Agenda item

Purpose of the item: To update the Adults and Health Select Committee on Surrey County Council’s Adult Social Care Debt position as at the end of December 2021.

Witnesses:

•      Sinead Mooney – Cabinet Member for Adults and Health

•      Toni Carney – Head of Resources (Adult Social Care)

•      Pamela Hassett – Lead Manager (Financial Assessment and Income Collection)

•      Clare Burgess – CEO, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Head of Resources introduced the report and highlighted key points included. It was noted that the upcoming funding reforms would have significant impacts and a future report should come to the Select Committee on that topic. 

2.    A Member asked whether there had been a delay introducing the new financial system. The Head of Resources confirmed that the new system was due to be introduced in December 2021, but it was delayed and was now due to be introduced later this year (2022).

3.    Responding to a question about what plans were in place to prepare for the funding reforms and national insurance changes, the Head of Resources explained that the Area Director for North West Surrey was leading on a working group on the reforms and there were several streams to the working group about processes that would need to be introduced. The regulations had not been published yet, but a consultation document was expected in next few weeks. The Head of Resources told the Select Committee that the impact of the reforms on the workforce, residents and finances should not be underestimated.

4.    A Member questioned the use of the text messaging service in this context and the security of the process, as well as the amount of outstanding debt in relation to the income. The Head of Resources explained that the debt was spread over a long period, it was not a direct proportion of income this year and a significant proportion was not yet due. The text messaging service was a secure gov.uk service. Security checks were completed to ensure the right number was on the system before sending a text message regarding debt. It had not been used for recovery, but to remind people of an upcoming financial assessment or the online assessment tool. The Head of Resources explained that they had received positive feedback from the trial. If it was to be used for debt recovery, it would need to be done carefully to ensure people did not feel bombarded by texts. It would be used as a prompt rather than be part of core system and if it did not work, they would revert to the current approach.

5.    A Member asked about the percentage of payments collected by direct debit and whether this was considered a good figure. The Head of Resources responded that this had been the figure for many years, despite efforts to try and maximise direct debit. People were always encouraged to use direct debit. Those who experienced static levels of charges were more likely to sign up. The Head of Resources did not expect the percentage to get significantly higher.

6.    The CEO of Surrey Coalition of Disabled People asked whether the offer of independent advocacy was made to people and if mental health support was included in the letters as well. The CEO additionally asked how the mental health breathing space policy was communicated to practitioners and those accessing services. The Head of Resources explained that the reminder process was not strictly followed and often the second reminder could be a conversation with the individual. Independent advice was suggested and information was provided about relevant agencies. The Lead Manager added that the breathing space was applicable for anyone in debt. They worked closely with the mental health team to devise a referral process. The ASC debt team thought that it was better for an individual to conclude mental health crisis treatment first. The breathing space policy stopped recovery from all sources. Practitioners were aware of the process as they would have to provide evidence. It was important that all staff and residents know about the policy. The individual would have protection for the duration of their treatment and there was no limit to the scheme.

7.    A Member asked about the impact of the end of discharge to access. The Head of Resources explained that discussions were ongoing with health colleagues. The funding arrangements would be continued for a further three months and thus, there would be no significant change for residents over the next three months. This time would provide the opportunity to work with health colleagues to refine the model. The Head of Resources noted that there was an informal briefing on discharge to access for Select Committee Members soon.

8.    A Member asked about the potential to use Judge and Priestley for further work. The Head of Resources noted that they tried to be as cost effective with debt recovery as possible. When the cost of doing work was low risk, it was cost effective to use Judge and Priestley. They would be used for further work in the future if possible. 

Recommendation:

The Select Committee requests that a detailed report on the funding reforms is brought to a future meeting of the Adults and Health Select Committee.

The meeting was paused at 11:48am. The meeting reconvened at 12:04pm.