Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health and the Corporate Director of Social Care, Health and Wellbeing, and to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member on the proposed decision to approve changes to the charging policy, as detailed in the report.

Mr M Thomas-Sam, Head of Strategy and Business Support, was in attendance for this item, with Miss Goldsmith.

1.            Miss Goldsmith and Mr Thomas-Sam introduced the report and explained that, of the three proposed changes to charging set out in the report’s recommendation, the first two had already been introduced by most local authorities. Under the Care Act 2014, self-funders now had enhanced rights to seek assistance from their local authority.

2.            Miss Goldsmith, Mr Thomas-Sam and Mr Ireland responded to comments and questions from Members, as follows:-

a)    concern was expressed that a change from a levy of £1 for every £500 to £1 for every £250 of a client’s savings was a large increase to make all at once.  Mr Thomas-Sam advised that the change sought to equalise the situation for clients living in their own homes and those in long-term care; 

b)    in response to a question about other local authorities’ approach to charging an arrangement fee, Miss Goldsmith advised that most other authorities charged one.  The arrangement fee in Kent was confirmed as being £104 per annum;

c)    a view was expressed that the changes proposed were not necessary and would generate minimal income, compared to the £26m given by the Government to the County Council for social care for 2017-18.  Mr Ireland explained that the changes had been planned for and included in the County Council’s budget for 2017-2018.  He commented that, although the £26m of Government money would have an impact upon the County Council’s budget, it would not solve the ongoing shortfall in funding for social care, which was a national issue, and the changes proposed had to be considered as part of this larger picture;

d)    a view was expressed that changes should not necessarily go ahead just because they had been planned in the budget, as money given since must have had some impact on the funding picture; and

e)    in response to a question about what was included in the consideration of a client’s second or additional property, Miss Goldsmith confirmed that this would not include the house content.

3.            Mr A Marsh proposed and Mr P Homewood seconded that the three parts of recommendation a) be not activated yet as the income they would generate may be insufficient to justify their introduction, and a suggestion that consideration of these proposed changes be deferred until the £26m given to County Council by Government in the recent budget (since this report had been written) had been spent.

4.            The Cabinet Member, Mr Gibbens, sympathised with the concerns expressed and the suggestion made but said that, even with the £26m, the County Council’s social care budget was still challenging.  He emphasised the breadth and range of service provision which had to be achieved within the funding available to the County Council.  Another view was expressed that, although the £26m was a one-off payment, there were many ongoing expenses which would need to be covered in this and every subsequent year.  It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7