Agenda item

The Care and Support Charging and Financial Assessment Framework and the Direct Payment Policy came before the Panel on the 1st October 2019 prior to the conclusion of the public consultation. The public consultation has now concluded, and the policies have been amended with consideration of the feedback received.

Lara Varga made a statement to the Panel. A copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

The Equality Impact Assessment is inadequate. It’s required by law. Quite frankly it needs re-viewing, and seems to be the work of people who know little about Equality and Diversity issues. For example, (just one of several issues ) no extra issues have been identified for women under these new charges under the heading 'Examples of what the service has done to promote equality'.

If we refer to the United Nations Special Rapporteur report (November 2018) on Extreme Poverty in the UK, under the heading : 'The Hardest Hit', it says that:

"The costs of austerity have fallen disproportionately upon the poor, women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, single parents, and people with disabilities. The changes to taxes and benefits since 2010 have been highly regressive, and the policies have taken the highest toll on those least able to bear it. The government says everyone’s hard work has paid off, but according to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, while the bottom 20% of earners will have lost on average 10% of their income by 2021/22 as a result of these changes, top earners have actually come out ahead.

According to 2017 research by the Runnymede Trust and Women’s Budget Group, as a result of changes to taxes, benefits, and public spending from 2010 through 2020, Black and Asian households in the lowest fifth of incomes will experience largest average drop in living standards, about 20%".

These figures are only set to worsen under this current Conservative government. Disabled women, are hardest hit, for example by period poverty now reaching epidemic numbers across the UK within the poorest low income groups.

I had requested to view the Equality Impact Assessment written report back in December 2019, at a meeting with Anne Marie Strong and was told there wasn't one, because the council plans to do an internal " ghost " try out of the new system this February. NOW I finally see there is an Equality Impact Assessment, it states that some service users will be adversely affected , but the only mitigation offered is that 'Cases of individual hardship can be considered on a case by case basis'.

 i.e only the very articulate can have their needs met with such a set-up.

I am very concerned many vulnerable people may decline a needed service because of increased costs, including myself at this time. I have also said many times this whole consultation appears to be focused more on Seniors with care needs and not Disabled people, who are disabled for life with chronic and challenging life-long conditions.

The Risk Register Lite (graph) ( appendix 4) makes it clear that there will be 2 high risks and 2 medium risks , the response written to these also seems inadequate  and will incur extra staff costs. What are your opinions on the two high risk sections?

I have written and presented a report at two prior meetings with Anne Marie challenging many of the assumptions in the Consultation process and questions, and am yet to have a detailed response to me or my questions, or even a time line as to when Lesley plans to read my report and reply with the professionalism, I am due as a Disabled Citizen, covered under UK Human rights (Disability) equality law.

Councillor Liz Hardman said that she was sorry to hear of her concerns and suggested officers discuss the issues raised further with her. She added that she had been to consultation meetings on this matter and endorsed the framework.

The Director of Adult Social Care, Complex and Specialist Commissioning thanked Lara for her comments and highlighted that following the level of concern expressed regarding the two-week time period for the service user or their nominated representative to make contact with the care finance officer the proposal is to extend this timeframe to four weeks.

She explained that during the consultation period 21 face to face events were held and that the rationale for the decisions proposed have been explained. She added that with regard to the EIA, the Council’s Equalities Team has been fully involved and we will commit to looking at Lara’s comments.

The Chairman asked for further information relating to Proposal 4 in terms of ‘the Council will also carry out a basic financial assessment on the proposed third party to ensure the required payment is affordable’ as he was aware this had been raised during the consultation.

The Director of Adult Social Care, Complex and Specialist Commissioning replied that there were a small number of people who felt it was an infringement of their rights, however the decision to agree to a third-party payment is optional and therefore any person who did not wish to provide financial information would not have to do so.

In respect of Proposal 3, Kevin Burnett asked whether the Council were able to make sure individuals receive any benefit that they are entitled to rather than simply take it into account.

The Director of Adult Social Care, Complex and Specialist Commissioning replied that the Council will review the information already available to support people and develop a guidance document explaining what the person or their representative needs to do to make an application for the designated benefit.

Councillor Ruth Malloy asked officers to consider rewording section 6.3 of their report to provide clarity.

The Senior Lawyer replied that she would look at the wording.

The Panel RESOLVED to:

(i)  Endorse the proposed Care and Support Charging and Financial Assessment Framework amended after consideration of the feedback from the public consultation.

(ii)  Endorse the updated Direct Payment Policy amended after consideration of the feedback from the public consultation.