Agenda item

Mr M Thomas-Sam, Strategic Business Advisor, was in attendance for this item.

1.         Mr Thomas-Sam introduced the report and presented a series of slides which set out the content of the White Paper and the funding reforms relating to it, and the consultation process for the draft Care and Support Bill. He explained that the County Council’s draft response to the Bill was being reported to the Committee for comments, which would be taken into account when preparing the final response, which must be made to Government by 19 October 2012.  He highlighted key points as follows:-

• the White Paper and draft Bill have major implications for local authorities’ policy and practice
• this policy change is shaped by three key pieces of work – the report of the Dilnot Commission, a review of Adult Social Care legislation by the Law Commission and ‘Caring for our Future’
• most authorities have raised their eligibility criteria for services so they provide services only at a time of crisis
• the aim of the White Paper is to move away from crisis provision to early intervention and prevention, and to increase clients’ choice and control
• the Government has yet to give its formal response to the Dilnot Commission’s report, which was published in July 2012

2.         Mr Thomas-Sam and Mr Ireland responded to questions from Members and the following points of detail were highlighted:-

a)         the likely financial implications to the County Council of the recommendations in the Dilnot Commission’s report can be confirmed when all the relevant information is made available in autumn 2012, when an official announcement about the Government's decision on the cap is expected. The Commission believes that greater Government resources should be devoted to adult social care and the resources made available to local authorities should be ‘transparent’.  It estimates that, at current costs, the recommended changes would cost from around £1.3 billion (for a cap of £50,000) to £2.2 billion (for a cap of £25,000).  Relying on the general assumption that KCC receives about 2.5% of the national funding for social care, the cost to Kent may be £32.5m and £55m respectively, depending on where the cap is set. Mr Gibbens added that there was much more detail to take account of before costs can be seen clearly, and assured Members that this detail would become clear in the coming months; 

b)         it is important to be cautious with figures, however, as the social care system is predicated on the basis that many people fund their own care and have preserved rights.  Kent has more self-funders than KCC-supported clients. The Dilnot recommendations will change the way in which these self-funders are considered in financial calculations;

c)         local authorities have the freedom to use what means they wish to undertake carers’ assessments.  KCC currently uses a variety of methods; some are in-house and some are undertaken via carers’ organisations and voluntary organisations; 

d)         deferred payments (ie awaiting the sale of a client’s property to pay for the care they are already receiving) are a central pillar of Government policy, and the aim is to offer choice and flexibility for clients to  access and pay for services; and

e)         how the debts which inevitably arise from deferred payments are managed is an ongoing concern, and officers are not satisfied that what is proposed in the new Bill to address this is sufficient.

3.         In debate, Members made the following comments on the draft Bill.  Officers’ responses to comments are shown in italics:-

a)         it seems a very well-meaning document but I question how achievable it is, as it comes with very limited funding;

b)         ‘care to suit the client’ sounds good but is very difficult to deliver.  For example, as a limited number of care workers have limited time to make calls, they cannot possibly visit all clients at a time when each client would ideally like to be visited;

c)         it seems sensible to co-ordinate care workers’ client lists so one person visits several clients living close together.  This will save them spending valuable time travelling from one client to another across a distance.  This is a good point, as future contracts could be let around smaller geographical areas. However, maintaining continuity and a good relationship between client and carer are important;  

d)         in looking at social care funding, it is important to bear in mind the rapid changes which take place in the care sector. I am concerned about complaints about care provision which arise, and how these are/will be treated; and

e)         I am concerned about suitable training for care workers, how this will be implemented and of what quality it will be; the funding which accompanies the draft Bill includes a limited national training budget, of which Kent will receive around 2 - 3%. National minimum standards for training will be set, although it is not yet known what these will be.  KCC will oversee training, as it does now.  The building blocks of good social care provision are all in place; they can just be expanded to address contractual obligations to meet clients’ requirements, and when Domiciliary Care contracts are next re-let the new changes will be factored in. 

4.         The Cabinet Member, Mr Gibbens, thanked Members for the comments they had made and confirmed that they would be taken into account in the County Council’s final response to the draft Care and Support Bill.

5.         RESOLVED that:-

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

b)         Members’ comments, set out in paragraph 3 above, be taken into account in the County Council’s final response to the draft Care and Support Bill.