Agenda item

Cindy Carter addressed the Panel with regard to the current budget proposals, a copy of the statement can be found as an online appendix to these minutes, on the Panel’s Minute Book and a summary is set out below.

“I recognise that the Council is operating in a challenging financial and operational environment, and I appreciate the difficult decisions adult social care faces. The current consultation proposes achieving savings through future recommissioning of learning disability services and through Care Act reviews with a stronger focus on cost-effectiveness. While these are described as efficiency measures, for people with learning disabilities—especially those with profound and complex needs—they have real consequences for how care is commissioned, reviewed, and delivered.

For people like my son, care is not optional or flexible. It relies on stable providers, skilled staff, and consistent, trusted support. Cost-driven changes can reduce staffing levels, lower skill mixes, disrupt continuity, or destabilise providers. These are not abstract concerns: they can lead to safeguarding risks, deterioration in health, loss of skills, and more restrictive support rather than greater independence.

A key concern is timing. I would welcome reassurance from the Committee on how outcomes for people with learning disabilities will be protected when the recommissioning framework is not yet in place. 

People with learning disabilities are a protected group under the Equality Act. Small changes in commissioning or review practices can have disproportionately large impacts, so careful mitigation is essential as proposals develop.

Co-production is a statutory requirement under the Care Act 2014. At present, there has been limited meaningful involvement of people with learning

disabilities, their families, or Court-appointed deputies. Strengthening engagement would help ensure decisions reflect how services work in practice, supporting continuity and stability for those most affected.

There are positive local examples to build on. The commissioning of respite provision at Newton House has shown the value of co-production, user choice, and continuity of care. I encourage the Council and the Committee to apply these lessons to the recommissioning of supported living services, so future models are shaped by lived experience and deliver the stability, quality, and outcomes that matter most to individuals and families.”

Alan Carter addressed the Panel with regard to the current budget proposals, a copy of the statement can be found as an online appendix to these minutes, on the Panel’s Minute Book and a summary is set out below.

“I am here as a Dad and as Court of Protection appointed Joint and Several Deputy for my son, who has a profound learning disability and complex health care needs. He lives in supported living and relies on commissioned care and support to meet his needs safely and lawfully.

The Committee will be considering proposed local authority budget proposals, which include changes affecting people with learning disabilities through care package reviews and the recommissioning of services.

We are seeing challenges between B&NES Council and BSW ICB in determining which organisation is responsible for meeting assessed needs under the Care Act. These are not abstract issues—they arise in day-to-day care planning. While funding responsibilities are clarified:

• Care can be delayed or questioned,

• Families and deputies are placed in the position of helping resolve funding disputes between B&NES Council and BSW ICB, causing uncertainty and stress,

• And people with learning disabilities may face increased risk.

The law is clear: Care Act assessed needs must be met, and funding disagreements must not disrupt care. We recognise the pressures on both organisations, but these duties remain critical and statutory.

It is equally important to consider how joint working between the local authority and ICB can be strengthened so that care delivery is not adversely affected.

This is not simply a financial issue—it is about ensuring that public bodies work together effectively to uphold their legal and ethical duties to some of our most vulnerable citizens. By approaching these challenges collaboratively, we can ensure that care remains safe, reliable, and person-centred.”

The Chair thanked them both for their statements on behalf of the Panel.

Councillor Liz Hardman asked if they had received any information regarding the recommissioning framework which has led to them seeking some assurances.

Cindy Carter replied that they had not as it had not been published. She added that it was because this remains unclear that they have raised their points as they would like to know the level of impact it will have.

Councillor Hardman asked if they would like to comment further on their concerns over the ICB and the Council to work together to provide continuity of care.

Cindy Carter replied that the concerns were around the organisations and how they differ in their ways of funding. She explained that some recipients have a combined social and health care package and some will just one of the two elements. She said that there was a need to fully establish which bodies cover which packages of care.

Councillor Joanna Wright asked if they were aware of any disputes regarding care packages. She said that she understood the level of complexity in the current system and that parents and carers have to do a lot of work to be able to navigate their way through it.

Cindy Carter replied that it was indeed very difficult to navigate, especially as the system evolves. She said that co-production should be supported as much as possible and highlighted the importance of Care Act Assessed needs -v- other core needs.

Councillor Wright suggested the Panel analyse the issue further in a future meeting, including coproduction between the Council and the ICB.

Councillor David Harding asked if they could provide any practical examples of the difficulties of having to navigate between two systems.

Cindy Carter said that it was a statutory responsibility to provide needs identified under a Care Act Assessment, but that a difference of opinion could come about over Chiropody and whether that is accounted for under social or health care. She explained that a compliance process is in place, but that can be long and quite onerous.

She added that having a named Social Worker would be of a high benefit and that for those people who have complex needs a high level of experience is required.

The Assistant Director for Operations & Safeguarding stated that joint funding is in place for around 400 individuals across the Council and that they could bring a future report to the Panel about the funding process. She said that they would attempt to make clear what services Adult Social Care can and cannot fund.

She explained that despite it being a recognised recommendation to have a named Social Worker, there are not the resources available locally to provide this. She added that for those people who are deemed to be a complex case they were working towards all having a main contact within the Council.

Lucy Baker, Director, BSW ICB thanked them both for their statements and said that a full response would be provided regarding their concerns. She added that they were aware of their statutory responsibilities for funding and that services were delivered through health representatives and commissioners.

She stated that the process for making joint decisions between the ICB and the Council has been strengthened.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson addressed the Panel. She spoke about a charity, Swallow, in her own ward that enables children and young people to maximise their potential through education and training.

She said that as a councillor you can be presented with a complex situation and need to find out if it is typical and how or if it can be resolved.

She commented that the report written regarding Adult Social Care complaints had been well written by the Complaints and Data Protection Team Manager.

She stated that she was concerned about the proposed savings within the budget and how they were to be achieved. She said that input should be sought from service users to establish a better quality of care.

She said that she supported earlier comments made and would welcome further coproduction across the Council.

The Chair thanked her for her statement on behalf of the Panel.

Rosie Phillips, Chief Executive, Developing Health & Independence (DHI) addressed the Panel. She acknowledged that it was a difficult climate for many organisations at the current time and said communication was therefore key to making sure that all parties are aware of decisions or potential changes.

She stated that many local people depend on stable, local services for support and said that DHI had provided many services within B&NES over the past 25 years. She added that she felt that they had also delivered value for money services for the funding they received.

She explained that the loss of the Drug & Alcohol Treatment contract was a big issue for DHI and encouraged the Council to scrutinise their successor on the delivery of the contract.

She informed the Panel that funding for Reach, their housing support service, had recently changed from a contract to grant funding.

She stated that she felt let down by a lack of communication from the Council and said organisations need to be made aware of decisions or the potential for change in a timely manner to enable them to plan and structure accordingly.

Councillor Hardman said that she was sorry to hear of issues encountered as part of the procurement process and thanked DHI for their many years of work within the area.

Councillor Michael Auton commented that having previously been in contact with DHI he would welcome the opportunity to discuss with them the services they provide.

Councillor Wright asked when had been the last time that DHI had been able to have a meeting with the Council relating to funding and contracts.

Rosie Phillips replied that a meeting had been held in November 2025. She added that they were informed that funding to Reach was likely to be cut by a third, but are still unsure as to the timing of this decision.

Kevin Burnett asked what would be the main thing that the Council could do to improve the budget process.

Rosie Phillips replied that communication was the key area to improve upon. She said that organisations need notice to plan their work, fundraising, recruitment, structure – this all takes time to plan. She added that it was also disappointing that the procurement process was solely a paper exercise with no interviews carried out.

Councillor Alison Born, Cabinet Member for Adult Services commented that these matters would have been dealt with as part of the Public Health procurement process and said that Housing was not part of her portfolio.

The Chair thanked Rosie Phillips for her statement on behalf of the Panel and requested that the Panel receive a report on the procurement processes for both Adult Social Care and Public Health at a future meeting.