ground floor, this forty bed E.P. H .always seems t o be full or if a room becomes
free its not long before its full again .this proposal did not reach the cabinet
meeting on July 31st it was cancelled, but we were not informed . On August
21st we were invited t o another meeting a t the home where we were told it was
going t o a cabinet meeting on September 4th t o propose closure of the home.
Residents were very disturbed some crying i really think the dreadful way our
parent's, most of whom are in their 80tys , were told this was disgraceful. I t
was an evening meeting which we all thought was just t o confirm the home was t o
stay open .The arrogant careless way these people were told that they were
going t o loose their homes was monstrous. The carers then had t o try t o calm
the situation as most of them get ready f o r bed quite early and were very
distressed , clearly not the right time or people t o t o break this news. We can
save parks ,we can give millions t o other countries but can we look after are
elderly seems the answer t o that is NO. You say the council have t o save 2
Million on elderly care but what price do they put on our parents last few years
,their lives should be made as happy as possible. They have lived through two
world wars and most have brought up children and looked after their own
parents ,also most of the men and women have worked as well. The other thing
nobody seems t o be taking into account with people living longer, is that there
children are getting older and are not always able t o look after there elderly
parents. On a more personal level, my mother who is 94 years old has lived
through two world wars ,has made our servicemen's hat8s,and looked after her
parent's while doing so. She has also brought up my brother and myself and
worked till she was 63, all of her life, since being a child, she has suffered
from osteo arthritis and in her latter years pagents disease .Surely are parents
deserve more than this.
s-%
J L Harvey
ask for
telepho
email
our ref
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
date 18th September 2008
Dear J L Harvey,
Maesknoll
Your statement to Cabinet for 4 September setting out your concerns in relation to the
future of Maesknoll EPH has been noted. Understandably you have concerns about the
latest proposals and I am writing to explain more of the background to these.
The Council has listened to strong concerns expressed during consultation held in June
2008, when officers visited Maesknoll along with its 12 other homes, that the proposed
consultation model did not offer residents in the north of Bristol the same geographical
access to Resource Centres that was proposed for south Bristol. As the council’s homes
in the north of the city are smaller than those in the south, only one was found suitable for
development. However, in response to the concerns raised, the proposals were looked at
again and an unexpected opportunity arose to develop a new home for people with
dementia in the north of the city.
Taking time to look into this opportunity meant that the Cabinet meeting had to be
postponed until September. Letters explaining this were sent out to all relatives whose
address is known to the staff at Maesknoll.
The new proposals that have been developed are entirely in relation to the need to secure
a better deal for people living in the north of the city – and to give them the same access to
services that people have in the south. The new proposals also have more positive
implications for four other homes than the original consultation proposals. However the
Council accepts that, for residents of Maesknoll, the news that the home is to close in
order to enable a more equal distribution of services across the city is not welcome news.
Officers arranged to meet with residents and relatives before the Cabinet meeting on 4
September to ensure that they heard about the changed proposals first hand and before
the news became public.
I acknowledge this was sad news for residents and relatives of Maesknoll to hear but am
sure many would prefer officers to come out to talk to them rather than sending a letter.
An evening meeting was arranged to ensure the maximum attendance from relatives, who
might have other commitments during the daytime, and so that they could be there to
support residents.
Whilst every care was taken to share this news with residents and relatives as sensitively
as possible, I know that it was clear from the meeting that many people present were very
disappointed and did express their views strongly about the proposed changes for the
future of Maesknoll.
The council is concerned to ensure that disruption to the current residents of Maesknoll is
kept to a minimum despite the need to close the home. To this end, the proposals are that
residents would be able to remain living in Maesknoll until 2012 at which time they would
be offered the choice of moving to one of 3 other Council owned homes, an independent
sector home or a VSH flat.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
3-SEP-2008 m:12
0318912808
07: 35
442928462856
@lB
P: 2
TO: 01179222146
Fl?OM:GFB TRWE UNION 01179554409
s W EGIcll-4
PAGE 82/07
The GM8 Is fully eupportke ofIndependent I M g and enaMng .
I
dlbensa(Brls(d(Dmachoksinihe~theyraassm6
CouneR~88p8dBc)y~if00mesbme!ir~mpcoyiskn*
TheGMB c m W s u p p a t t ? m e m ~ ~ C a h i n d
aa i h m are SUN too many questtans urnM iwe fear
wCflleadtDarsdudhnindlaigbrlho~8dder~plcmQa
~ d s b s ~ i m p e c t u p o n ~ ~ c ~ m r r k e r s ~
the whole servke.
At~8Blad:ComnRtssheldonT1~bermOBo(llcen
~t)#mtlon~far~revSernwastavWm~Yake~
manqc' yet in appen#ltLitdewtys)#ms underths revlbrrue
I ~ ~ - n e t ~ E P H ~ f c # 2 MmE7,923m
W O 9 (for
all 13 hams) and in 2012D019 Ikbur mmurcs c@nlmsand
thmePvwsas £8,mnl -horwIsthdbatrtisrvlrlue~m#reyJ
In 2.4 d tbb report P dates that BrMoI have 8QnMcantry Irnpmmd
the~ola~af~pclopletopemnent~laand
nursing
tf we ate alrmdy e c h ' i this why are we daaing so many
~ ~ ~ m p a d n g O k ~ l o m s r u n ~ k t h a ~ l M l c T ~
~
B
r
~
~
~
~
f
a
i
h
e
v
r
h
o
Y
TO:01179222146
3-SEp-2@@8 m:12 FR0N:GEB TIWDE UNION 01175554409
the city when we a n currently olkrrng in the ngion of 240+
placernen&?
A lawe number of council wned n98idenUal horn Jmdy o
m
c ~ 8 p i t e o u e b u t ~nattakm
is
upbeorvseaooordkg(o(hs
Wcutivo Member on 8 Febnmy 20013
:....lhm
G O m u f s to k vmancm d8qMe C C ) end
~
plk3onak q W n g a rPal need ik both yenned ond
emrg$ncYnssp#le-.
Th&mayevk&xetnenesdWlhe
COunCn's sm&s tO be nWrt,blred end rlrmpmW ifi order to meke
them &?t&adh
b tM pea* wbo could benelt.'
F the Executive and Cabinet bellwe thb why is there no budget to
refurbish and Impram tho ~ l o u r c centres?
e
Vlfs dwbt a change
of name will make much dlfkmnce!
Either Cabinet are being dlsingenuaus by 'phasing'in the mrnwal
ofall elder care as was orrginally prqmed or it Is MI advleed as
such a small number of placements wltl not a$$i$t in Influencing
the priwahellndapendent sector charges and may well mult in
higher cusb for the councfl @r such a small provbion.
The GMB mnslder h e recommendaUons put to you W a y are
nothing short of the awnoil dknlnishing It's statutwy responslbllHy
to the people d Brfstol by 'cwimurcing' elder care pmvfslon onto
the indhridual aWor their relatives.
Rowena Haywatd
Organisation ORlcer
3-SEp-m
88:12 FROPI:-
83/89/2888
07:35
T
-
m U*IIoN 01179554469
442928462056
GMB S
W
TO:01179222146
REGION
PAGE 84/07
I~in~nolrsas~*~vuhlchth~sm-ronwrwetrOt
~ ~ h a d ~ ~ e v e n 1 S # u g h w e h s d ~
themeeting. Anothermaremeffample-mocmm
beingalblbubedtr,ottlerpmpk,~~da~
erPlrndHRmdb;dnlngbelngm~W
~ ~b
m
~.
~
a
o
o
p
y
o
f
~
~
~
r
n
demmme what w are saying.
y
h
a
~
- -
3-s~p-200888: 12
03/8912088
-
m:GPBTRRCE UNION
07:35
P: 5
TO: 01179222146
0117-
442920462066
GMBSWFEGfI3N
PkGE 08/67
.I
i
Ir,Apw,rdabm3,4&8
b r a nde of hcm many woande8 there am in thme
n ~ b j D b ~ w l ~ ( m d r a e t ~ '
gtaff Equeiitks
m').
TO: 81179222146
3-cJEpi2E@@
~:~
R3)89128fiR 87: 35
1
P:6
TRFCE W I M 811-
44291M62856
pm+-m
GMB
PAOE 06/07
S W REGICN
aM1deliverabIrS in #mrentthneframemCmbM
unta &piembar 4* SF asks f4r work bQn#war
beshared. DCcanljmrsthaQthisvrRnasd.90
IS phdng looks firm but wlll need to account of
in deWon Wig taken.
S
-
rlob 15mluatlon otaftJob Dmdptlans and Emptoysb SV
.bmasss60Bb86.,
I
<
dl bandmble*lW. 'Metbe a camut not prepared to do bymd thie.
t~ do this
i
ask for
GMB
4 Hide Market
Waterloo Street
Bristol
BS2 0PH
telephone
email
our ref
date
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
9th September 2008
Dear Sir/Madam
Statement to Cabinet 4th September 2008
.
The Cabinet welcomes the statement from GMB regarding it’s support for independent
living and enabling the citizens of Bristol to have a choice in the way that they access
council services especially residential services. Ensuring that all existing residents are able
to access a council run home during the closure of some homes and the development of
the new services has been one of the key objectives sought by members and I am pleased
that the model approved by cabinet delivers this objective.
Regarding the cost of delivering the improved services as highlighted in the financial
implications, it is important to consider this in terms of overall value for money. Firstly it is
accepted that the councils current staffing levels and staffing structure need a significant
increase in the longer term to deliver the improved quality of outcome now required by
CSCI. To deliver this in all 13 homes would require a significant increase in overall budget
for the residential service. The model approved by cabinet will eventually deliver improved
services within an overall lower revenue budget than at present.
Cabinet also accepts that value for money also has to be seen in the context of delivering
services that divert people from residential care, whether private or local authority. Cabinet
accept the rationale that gradually reducing the number of people being admitted to
residential care that the council funds either directly, or indirectly, is ultimately going to
deliver a more cost effective service. The direction of travel in terms of offering more very
sheltered housing rather than residential care is one that was very much supported during
the wider consultation.
Whilst the report does acknowledge the significant improvements made in reducing the
numbers of older people being placed in residential care, there is still need to further
reduce these levels in order to meet performance targets set by CSCI.
Regarding a reduction in the number council run “non dementia beds” clearly this
reduction will take place over time. This reduction is programmed to come into effect
around the same that a significant number of additional very sheltered housing flats will
become available both as new schemes open, and as the number of flats for people with
high care needs increases in existing schemes.
Concerning take up of respite beds, since the situation was reported by the executive
member in February I can confirm that demand for respite beds in the local authority
homes has increased significantly, and that the number of respite beds have had to
increased in order to cope with demand. It is acknowledges that that the current route by
which people access respite care does need to be changed in order to provide a more
responsive and flexible service. All the indications from both professionals and carers is
that there is an increasing demand for high quality flexible and easily accessible respite
care. Cabinet accept that delivering such services in the resource centres will enable
more carers to be supported and as a result enable more older people to remain living at
home.
The report considered by Cabinet does highlight the need for additional capital to be
invested in resource centres at some time. In accepting the recommendations in the report
members do accept that this will need to be considered at some later stage and that this
will have to be included as part of a future capital programme.
Cabinet members are mindful of the responsibilities required of the council in order to fulfil
it’s statutory duties and is confident that in reshaping current residential services this will
place Bristol in an even better position to provide future older people with the range of high
quality of services required to meet changing need and increasing aspirations.
Whilst I am aware that the decision taken by Cabinet to approve the Residential Futures
strategy on 4 September 2008 has raised concerns for the GMB however I do hope that
this response does alleviate some of the the concerns that you have raised.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
STATEMENT C 7
Cabinet 4 September 2008
Residential Futures
Public Forum Statement by Cllr Geoff Gollop on behalf of the
Conservative Group
I would start by acknowledging that the Report is a significant
improvement on previous presentations and that changes desperately need
to be made to the way in which service is managed and delivered. I also
note that this proposal deals with the North Bristol provision, which
was lacking from the June proposals.
In this respect, however, I am concerned that the North Bristol
proposals are not completely clear and that agreements still have to be
reached with both Bristol Charities and the PCT. These are potentially
key decisions in their own right.
It will not come as a surprise to you that my concerns about the overall
proposals largely relate to financial issues. As the Report notes,
there have been Members' Briefings but I had understood that the Cabinet
decision should be made on the information within this Report and I
strongly believe that there is insufficient information to assess the
risk and the possible range of outcomes.
The model as presented tells us
1.
2.
3.
30% conversion to home care is critical
realisation of properties are critical
unit cost of independent provision will not increase
significantly
For me to understand the figures, I have asked for the provision of a
range of figures with other variables remaining constant.
For example, if conversion rates were either 20% or 40% what would the
implication be? Similarly, if conversion remained at 30% but
independent sector costs increase by 5% or 10% above the assumed rate
what would the implications be? In both these examples, I would want to
know what the impact would be on the payback period and whether the
decision would still be viable.
Similarly, I have a concern about realisable values of sites in the
current economic climate. The Report identifies this as a risk but does
not address any mitigation or clearly explain potential implications.
I note the plan for a "stocktake" in 2 years' time. I have already
raised concerns that I do not believe 2 years is long enough to assess
whether Resource Centres will have been effective as they will have
substantially been used for accommodating those displaced from other
homes. I have a fear that this review leaves open the option to close
resource centres as part of this process, without them ever having been
fully used for the purpose set out in this report, including respite
care.
I also believe it would be sensible to highlight now criteria that need
to be measured at that stocktake and what the expectations will be.
Finally, I have very significant concerns for both staff and residents.
Assurances have been given that there will be no compulsory redundancies
but the process for dealing with staff reallocation seems far from clear
and questions raised by union representatives still have to be answered.
I also have concerns about residents and the length of time that
uncertainty will remain and the viability of homes with closure dates
some years hence as I believe demand for places will diminish. I also
have concerns about residents, particularly at Maesknoll, and the
consultation process which left them in totally changed circumstances.
Whilst today's proposals answer some of the initial questions, you will
see from the above that there are still a number of unanswered issues in
my mind and the points raised above are only the most significant of the
issues that concern me. In taking any decision, I believe Cabinet needs
to have answered these questions and I do not understand how these
questions could have been answered unless Cabinet has had additional
financial information over and above that in the public domain.
GG
3.9.08
Cllr G Gollop
C/o Conservative Office
Council House
ask for
telepho
email
our ref
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
date 18th September 2008
Dear Cllr Gollop
Re: Residential Futures
The Cabinet agrees that the Residential Futures report outlines much needed changes to
service management and delivery of residential care services for older people.
The concerns raised by Select Committee and other stakeholders about ensuring good
provision for north Bristol has been addressed. The Cabinet was not able to receive a
report naming Bengough House until the Memorandum had been finalised and the long
lead in time for Cabinet reports did not allow this to happen. I hope that the fact that the
Council has now formalised the agreement with Bristol Charities via a Memorandum of
Understanding which will enable the Council to acquire Bengough House, will allay your
concerns that the proposals were not completely clear in the report. Bengough House will
be refurbished by the Council for use as a care home for people with dementia enabling
current residents of Rockwell and Coombe to move into the new home in 2009.
I am disappointed that despite officer reports to Members of Select Committee and
Scrutiny Commission as well as several detailed briefings and presentations to Members,
you have remaining concerns about the financial implications. The Cabinet has also
received detailed presentations of the financial issues underpinning the financial
implications set out in the report. As you will be aware from the briefings to Members,
there is a wealth of information available and it is not reasonable to expect that this should
be set out in full in the report. The Cabinet is fully satisfied that the financial content
contained in the report is sufficient to enable a decision to be made on the proposals. All
of this financial information is available to be seen upon request and officers would be able
to arrange a meeting to answer further questions if Members wish.
The current economic climate does raise issues as you say, about the realisable values of
sites. You will be aware that the Council is able to decide to delay selling sites if there is a
view that the site will not realise its full value. Given the 5 year nature of this programme,
decisions will be taken about individual homes nearer the time. It is understood that
current estimates put the realisable value of sites at anything between -20% and +20% of
the current value. Given this variation and the length of the programme, it is felt best that
decisions are made at each stage. The Cabinet will not leave this programme of work
unfinished and will ensure that funding is available to enable the completion of the 5 year
piece of work to safeguard vulnerable adults.
The review to ‘take stock’ of the use of the Resource Centres mid way through the
programme is felt to give sufficient time to assess whether they have been effective and to
provide pointers for future service provision. However, the reason for ‘taking stock’ is
precisely to keep tabs on the demand and use. If at that time there is felt to be a need for
a further period of evaluation, this will be possible. The criteria for evaluation are being
drawn up now the Cabinet decision has been taken.
Similarly, the detail around opportunities for staff redeployment can be worked up now that
a decision has been taken in relation to the homes and it is known which are due to be
refurbished and which to close along with the timescales. It is not possible for officers to
work up this level of detail prior to a decision being made as the detail changes
significantly if the proposals are changed in relation to homes. Trade Union
representatives will again be welcomed in joining officers to undertake this work and in
supporting ACC staff. Now that the decision has been taken, residents and relatives will
have a lot of the uncertainty around the future removed. The proposals give a clear and
firm commitment to a programme of improvement over a 5 year period and each home is
identified within that programme. Meetings will be held again at each of the care homes to
explain the changes in detail at appropriate times. During consultation many people
expressed their desire to remain living in a council run care home and this is achievable for
them in the timescales set out for each home. There is unlikely to be the same level of
movement from council owned care homes, if people are certain that they will be able to
take up another council owned placement at a particular time. The model does not rely on
future demand for new places from people living in the community during the 5 year period
of change. However, it is anticipated that people will continue to choose a council owned
care home even if it is due to close at a specified time. Staff will in every case ensure that
people are fully aware of the status of that home at the time of making a placement.
I am visiting the residents and relatives/carers of residents at Maesknoll with the Director
of ACC in the near future. Officers have visited Maesknoll three times this year to keep
people up to date with the proposals and to listen to their views. The consultation was a
listening process and the views of a wide range of people have enabled the proposals to
be revised at various stages. As a result of and in response to this, the future of Maesknoll
had to be changed and officers met with residents and relatives/carers there to explain,
outlining that these were proposals with a final decision to be made by the Cabinet, and
offering full support throughout the coming years. It is unfortunate that Maesknoll will now
close, but every effort has been made to reduce the impact of this by ensuring that the
home remains open until 2012.
I hope that the answers set out above, allay the concerns raised in your statement.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
STATEMENT C 8
RESIDENTIAL FUTURES - MAESKNOLL EPH
What kind of consultation is it when residents and staff are assured that their home will not
be closed but will accommodate a Resources Centre and a few weeks later told sorry but it
will close in 2012 and Cabinet will take the final decision in a couple of weeks?
Both residents and staff have said they were so astounded at the news they were unable
to express their opinions or ask questions at the meetings on the 21st August but they are
devastated. Many of the residents are old rather than elderly and believed they were
settled for life in Maesknoll.
One of the reasons given for the closure is the distance of the home from local facilities. I
would contest this.
I admit you cannot pop across the road to a paper shop and it is a long way to a church of
any denomination but I have conducted a little research. Walking from the front door of
Maesknoll it took this elderly person 7 minutes to reach the nearest pub, 8 minutes to
reach the chip shop, 9 minutes to the health centre and chemists and 10 minutes to ASDA.
Going in the opposite direction and walking across Hengrove Park on a hard surface it
took 15 minutes to reach either the cinema or the Bingo hall and 20 minutes to reach the
furthest of the several restaurants.
By 2012 there will be further facilities, a library, 8 minutes walk away, and the community
hospital and Healthplex which I estimate will take 15 to 20 minutes to reach.
All of these destinations have or will have refreshment opportunities and of importance to
the elderly, toilet facilities available. Taken as a whole there are probably few other homes
with such a variety of accessible facilities in the vicinity.
The Health Scrutiny Commission often discuss how to encourage the older generation to
take more exercise. What better than to have these destinations just a short walk away to
keep people active? For the more infirm they are just as easy to reach by electric buggy.
If Maesknoll is so unsuitable for an EPH why was a new private care home, Bamfield
Lodge built recently further up Bamfield on the site of the Happy Cocks?
I urge the Cabinet to look again at this proposal and at least delay the decision until more
consultation can take place with all involved.
Cllr Mary Sykes
Cllr M Sykes
Liberal Democrat Office
Council House
ask for
telepho
email
our ref
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
date 18th September 2008
Dear Cllr Sykes
Residential Futures
I note your concerns regarding the consultation with residents, relatives/carers and staff at
Maesknoll.
Officers have visited Maesknoll three times this year to keep people up to date with the
proposals and to listen to their views. At each of these meetings, officers were careful to
make it clear that these were proposals only and that a final decision would be taken by
the Cabinet. No assurances were given at any of the meetings as this is not something
that the officers could guarantee.
The consultation was a listening process and the views of a wide range of people have
enabled the proposals to be revised at various stages. As a result of and in response to
this, the future of Maesknoll had to be changed and officers met with residents and
relatives/carers there to explain. It is unfortunate that Maesknoll will now close, but every
effort has been made to reduce the impact of this by ensuring that the home remains open
until 2012.
Your statement outlines only one of the criteria that were used to decide the suitability of
homes to remain open as Resource Centres. The other criteria are set out in the Cabinet
report of 4 September and again in an additional paper tabled at the meeting. The home’s
proximity to local services was indeed one criteria. Another key consideration was the
availability of other care services in the vicinity. Other homes earmarked to become
Resource Centres in the south of the city are either closer to local shops and services than
Maesknoll or have far fewer care services available close by. As your statement
acknowledges, a new 60 bedded care home has recently been built close to Maesknoll
and there are already other care homes and VSH schemes close by.
I will be visiting the residents and relatives/carers of residents at Maesknoll with the
Director of ACC in the near future to listen to the concerns of people there.
I hope that the answers set out above, allay the concerns raised in your statement.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
STATEMENT C 9
Ian Hird
Democratic Services
Bristol City Council
The Council House
College Green
Date:
Wednesday, 3rd September
2008
Ref:
Dear Mr Hird
Re: Residential Futures
Bristol Primary Care Trust has had involvement in the Residential Futures process and
has representation on the Stakeholder Group and the Project Board. Bristol PCT
welcomes the attention that has been given to assessing and developing the proposals
and the work that has been put into it by Bristol City Council and other Stakeholders.
Bristol Primary Care Trust supports the Council’s recommendations for the Residential
Futures project in Bristol.
Yours Sincerely
Richard Lyle
Head of Unscheduled & Out of Hospital Care
[email protected]
Tel: 0117 900 2284
R Lyle
Bristol PCT
King Square House
King Square
Bristol
BS2 8EE
ask for
telephone
email
our ref
date
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
9th September 2008
Dear Mr Lyle
Statement to Cabinet – Residential Futures
Thank you for your statement of support for the Council’s Residential Futures strategy. I
note that the Bristol PCT has been actively involved in shaping the proposals for the future
of the Council’s care homes and see this as a good example of both organisations working
in partnership for the benefit of Bristol citizens.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime
STATEMENT C 10
Statement to Cabinet, 4 September 2008
Residential Futures
There can be absolutely no doubt that something must be done about the state of Council
residential care. It should not be the case that older people for whose care we are
responsible should have to share bathrooms, put up with small living space, endure a
range of sub standard provision. If some people actually did think this was acceptable,
Government Inspectors made it crystal clear it was not a year ago, e.g. from a list of forty
items for improvement, “More people have to share rooms when they are admitted to
residential care in Bristol than in comparable councils”. Yet the Council's own survey told
them, what they surely shouldn't have needed to ask, that 95% of people would like to
have their own bathroom. It is hardly surprising that there has been a dramatic shift in
older people wanting to safeguard their independence, privacy and dignity by trying to stay
as long as possible in their own homes or in sheltered accommodation. How on earth
could we have got to this state of affairs, who was in charge of this Council for so many
decades? Who didn't listen to the increasing demand for greater independence in old age,
who, when the Lib Dems did start to tackle the backlog of neglect, poor management in a
careful and gradual way, actually campaigned against, in order to preserve these
unacceptable conditions. “It’s an inheritance” said one very senior source. An inheritance,
I would say, of a wish to keep things as they are or at least delay doing anything for as
long as possible, and ignore the clear evidence of people's needs. Therefore Bristol has
not provided enough support for people to stay at home when they would like to, less
indeed than other comparable cities, and so made more people resort to full residential
care. So it’s not surprising that when the present administration was unexpectedly
propelled into power by the Conservative party, they did nothing. Government Officers
and expert advice made clear that something had to be done, but month after month of
inactivity rolled by. Dither and delay is no longer possible. Our council homes built forty
years ago, have been allowed to get to an unacceptable state. Now everything has to be
done at once, and the administration is rushing around like headless chickens, shutting
homes all over the place in an orgy of closures, all 13 at one go in fact, causing massive
worry and uncertainty to residents, carers, and relatives, angering our long suffering staff,
damaging Bristol's good name. In a final twist, though it was long ago clear that there
wasn't a good geographic spread for what it proposed, nothing was done, despite urging
from one of their own supporters, so there is now a last minute frenzied flurry to deal with
this which includes an unacceptably abrupt u-turn in the future of Maesknoll and its
residents and staff. The Select Committee declined to endorse all this in view of the great
amount of uncertainty. It is not reasonable to offer any respectability to a process that,
over the years especially through the dither of the last fourteen months has paid such
scant regard to the people we have responsibility for.
Councillor Bev Knott
Cllr B Knott
C/O Liberal Democrat Office
Council House
ask for
telephone
email
our ref
date
Cllr Derek Pickup
0117 9222879
[email protected]
DP/LD
9th September 2008
Dear Cllr Knott
Statement to Cabinet – Residential Futures
The Cabinet is pleased to note Councillor Knott’s strong support for the need for change and
improvement of the council’s residential care homes in line with the Residential Futures proposals.
The Cabinet agree that a decision to modernise homes could have been taken sooner and would
remind Councillor Knott that the situation has existed since before the current administration took
office.
The Cabinet has approved a programme of improvements for Bristol’s older people in the delivery
of social care services that promotes choice and independence and enables a fair geographical
spread of residential services across the city. However, the Cabinet fully understands that
residents of homes that are due to close such as Maesknoll, and their carers, will be anxious about
the future and for this reason a full package of support has been developed during the Residential
Futures project and in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. Council officers have sought
to communicate the proposals clearly and sensitively at all stages but are aware that the news will
not be welcomed by some. As your statement outlines, change is necessary and will mean that
some people have to move to another home, but the Cabinet is pleased to be able to offer, in
response to consultation, an opportunity for all current residents to remain living in a council owned
home. Furthermore, the proposals enable many residents to remain living in the same home and
offers a new and improved living environment for residents moving into new care homes for people
with dementia.
The Cabinet is aware that officers met on numerous occasions with Councillor Knott and other
elected members of Select Committee and Scrutiny Commission in order to set out in detail the
financial implications of this project and to answer any questions. The Cabinet is satisfied that the
Residential Futures report contained all necessary financial information to enable a decision to be
taken on 4 September. Full background financial information is available to Councillor Knott or any
other elected member on request.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Care, Tackling Deprivation and Crime