Agenda item

Purpose of report: Policy Development and Review

The Select Committee has requested an update on Surrey County Council’s plans to implement the Care Act 2014 for 1^st April 2015, following publication of the final regulations and guidance in October 2014.

Witnesses:

Dave Sargeant, Strategic Director, Adult Social Care

Tristram Gardner, Project Manager, Adult Social Care

Siobhan Abernethy, Information, Advice and Engagement Lead, Adult Social Care

Sonya Sellar, Area Director - Mid-Surrey, Adult Social Care

Toni Carney, Head of Resources, Adult Social Care

Nick Markwick, Director, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People

Declarations of interest: None

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Project Manager (PM) provided a brief introduction to the report and advised Members that the Care Act was a significant piece of legislation which required ASC to take on a number of new responsibilities. It was further highlighted that the Care Act was being implemented in two stages with a number of significant changes from April 2016 and that a report would be provided to the Committee on these additional changes once regulations and guidance have been published by the government.

2.    For good information provision and signposting in their settings, a robust information and advice strategy and supporting plan, the Information, Advice and Engagement Lead (IAEL) added to the PM’s introduction by indicating that as all partners are responsible, strong delivery models have been developed in conjunction with the District and Borough Councils and other trusted partners such as GPs. It was further highlighted that, although the extent of any increase in the level of demand on the Council’s social care services is unclear, the strategy aims to ensure that residents receive consistently high quality information and advice wherever they go for it. Members were further advised that a promotional campaign additional to the national promotion is to be launched by the Council in order to signpost residents to the right services - highlighting what care and support is available throughout the community not just ASC to manage additional demand. More resource was being recruited to help with this partnering work.

3.    The Committee requested additional information on how ASC planned to publicise the new requirements and whether the promotional campaign will make use of resources such as Members, libraries and the faith sector for getting the word out to residents. IEAL confirmed that plans are in place to utilise these resources to ensure residents are aware of the Care Act. The IEAL also stated that information, including a short information pack containing information on the changes arising from the Care Act will be distributed to all stakeholders including Members, as well as, a new public information leaflet on care and support. It was further highlighted that Community Connectors will be asked to go out and engage with small communities and Social Care Development Coordinators will do the same in localities. The Committee requested that ASC issue copies of the leaflet to the Democratic Services team for distribution to all Members of the Council.

4.    Members requested clarification on the role played by the Society of Later Life Advisors (SOLLA) as the organisation chosen by ASC for referrals for independent financial advice and asked whether SOLLA have the power to assume control of a person’s finances. It was confirmed that SOLLA did indeed have this power but the IEAL stressed that they are an accredited institution boasting exceptionally robust recruitment and training programmes to ensure their staff act in the best interests of clients. The Head of Resources for Adult Social Care (HR) further advised the Committee that provision for referring residents to independent financial advisors was a requirement of the Care Act.

5.    The Committee expressed concern that ASC has only made provisions to take on additional staff in the area of safeguarding and asked whether extra staff would be required in other areas to fully implement the extra requirements of the Care Act. The SD indicated that discussions have taken place around additional duties and processes that ASC staff would be required to take on but highlighted that it was important to fully assess the additional demands that would be placed on ASC to decide whether more staff are required. It was further highlighted that the aim is to utilise capacity across the whole system to ensure that all organisations in Surrey take on their relevant responsibilities allowing ASC to provide services for those residents most in need.

6.    Members requested further detail on how ASC will be maintaining their responsibilities as well as working with partners to meet any additional demand arising from the Care Act with particular reference to provisions in place for meeting new responsibilities in providing care to Surrey’s prison population. The SD advised that the introduction of the Care Act meant that ASC becomes responsible for 1.2m people not just the 23,000 that meet eligibility criteria meaning that there is a need to be able to signpost residents to the most appropriate organisation to meet their needs. It was highlighted, however, that there remained a focus on providing residents with the right care from ASC and to ensure that the Council meets its new responsibilities arising from the Care Act. In regard to providing care for prisoners, the SD stated that ASC is working alongside partners with expertise in this area to deliver on this new commitment.

7.    The Director of Surrey Coalition of Disabled People (DSCDP) provided the Committee with the perspective of service-users on how the Council plans to implement the new requirements of the Care Act. Particular concern was expressed regarding the changes proposed to the existing charging policy which was deemed to be particularly challenging for disabled people and would serve to discourage many of Surrey’s disabled residents from finding work. There was a conception among users that they may have their income charged to meet care costs. The Head of Resources responded to these concerns by advising that consultation on the charging policy was ongoing and that no final decision has yet been made on the final policy and clarified that 100% of earned income is disregarded. It was further highlighted that the results of the consultation would be subject to an equalities impact assessment before Cabinet makes the final decision.

8.    Members asked what provisions have been made to disseminate information about the Care Act more widely to residents of Surrey to ensure that people had knowledge of the changes arising from the Care Act before they became vulnerable. It was advised that the information and advice service set up by ASC as well as the publicity around the introduction of the Care Act was aimed at all residents, not just the elderly and/or vulnerable. This is to ensure that residents understand the financial impacts of care as they age not just when they develop care needs.

9.    The Committee requested more information on the £72,000 lifetime cap on care costs. The HR indicated that regulations on capping care costs have not yet been published and so full clarity on this is not available at present. It has, however, been understood that residents with reasonable care costs will stop contributing to the costs of their care once the £72,000 cap has been reached. The Committee were further advised that residents in residential care with assets, including the value of their property, under £118,000 may be entitled to local authority funding support. It was indicated that this cap and change to the capital eligibility threshold are anticipated to come into law from April 2016.

10.  Members inquired as to whether a new IT system was required to implement the Care Act. The HR stated that the only substantial change would the universal deferred payment system and that they were evaluating options and will review in May. More significant changes to the IT system might be required for the elements of the Care Act that are introduced in 2016 but that AIS and SWIFT can deal with the imminent changes adequately.

11.  The Chief Executive of Sight for Surrey asked the witnesses whether there was an expectation of the level of demand on the Council that would arise from those funding their own care (self-funders) following the publicity around the Care Act. The PM advised that a lot of work had been done on modelling the number of self-funders that may request an assessment and that a model developed by the Council’s Finance Team estimates that around 40% of the approximately 30,000 self-funders in Surrey will request an assessment. Work is currently being conducted in conjunction with the voluntary sector to ensure that the provision exists to assess those self-funders who do come forward through a pilot scheme in Elmbridge.

Recommendations:

·         The Committee recommends that leaflets with information on the Care Act changes be distributed to County, Borough and Parish Councillors along with a short briefing paper to local committees highlighting the significance of these leaflets before 1 April.

·         The Committee recommends that a short briefing paper is distributed to all Members and that a short statement be read out at an upcoming meeting of the Council (10 February 2015 or 17 March 2015) before the Care Act comes into force on 1 April 2015.

Actions/ further information to be provided:

·         Outcomes of Elmbridge pilot scheme to be considered at the Adult Social Care Select Committee meeting on 25 June 2015.

·         Head of Resources to liaise with Chairman of Sight for Surrey to facilitate access to AIS regarding self-funders.

Committee next steps:

None