Agenda and minutes

The Committee are asked to consider the requisition of the Executive Decision on the Review of Fairer Charging Policy.

The Committee were informed that at its meeting on 11 July 2012, Cabinet had considered a consultation process on the following proposed changes to the Council’s Fairer Charging policy in order to generate additional income/savings of £250k as per the MTFS savings process agreed at Cabinet in July 2011.  There were 3 proposed changes to the policy.

1. Removal of current maximum charge cap in place for users of domiciliary care services
2. Review of Proportion of disposable income chargeable in financial assessments
3. Review of Disability related expenses allowance

The decision was requisitioned for the following reasons:

1. In removing the current maximum charge cap for users of domiciliary care services:

a.      What is the actual cost of services in excess of the cap?

b.      Would users be required to sell their assets to pay for it?

c.      How is the £138,000 saving made up?

2. In removing the 10% discretionary allowance for domiciliary care service:

a.      How many people does this affect?

b.      What are the levels of feed and

c.      What level is the “basic living allowance” set at?

d.      How is the saving £101,429 made up?

3. In reducing the cumulative weekly allowance for expenses linked to individuals’ personal and medical circumstances from £77.45 to £40:

a.      How many users will this affect?

b.      How is this saving of £26,398.39 made up?

Officers explained that the actual cost of the services in excess of the cap was £138,000 per annum. This was made up of the care packages in place, across 21 users who had a cap of £23,500 which equated to the £138,000 per annum. The highest cost of care was £652 a week, which would be an additional £330 a week.

A member stated it would have been useful to have the information on how the 21 users who are above the cap would be affected.  Also raised was how a user could go from £323 to £600 worth of care.  Officers explained that double handed care four times a day would add up, however, if a persons assets dropped below a certain point, then the cost of their contribution would be less. This was only in the consultation process and no final recommendations had been made. Only those with the capital or sufficient income would be charged.

In relation to selling assets, users would not have to sell their homes, only if they had a second home would this however be seen as an asset, relating to home care?  Officers added that often users do not declare their assets but just pay for the care they receive.

Officers stated that the consultation would be with all service users, but specifically would ask how it would affect the 21 with the cap.

Officers explained how the 10% discretionary allowance was worked out, they explained that by removing the 10% it would change the way in which financial assessments were carried out.  If the 10% was removed there would be 1211 users with no charge and 483 users who would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Committee are asked to consider the requisition of the Cabinet Decision made on 11 July 2012, in respect of the Approval of Award of Tender for the Reablement Service

The Committee were informed that at its meeting on 11 July, approval was sought from Cabinet to approve the award of a five year contract, following a competitive tender process, for the provision of reablement services to adults, commencing 1 November 2012.

Tenders were received from two bidders referred to as Bidder A and Bidder B.  However Bidder B withdrew from the tender process.

Cabinet agreed to award the contract to Bidder A for a period of five years. It would be for the delivery of a guaranteed block of 1000 hours per week, and up to an additional 250 hours per week as required.

All necessary action would be taken by the Council and by Bidder A, including all actions and communication in relation to the transfer of staff under TUPE, to enable the implementation of the contract from 1 November 2012.

The decision was requisitioned for the following reasons:

1. Insufficient consideration has been given to the options to retain an in-house service.
2. There has been no consultation with service users.
3. In view of the proposal to transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment regulations (TUPE) to examine why similar savings could not be achieved with an in-house service.
4. To examine the “Tender” arrangements and processes used in identifying the preferred bidder.
5. To consider the outcomes arising from similar service externalisations in other Councils.

A member stated that the decision made by Cabinet affected both staff and the service.  The Service had been initiated in 2007 and had been a benefit to all users and the Council, therefore it was important for the Committee to consider this requisition.

In a recent Department of Health publication entitled “Internal versus External (services) toolkit” it stated that officers should carry out analysis to ensure the service provided is efficient, and if it could be retained in-house.  Concerns were raised that the original report did not demonstrate or give evidence that this had been considered.

A member asked if the current service could be reorganised to prevent the amount of down-time and therefore bring down the cost.  Again concerns were raised that there was no evidence in the report of this being investigated.  Within the report there was mention of the employment of a Contract Monitoring Manager, however there were no costing of this new post, where they would be located and the cost of overheads for this new post.

Officers stated that a number of options were explored, and the option to retain and remodel the in-house service was considered in some detail, drawing on expert advice and national research in this area.  However, this concluded that remodelling the service in-house would not achieve the MTFS savings required of the service.

A member asked about how the externalisation of the service would affect the outcomes of users and if they would they receive the same service, from the same staff at the same level they were used to.  He also enquired whether existing staff would be asked to work within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.