Agenda item

All County Council Members have been invited to attend for this item.

All Members had been invited to attend for this item, and Mr N J D Chard, Mr D A Hirst, Mr P J Homewood, Mr R J Lees, Mr R F Manning and Mr L B Ridings were present.

Mr M Thomas-Sam, Head of Policy and Service Standards, was in attendance for this and item D1.

1.         Mr Thomas-Sam presented a series of slides which set out the reasons for the proposed changes, the consultation process and the responses to it. He emphasised that the proposed changes were in line with Fairer Charging and the practices of neighbouring local authorities.  KCC has a legal obligation to consult service users on any proposed changes to charges.

2.         Mr Gibbens reminded Members that no decision had yet been taken on the proposed changes.  The proposals had been considered by the Cabinet on 19 September, and he reminded Members of the commitment he had made at the POSC’s July meeting to listen to comments made by the Cabinet and the POSC (at its April and July meetings),  and to consider both when making the decision. He set out the reasons for the consultation:- to help people to live independently for as long as possible, to make the best use of scarce resources,  and to treat people as fairly as possible. He added that officers would also make sure benefits were maximised for all affected people.  He emphasised that Kent was amongst only 22 local authorities in the UK which had retained ‘Moderate’ eligibility criteria, and although Kent had always sought to protect and keep to this level, this inevitably had a cost.

3.         Mr Thomas-Sam and Mrs Howard responded to comments and questions from Members, and the following points were highlighted:-

a)         all service recipients, existing and new, will have an updated individual financial assessment which will aim to maximise their take-up of benefits for which they are eligible and assess their ability to pay any increased charges. If someone believes that their assessment is incorrect they can challenge it and ask for it to be re-calculated;

b)         for new clients who have not been financially assessed before, this assessment will be undertaken face to face, while for existing clients it will be undertaken using financial information already on record.  Clients will be notified that a review has been done using financial data held on record when they are informed of the new charges; 

c)         a report on the affect of the changes will be made to the POSC so that Members can monitor the impact.  It was suggested that this be made after one year, in autumn 2012;

d)         although fewer clients than previously access services, those who do tend to receive higher-value care packages; and

e)         the level of a client’s income which is protected is set by the Government every year, like benefit levels, and takes account of inflation.

4.         In debate, Members expressed the following concerns, to which Mrs Howard, Mr Thomas-Sam and Mr Gibbens responded (responses are shown in italics):-

a)         one of the stated aims of the consultation exercise was to help people understand how the proposed changes will affect them, but 20% of those submitting written comments had said either that the proposals were too complex for them to understand or that they felt the consultation process was a waste of time as they believed the decision had already been made. One of the key points of the consultation had been to explain and help people to understand the proposed changes, and officers and social workers were available to help explain them. The negative responses to the consultation were expected and understood, as it had been expected that people would not welcome any change which could lead to increased costs for them;

b)         the way in which consultation results are presented in the appendix attached to the report to the POSC appears unbalanced.  Officers had taken great care to ensure the clarity of the information presented;

c)         the ‘case study’ examples of the likely impact of the proposals all show an increase in care recipients’ costs of 30 to 40%. This would add to other increasing domestic costs (eg fuel and food) for the most vulnerable in society. When the charges for Domiciliary Care were increased in 2007, a cap was applied so that no-one would be asked to bear more than a 10% increase in any one year. The examples given are transparent and do not hide that fact that some people will need to pay more. People’s ability to pay will be assessed using prescribed guidelines, and anyone can request an individual assessment.  KCC has the power to use its discretion and can take account of individuals’ circumstances. For this reason, a cap is not being recommended;

Mr Gibbens stated his commitment to ensuring that the most vulnerable in society will be protected from being burdened with increases which cause genuine hardship.  Mrs Howard added that care management reviews and KCC’s links with partner organisations who visit clients’ homes will be used to check that people understand and are managing with the increased charges; and

d)         Members sought and received from Mr Gibbens an assurance that he would do all he could to ensure that all service users understand how changes will affect them before implementing the changes.   

5.         Mr L Christie proposed and Mr S J G Koowaree seconded that the recommendation on page 26 of the papers be amended to read “In view of the potential impact on the elderly and most vulnerable residents of Kent, this Scrutiny Committee recommends that the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health does not implement the suggested increases in non-residential charges. The Committee urges the Cabinet Member to seek to persuade the Cabinet that the relevant amount of money be found elsewhere and to look particularly at the £5 million Big Society Fund, none of which has yet been allocated”.

Lost by 9 votes to 2

A record of the way all Members present had cast their votes was requested:-

Those voting against were Mr R E Brookbank, Mrs P T Cole, Mr N J Collor, Mr J M Cubitt, Mrs V J Dagger, Mr C Hibberd, Mr M J Jarvis, Mr J E Scholes and Mr A T Willicombe.

Those voting for were Mr L Christie and Mr S J G Koowaree

6.         Mr L Christie then proposed and Mr S J G Koowaree seconded that the recommendation on page 26 of the papers be amended to read “In view of the potential impact on the elderly and most vulnerable residents of Kent, this Scrutiny Committee recommends to the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health that, if he is determined to implement the increased charges, he does so with an annual limit to any increase of 5% or £10 per week, whichever is the smaller amount.  Any shortfall of income to be met from elsewhere in the KCC Budget, with particular consideration being given to the £5 million Big Society Fund, none of which has yet been allocated”.

7.         In debating the motion, it was pointed out that Big Society funding would provide only a one-off payment when what is needed is an ongoing revenue source.  Members would need to have full assurance that assessments would be very thorough and that all account had been taken of individuals’ needs when charging them for services.

The motion in paragraph 6 above was then put to the vote.

Lost by 9 votes to 2

A record of the way all Members present had cast their votes was requested:-

Those voting against were Mr R E Brookbank, Mrs P T Cole, Mr N J Collor, Mr J M Cubitt, Mrs V J Dagger, Mr C Hibberd, Mr M J Jarvis, Mr J E Scholes and Mr A T Willicombe.

Those voting for were Mr L Christie and Mr S J G Koowaree

8.         RESOLVED that:-

a)         the information set out in the report and presentation and given in response to Members’ comments and questions be noted, with thanks;

b)         Members’ comments on the proposed changes to the policy, set out above, be taken into consideration by the Cabinet Member when taking the decision; and

c)         a report be made to the POSC in autumn 2012 so Members can see the impact of the proposed changes, if ultimately made.