Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services and Budgets. Policy Development and Review

Income from charging is an important contribution to Adult Social Care’s budget. In the light of the very significant pressures facing the Council, a review of the charging policy was undertaken to ensure that services are not subsidised unnecessarily. Proposals to revise the charging policy were considered by the Cabinet and approved for consultation. This report outlines the proposed changes to the charging policy in advance of the further report to Cabinet on 14 July 2016.

Witnesses:

Helen Atkinson, Strategic Director for Adult Social Care and Public Health
Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence
Tim Evans, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence
Nick Markwick, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People
Maria Hewson, Action for Carers

Key points of discussion:

1.    The Board was given a preliminary summary of the responses to the consultation and heard from representatives from the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People and Action for Carers.

2.    It noted that there was strong resistance to the proposed changes and concerns about the detrimental impact on disabled people, their carers and families given the reduction in disposable income. The Board expressed the view that there was not sufficient evidence of how the proposed changes would affect individuals in the Equalities Impact Assessment.

3.    The Board queried whether the negative feedback from those consulted would have an effect on the proposals. The Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence informed the Board that the Council would move in line with other local authorities in its charging policy. It was highlighted by the Board and external witnesses that the cost of living in Surrey was comparable to London, and not the local authorities cited in the consultation document.

4.    The Board commented that it was not apparent whether the additional revenue generated as a result of the proposed changes would also mean additional implementation and administrative costs to the Council. It was commented by witnesses that the cost of assessing a large group of individuals and implementing the proposals could prove prohibitive in the immediate term. It was also highlighted by witnesses that there were case law rulings regarding the raising of charges against night-time attendance allowances, and that they believed this should have been reflected in the proposals.

5.    The Board questioned whether the low response rate was a result of those being consulted being unclear on the proposals and their impact. The Board queried whether the negative response to it would have an impact on the proposals.

6.    The representative for Action for Carers expressed concern that these proposals may deter residents from seeking support from the service, and highlighted that these proposals could also impact on carers and families.

7.    The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence offered to provide a full breakdown of the concerns put forward by the representative for Action for Carers and the representative for the Surrey Coalition for Disabled People, and circulate that response to the witnesses and to the Board.

Recommendations:

1.    That the Board understood the need for potential cost saving measures, but did not endorse the proposals as they currently stood, with the exception of the administration set-up fee.

2.    That Cabinet provide greater evidence for the cost-benefit of implementing the proposed changes to Adult Social Care charging policy

3.    That the Cabinet demonstrate they have taken the impact of carers and families into account and have sought to mitigate this impact through a more robust Equalities Impact Assessment

4.    That the Cabinet provide evidence as to how the administration fee is calculated and when it will be subject to review

5.    That, taking individual concerns into consideration, the Cabinet establish there are no indirect impacts on an individual’s package arising from:

·         the implementation of the national living wage;

·         the review into the grants programme