Agenda item

The Strategic Director Social Care and Education submits a report to provide Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission with an update on the proposal made by Leicestershire County Care Limited (LCCL) to change the Terms and Conditions of staff that transferred from the Council’s employment in 2015.

The Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission is recommended to note the content of the report and are invited to provide comment and feedback to the Strategic Director and Executive.

The Chair agree to hear the agenda items out of order and took the following report next.

The Strategic Director Social Care and Education submitted a report which provided the Commission Members with an update on the proposal made by Leicestershire County Care Limited (LCCL) to change the Terms and Conditions of staff that had transferred from the Council’s employment in 2015.

Members were recommended to note the report and provide and comments and feedback to the Strategic Director and Executive.

It was noted that Members had received a report on the situation at the last meeting of the Commission on 30^th June 2020, whereby it was believed LCCL were at the end of their consultation process with staff members. It was reported that subsequently the LCCL had imposed new terms and conditions, and officers were of the understanding from Unison that those staff affected did sign new contracts on 4^th July 2020. There had been no staffing issues raised, and checks had been made to ensure there were adequate staffing levels. It was further noted that the terms and conditions imposed on them were still better than those commonly used in the care home system, though it was pointed out that terms and conditions across the sector were below the standard that officers believed was required to reflect the demands of the work.

Members had previously been informed of a request from LCCL to defer a capital payment. The Council had responded by asking LCCL to defer the change to terms and conditions, with no response given. Therefore, the remainder payment to the Council for the sale of the home was expected on the existing timetable at the end of October 2020 and no extension would be granted.

Members raised concern that standards would decline over a period of time, and asked for a recommendation that officers keep a watching brief on the deferral of payment, and that the care homes be monitored in twelve months-time to see if there had been any long-term implication on the change of conditions and staff turnover.

Councillor Russell, Deputy City Mayor, Social Care and Anti-Poverty stated that the LCCL had not approached the Council again for a deferral in payment. It was noted that the previous report had mentioned the regular checks made by the Quality Team, and that contact with Unison would be maintained and staff would continue to be supported. It was agreed that an update report on payment and quality of care would be brought back to the Commission at a future meeting.

It was also asked if the guise of choice of care was a misnomer and an aspiration. Councillor Russell agreed that choice could be a misnomer, but that personal funds dictated what choice people did or did not have. Tracie Rees added that if a home was not adhering to quality checks and there were concerns, the authority could take action and in some cases in the past had terminated contracts. It was noted that moving residents was the last resort, and if required was not undertaken lightly, the preference being to work with a care home to improve standards. It was further stated that with regards to choice there were 103 care homes in the city and as a council had contracts with 99 of them, and depending on an individuals’ circumstances, a person might not get first choice because of vacancies available.

Councillors asked if Essex County Council had been contacted to discuss what had happened with the care company in their area, highlighting that Essex County Council had given ECCL a reference, and since where there had been a period of failing and regulatory problems that meant 64 people had to be moved from their care setting when homes were mothballed. It was further noted that two key performance indicators that ECCL used were to monitor bed occupancy rates and the proportion of turnover spent on wage costs, and no mention of the quality of care. In response officers had not spoken to Essex, with the preference for the authority to follow its own checks but would be happy to contact Essex if Members felt it would be of benefit.

Martin Samuels apologised and left the meeting at this point due to attendance at another meeting.

The Chair stated that the saga with LCCL had been appalling and referred to discussions in previous meetings how the company had treated its staff deplorably and had been challenged on occasions. Being a private company, it was recognised the authority had done as much as it could to ensure staff welfare was considered and was confident Unison would ensure staff employee terms and conditions were also met. The Chair added the matter had been deliberated fully and most Members had voiced valid concerns as the situation had developed over the months and he agreed with Members the Commission should keep a watching brief on the company with regards to the deferral of payment. As a recommendation it was requested an update report be brought to a future meeting in 12 months’ time, and for the authority to apply appropriate pressure to ensure the welfare of staff be maintained and that standards be maintained.

Councillor Kitterick asked that officers to have a conversation with Essex County Council about their experience would be valuable and should be added to the recommendation.

The Chair thanked the officers for the report.

AGREED:

1.    The report and comments by the Scrutiny Commission Members be noted.

2.    That an update report be brought to a future meeting of the Scrutiny Commission in 12 months’ time to see if there had been any long-term implications on the change of conditions and staff turnover.

3.    Officers keep a watching brief on the deferral of payment.

4.    Officers to have conversation with Essex County Council about their experience with ECCL.