Agenda item

To consider the decisions made by the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Care at her meeting held on 1 August 2012 in relation to the above item, which has been called in by Councillors Aspden, Cuthbertson and Runciman in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in procedure, together with the original report to and decisions of the Cabinet Member.

Members received a report which asked them to consider a decision made by the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services at her meeting on 1 August 2012, in relation to changes to the eligibility criteria for adult social care. Further information on the options available, consultation undertaken and impact on service users which had led to the decision to change the eligibility criteria from Moderate, Substantial and Critical to Substantial and Critical were set out in the report.

Details of the Cabinet Member’s decision were attached as Annex A to the report, with the original report to the Cabinet Member Decision Session attached as Annex B. The decision had been called in by Cllrs Aspden, Cuthbertson and Runciman on the following grounds:

The Liberal Democrat Group formally oppose the decision made by the Cabinet Member and believe that the eligibility criteria should remain unchanged at Moderate, Substantial and Critical. The Cabinet Member has failed to take into account any of the representations made by the Group, prior to taking her decision.

·        The consultation was misleading as it failed to tell residents that there are alternatives to withdrawing care provision from York residents. Therefore we believe the results should be treated with extreme caution.

·        The consultation exercise was also poorly conducted and an investigation needs to be undertaken to determine why mistakes were made. As the report states, 200 residents were sent the wrong information and feedback from residents said the consultation was "confusing", "patronizing", contained "wrong" information, was "very poor", that "questions were impossible to answer", and complained questions were "ambiguous".

·        The 31% response rate means that of residents sent consultation packs  only 20% agreed with the change in eligibility levels, with 10% disagreeing and the overwhelming majority either not answering that specific question or not taking part in the consultation. In other words, only 1-in-5 people have actively supported these proposals and even these did so through a misleading consultation document. This means that the Council can not claim there is a proper mandate for the changes. For such a vital issue, we do not believe that this flawed consultation exercise is good enough or can form the basis for an informed decision.

·         A number of concerns raised by partners particularly the York Older People's Assembly:

o    Low level intervention at modest needs level can help sustain independence for longer and any short-term financial gains should be set against the  costs of having more people fall into the 'substantial' and 'critical' needs bands because they lose this crucial support.

o   The ability of the voluntary sector in York to provide the level of personal support envisaged in this report. The report provides no detailed evidence from the voluntary sector on this point.

·        The report states that the £150,000 cost of not introducing the changes can not be found elsewhere in the Council's Budget:

 "There is no indication at this stage of the year that other areas of the council budget are able to make additional savings to avoid the need for this proposal."

The Liberal Democrat Group believes that savings could be made elsewhere to protect social care. In our February Budget  proposal, we outlined how reversing some of Labour's planned spending increases and making savings elsewhere could fund this area.

Members were asked to decide whether to confirm the decision (Option a) or to refer it back to the Cabinet for reconsideration (Option b).

Councillor Cuthbertson addressed the meeting on behalf of the Calling-In members, he reiterated the grounds for the call-in and, in particular, to the low consultation response rate which he felt did not endorse the changes now being made. Reference was made to savings that could be made elsewhere to avoid the need to amend the criteria and to concerns raised by partners, particularly the Older People’s Assembly, who had indicated that they were unaware of any voluntary sector providers able to provide personal care. The consultation it was felt had missed the opportunity to ask consultees where the money could best be used to provide for their requirements. The Committee were therefore asked to recommend reconsideration of the decision in light of these comments.

Officers responded to the points made, reiterating that there had been no flaw in the process/consultation in relation to this decision. It was confirmed that a technical error had been made which had affected letters sent out to a small group of people for which apologies had already been made and lessons learned for future consultation exercises. It was confirmed that face to face meetings with those affected had also taken place on the challenges faced by the authority and that there had been thorough consultation with a 31% response rate which had been considered good. Officers went on to detail the scale of the consultation undertaken and numbers of customers, at present, in each support category, confirming that partner feedback had been listened to. It was pointed out that this was an opportunity to deliver savings whilst engaging with the voluntary and community sector to provide services for less complex cases.

Members questioned Officers in relation to a number of points including, the development in the Telecare and reablement services, would there be any hardship cases following the change in criteria, the quality of the consultation questions and details of customer review arrangements.

Officers confirmed that individual reviews would be undertaken for the 184 customers and that no one had been disadvantaged by any incorrect recording of information. Those affected would have assistance in place to meet their needs by some other route, with no service being terminated until alternative arrangements had been agreed.

Following requests by members, receipt of legal advice and the agreement of the Chair, Councillors Alexander and Jeffries made closing statements prior to the vote taking place.  

After a full debate, it was

RESOLVED:      That Option (a) be approved and that the decision of the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services  be confirmed.

REASON:            In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution.