Agenda item

Cllr Neil Fawcett, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources, Cllr Tim Bearder, Cabinet Members for Adults, Cllr Dan Levy, Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation, Lorna Baxter, Executive Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer, and Victoria Baran, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care, have been invited to present a Business Management Monitoring Report (BMMR) with a focus of Adult Social Services.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr Neil Fawcett, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources, Cllr Dan Levy, Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation, Kathy Wilcox, Head of Corporate Finance, Pippa Corner, Deputy Director of Joint Commissioning HESC, and Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, were invited to present a Business Management Monitoring Report (BMMR) with a focus of Adult Social Services.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation reported an underspend in adult social care due to strong financial management. Oxfordshire County Council outperformed most peers in helping vulnerable adults remain at home. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation also emphasised the need for government reform in adult social care despite the Council’s strong performance and highlighted possible challenges linked to NHS administrative changes.

 

Cllr Pressel rejoined the meeting at this stage.

 

The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC and the Head of Corporate Finance presented the adult social care Business Management and Monitoring report, highlighting strong collaboration between Oxfordshire County Council and the NHS amid upcoming Integrated Care Board (ICB) changes aimed at supporting frontline services. The financial overview showed an overall underspend and effective use of the Better Care Fund. They noted reduced care home use and increased home care, both linked to the Oxfordshire Way initiative.

 

The Committee discussed the report raising the following concerns and questions:

 

·       Clarification on the Council's NHS relationship, noting that over 40% of Council spending goes to adult social care and citing possible effects from NHS administrative changes. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation explained that some service income is shared with the NHS, particularly for those transitioning between health and social care, and warned that changes to ICBs could disrupt current arrangements. The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC said Oxfordshire had had strong NHS partnerships and that structural changes aimed to direct more resources to frontline services, but maintaining close collaboration is vital. She emphasised that local funding should not be affected, though ongoing cooperation remains important given the complexity involved.

 

·       Members inquired about care home vacancies, referencing a 14% reduction in activity, and asked how this impacted the financial sustainability of care homes and their ability to fill spaces previously purchased by the Council. The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC stated that the care market in Oxfordshire remained stable, with established relationships and a transparent care homes framework. She clarified that the Council aimed to support individuals to live independently for as long as possible, which resulted in fewer care home bed usages and shorter stays.

 

The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC observed that approximately 54% of the care market is made up of self-funders, with Council use comprising only a portion. She indicated that the Council prioritises paying fair and transparent rates to providers and supporting overall market sustainability.

 

·       Members expressed concerns about inadequate housing, particularly regarding adaptation to heat events, which could cause earlier entry into care homes. They also questioned the impact of the construction of new private care homes and the related risks if capacity was misaligned. The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC replied that it was uncommon for people to leave care settings for their own homes; the focus had been on supporting independent living or moving individuals to more suitable housing. She highlighted that factors like housing quality and climate were outside adult social care’s control, emphasising that collaboration with housing experts and the use of disabled facilities grants had been important.

 

On private care home capacity, The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC stated that Oxfordshire had sufficient provision and generally did not support new applications, as the aim was prolonged independent living. Furthermore, overprovision could dilute workforce and resident distribution without clear benefits to the Council or residents.

 

·       Members asked about the 22 new beds for individuals with learning disabilities, seeking clarification on their designation, cost savings, and County Council management. The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC explained that the initiative was part of the Resonance Supported Homes Fund, aimed at providing permanent housing in Oxfordshire to prevent out-of-county placements. She clarified that the Council commissioned partner providers to deliver care, supporting independent living rather than direct provision.

 

The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC noted this approach improved quality of life and, while sometimes more expensive, was more cost-effective than institutional care. She confirmed the Council planned to expand this model as part of its long-term accommodation strategy.

 

The Deputy Director of Commissioning HESC left the meeting at this stage.

 

·       The Committee inquired whether any budget underspends in adult social care were connected to government grants, and if such was the case, whether unspent grant funds would be forfeited. The Head of Corporate Finance clarified that adult social care is financed through a combination of sources, including specific government grants. She further explained that any underspend on ring-fenced grants would be allocated to reserves for future use rather than being forfeited and noted that only a small number of grants have conditions requiring repayment if funds are not spent within the financial year.

 

·       Members questioned the report’s claim that transport emissions are difficult to decarbonise, noting that switching to electric vehicles should help, especially since the Council has few large vehicles. They also asked whether the household waste recycling metric measures collection or actual recycling, warning it could be misleading if reduced consumption isn’t considered. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation clarified the emissions figure is county-wide, not just for Council vehicles, and noted replacing specialist fleet vehicles is challenging. He agreed the recycling metric should be regularly reviewed to accurately measure performance, including both consumption and recycling.

 

·       Members asked about delays in introducing lane rental charges for environment and highways, questioning the cause and the Council’s actions. The Director explained the scheme had not been implemented because DfT had not responded to the Council’s application, despite all required information being provided and an earlier decision expected. Consequently, expected scheme savings will not be realised this or next financial year.

 

The Committee AGREED to the following actions:

 

• More information on the high functioning autism budget, deputyship management, and the reasons for vacant posts in adult social care. The Head of Corporate Finance agreed to provide detailed responses to these queries. 

 

• For more information regarding the total number of people accepted into domestic abuse safe accommodation. Specifically, there was concern about the unmet need for safe accommodation, with reasons including longer stays and single people without children occupying family rooms. The request was to understand what plans are in place to build more safe accommodation to meet this need.

 

• There was confusion over the figures in the property strategy section of the report. Members noted a discrepancy between the capital expenditure figures: £21.9 million mentioned in the narrative and £21.7 million listed in a table. The Head of Corporate Finance agreed to investigate the discrepancy and provide a detailed explanation to the Scrutiny Manager.