Report from City of Edinburgh Council Health, Social Care and Housing Committee, 19th May 2009

Three delegations attended the committee and the public gallery was packed out in support. Each delegation was allowed 5 minutes ot make their case and then 10 minutes for questions for all three groups.

The Learning Disability Alliance Scotland delegation made points on

  • · Waiting lists for Direct Payments
  • · Lack of investment in supporting people taking up Direct payment
  • · Concerns over the quality of service that people received and the failure to incorporate Care Commission reports in assessing the quality of new services

· The importance of staff relationship in good care and the danger of overreliance on TUPE to manage staff transfer in tendering.

The Powerful Partnerships delegation made points on

  • · Concerns over cost savings
  • · Lack of involvement of service users in the process
  • · The wish of service users to retain their existing services

The CAPS delegation also made points on

  • · Service user involvement
  • · Quality of care
  • · Direct payments

A number of questions were asked from the floor and then Sue Brace responded to some of the points made.

She said

  • 1. The council was working hard to ensure quality of new services
  • 2. Not everyone who has existing services is happy with the services they have
  • 3. There are a range of costs for existing services from £10.30 to £30 per hour. This had to be sorted
  • 4. There are people waiting for services who cannot get one – these are voices not heard.
  • 5. Of the 770 people affected, 69 (10%) have applied for a Direct Payment and they council have speeded up the process and brought in 2 new staff to help
  • 6. Not everyone’s service will change – the council has confidence that many local providers already provide a good service. And will win contracts
  • 7. The council is working on a personalisation report
  • 8. They understand the importance of relationship and will put these into future contracts.

Ewan Aitken’s motion was opposed by Councillor Edie who proposed an amendment that deleted all the original motion and did not allow for any more feedback from the conference. It did note that feedback from service users and providers would be collected when the tender process was finished.


Cllr Edie said he could not speak to the conference as

  1. he might be mistaken and give out wrong information
  2. He might give competitive advantage to some providers.

He said the Homelessness tender had been a great success generating an extra 500 hours of extra support per week.

After a strong debate the amendment was passed 13:5

There was a further debate over the question of care and support services for people with low to moderate needs. This motion was also lost 13:5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *