Agenda item

Mr K G Lynes, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services, and Mr O Mills, Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services, will attend the meeting at 11.10 am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

(1)       Mr K G Lynes, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services; Mr O Mills, Managing Director, and Mr M Thomas-Sam, Head of Policy and Service Development, Kent Adult Social Services, attended the meeting to answer Members’ questions on this matter, which covered the following issues:-

Design of Consultation Exercise

(2)       In answer to questions from Mr Christie and Mrs Dean, Mr Mills explained that Kent Adult Social Services (KASS) usually involved disabled people fully in plans for consultations, but that it had been inappropriate to do so on this occasion because the proposals had to remain confidential until they had been reported to the Adult Social Services Policy Overview Committee.

(3)       He accepted that the issues covered by the consultation were very complex and he and his staff had made every effort to present the information in a readily-understood way without over simplifying it.  He believed that the response to the consultation (at 30%) demonstrated that they had struck the right balance.

Public Meetings

(4)       In answer to questions from Mr Christie and Dr Eddy, Mr Mills said that the public meetings were only one of a number of ways offered to service-users to enable them to respond to the consultation.  Venues had been chosen for the public meetings which were reasonably central, had adequate parking, and offered accessibility for disabled people.  Feedback from those attending the meetings would be taken into account when considering venues for future public meetings.

Responses to Consultation Exercise

(5)       In answer to a question from Mr Christie, Mr Mills accepted that those likely to be affected by the increase in charges had a greater incentive to respond than others, and that human nature meant that they were likely to oppose the increase.  Taking this into account, the Consultation Analysis Report attempted to summarise the responses to the consultation fairly.

Analysis of Key Topics from Consultation

(6)       In answer to a question from Mr Christie, Mr Lynes said that he did not accept that KASS “wasted money”.  Indeed, he believed that it was consistently seeking better value for money and this was illustrated by the many initiatives being taken by KASS to make access to services easier and to improve efficiency.

Proposed Increase from 65% to 85% of Available Income Taken into Account to Work Out a Person’s Charge

(7)       In answer to questions from Mrs Newell, Mr Mills said that the new level was in line with Government policy.  Nevertheless, the decision to adopt this level of increase had only been taken after very careful thought, recognising the impact it would have on service-users, particularly those on fixed incomes.

(8)       Mr Lynes said that, at 65%, Kent had been at a lower level than all neighbouring authorities.  Even at 85%, Kent was still lower than most of its neighbours.

(9)       Mr Mills confirmed that consideration had been given to phasing in the increase over time but it would be difficult to do this in a way that would be equitable to all service-users, and it would create complexity which would result in the transaction costs exceeding the benefits to service-users.

Funding for Adult Social Care

(10)     In answer to questions from Mrs Newell, Mr Lake and Mrs Dean, Mr Lynes said that he had fought hard, and he believed successfully, in Cabinet for increases in the budget for Adult Social Services.

(11)     Mr Lynes also said that the County Council continued to press Government to inject extra funding into adult social care.  He was keen to take this, and Mrs Newell’s suggestion that Government should transfer unclaimed Pension Credits into funding for adult social care, forward on a cross-party basis with support from service-users and organisations representing service-users.

Eligibility Criteria

(12)     In answer to questions from Mr Christie and Mr Law, Mr Lynes said that one option to save money would have been to restrict the eligibility criteria by ceasing to provide care for ‘moderate’ needs, as a number of authorities had done.  He was anxious not to do this because of the deleterious effect on clients.  In addition, experience elsewhere had shown that the savings from restricting the eligibility criteria had been less than originally anticipated.  This was because the condition of those clients excluded from care by restriction of the criteria tended to worsen quickly and so, after only a short period, they re-presented with ‘substantial’ or even ‘critical’ needs, which involved a much higher cost to the authority.

Views of Disability Groups

(13)     At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs Wendy Sage and Mrs Vicci Chittenden, who both represented disability groups in Kent, spoke about the impact which the new domiciliary care charges would have on disabled people.

Conclusions

(14)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)       Mr Lynes, Mr Mills and Mr Thomas-Sam be thanked for attending the meeting to answer Members’ questions, and Mrs Sage and Mrs Chittenden be thanked for attending to give evidence on behalf of the organisations they represented;

(b)       postponement of implementation of the decision not be required, but the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services be requested to consider again whether the increase from 65% to 85% (of available income taken into account to work out a person’s charge) should be phased in over time or some sort of transitional relief offered to those most seriously affected;

(c)        the Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services, be advised of the Committee’s view that it was unfortunate that disabled persons’ groups were not involved in the planning of this consultation exercise, as would normally be the case.

(d)       the Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services, be recommended to report to the Adult Social Services Policy Overview Committee on:-

(i)         domiciliary care charges:-

·        comparative statistics for all UK authorities on charging policies and eligibility criteria;

·        justification for capital and income disregards, and whether action should be taken to seek modification of these;

·        possibility of lobbying Government for increase in Social Services element of RSG and/or for allocation to Social Services authorities of unclaimed Pension Credits;

(ii)        impact of direct payments policy.