Issue - meetings

Funding and Provision of Community Alarm and Telecare Services

 

 

Meeting: 08/10/2013 - Cabinet (Item 41)

41 Funding and Provision of Community Alarm and Telecare Services pdf icon PDF 79 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Health & Housing)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Health & Housing) to outline the impact of changes to Lancashire County Council’s funding and provision of community alarm and telecare services on the services provided by Lancaster City Council.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

 

Option 1: The council seeks to maintain an emergency call centre to provide the services that remain following the loss of the Lancashire Telecare and Supporting People contacts

Option 2: The council  reviews the services provided by the emergency call centre and considers how they could be provided in the future; including the consideration of alternative providers for the services and functions that would remain following the loss of the Lancashire Telecare and Supporting People contacts

Advantages

Local, flexible, responsive service delivered through a valued local knowledge base

Services provided to a specified standard, and achieves value for money

Reduction in costs.

Disadvantages

Service would be provided at a loss and the council would have to fund any deficit - expectation that financial costs of running the emergency call centre would not meet value for money principles. Does not provide for considering a wider range of options.

Potential loss of flexibility and knowledge

Risks

The volume of work would not be sufficient to warrant maintaining the emergency call centre, and its infrastructure. The loss of income from the contacts could not be replaced, and equivalent cost reduction could not be achieved.  The overall financial costs of running the emergency call centre would not meet value for money principles, and so would not be in the best interests of housing rent payers in particular.  Ultimately, risk of failure in the Council’s fiduciary duties, leading to challenge.

Control of future quality and cost of services.

 

The contractual arrangements will need to be robust and clear to ensure that future costs are controlled

 

 

The officer preferred option was option 2 to ensure that an appropriate service provision was maintained to the standard the Council required, achieving value for money and that future costs were controlled.  The loss of the Lancashire Telecare and Supporting People contacts would leave the Council’s emergency call centre in an unsustainable position, and maintaining the centre would not represent value for money. For this reason it was necessary to consider alternative provision for the service areas and work that would remain.

 

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:-

 

“That the recommendations as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

(1)                    That  the impact of the announcements of the County Council regarding  the provision of  telecare and community alarm services on the future viability on maintaining the emergency call centre be noted.

(2)                    That the services provided by the emergency call centre be reviewed and consideration given as to how they could be provided in the future.

(3)                    That officers be authorised to take action to ensure appropriate arrangements were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41