Agenda item

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health and the Corporate Director for Social Care, Health & Wellbeing that sets the preparatory  work for the implementation of the Act and the current assessment of the main financial and other implications. 

1.                  Mr Thomas-Sam and Ms Grosskopf presented a series of slides which set out the new legal framework, the key changes to social care policy and practice which were required as a result, and the policy choices facing the local authority in the way in which it responded to these. There would be two phases of change – in 2015 and 2016 – covering different aspects of policy. Regulations relating to some aspects of new guidance, eg care caps – had not yet been issued, although advance work on introducing new rules would be required to start in October 2015. The Government was currently consulting on the first stage (the 2015 changes) only, and the County Council would need to submit its response to the consultation by the closing date of 15 August. Hence the Cabinet Committee was being given the opportunity to contribute to the Council’s response. Mr Thomas-Sam and Ms Grosskopf responded to comments and questions from Members, as follows:-

a)    the delegation of the assessment function to local authorities meant that authorities could choose the assessment model they wished to use.  There was a range of models currently in use;

b)    changes to the rules around debt recovery (removal of s.22 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications  Act) would mean that, from April 2015, local authorities would no longer be able to place a change on a client’s property  without the property owner’s permission.  Only a County Court would now have the power to place such a charge.  Legal charges can be placed under Deferred Payments legislation (both now and under the Care Act) but the client’s agreement would be needed for this;

c)    the changes in the new Act meant that more people than before would be covered by the formal care system;

d)    when a carer’s support needs were assessed, the cost of that support would be identified and they would be able to take up a Personal Budget to pay for that support, if they wished to. Last year, the County Council spent approximately £6 - 7million (which included some NHS money) on support to carers to help them to maintain their vital role;

e)    concern was expressed that the proposed government funding allocated to each local authority to help them prepare for the necessary changes was insufficient, and that much of it was not new money but part of local authorities’ existing grant.  In addition to the funding for 2015-16 and beyond, the Government has allocated £125,000 in the current financial year to each local authority to help them prepare for the changes.  Mr Thomas-Sam explained that all local authorities, regardless of their size, had been given the same financial allocation, and this would need to cover research work such as identifying the number of self-funders (which in Kent was very high). He assured Members that the Leader of the County Council was lobbying as part of the County Councils’ network to influence the way in which funding for the 2015 and 2016 changes was to be allocated.  There would be a separate consultation on the funding allocations for 2016/2017;

f)     the fairness of the blanket £125,000 allocation was challenged as it did not take any account of a local authority’s size or the issues it had to address.  Mr Ireland said he had been disappointed by the funding allocation.  With regard to the funding generally, he highlighted the risks that this could lead to in 2016, eg the greater impact on Kent due to its large number of self-funders and the uncertainty which would always accompany any major change happening at the time of a general election;

g)    Ms Grosskopf explained that the Government had tried to set the new national minimum eligibility criteria (from April 2015) at a level, broadly equivalent to the current ‘substantial’ level.  However, analysis of the draft eligibility regulations so far suggested that the level would be in fact closer to Kent’s current ‘moderate’ level (although a definitive view had not yet been reached by officers).  The implications that this would have for the County Council were not yet clear, particularly as the final regulations (due to be released in October) may be different;

h)   concern was expressed about the projected increase in the number of assessments required – potentially a 100% increase – and the time-consuming nature of these assessments.  The ability for clients to undertake self-assessments was a key part of the way forward in the new Care Act; and

i)     Mr Thomas-Sam explained that the component costs of residential care would be considered separately – care costs and ‘hotel’ costs – and only the care costs would count towards the cap. There would be ongoing liability for the ‘hotel’ costs but this would be means-tested. Ms Grosskopf undertook to send out to Members a set of example case studies to illustrate the effect of the changes.

2.            Mr Ireland said the questions raised during the debate were indicative of the importance of the changes brought in by the Act, which was the largest change made to social care policy since 1940.  He assured Members that the staff involved in the day-to-day delivery of the new arrangements would be given thorough training and support to understand the new legislative basis of their work.

3.            The Cabinet Member, Mr Gibbens, thanked Members for their comments and agreed with Mr Ireland’s points about the scale and significance of the changes made by the Act.  He said he would shortly be attending a cross-party meeting to consider the County Council’s response to the Government consultation and invited any Cabinet Committee Member who wished to attend to join that meeting.  He said he was pleased to see the apparent agreement among the Committee about the importance of maintaining eligibility criteria at ‘moderate’ and focussing on the preventative agenda.

4.            The Chairman summed up by thanking and congratulating Mr Thomas-Sam and Ms Grosskopf on the work that they and their team had put into analysing the complexities of the changes and setting these out clearly for the Committee.

5.            RESOLVED that:-

a)    the content of the report and the presentations slides be noted and the comments raised in debate be taken into account when preparing the County Council’s response to the Government consultation; 

b)    a full implementation plan be presented to the Adults Transformation Board on 23 July, once the draft regulations and guidance had been analysed, and this plan be made available to all Cabinet CommitteeMembers; and

c)    the Committee’s thanks and congratulations to Mr Thomas-Sam, Ms Grosskopf and their team for the work put in to analysing the complexities of the changes be recorded.