Month: January 2014

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

 

At the last Council meeting last month, Cllr Pat Williams gave a speech (reported in full on this blog) in which she stated “There is also a lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers and councillors during the period which led to the involvement of the Improvement Board.”

How true that is, Cllr Pat Williams! Appendix 9 to the Anna Klonowski Associates report was the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005. It was heavily redacted with a black marker pen. This was the document I asked Graham Burgess to release without redactions at the public session of the Improvement Board back in November. He hasn’t got back to me on that point so here it is below. I agree with Cllr Pat Williams there has been a lack of accountability, hopefully this will go some way to address it!

Charging Policy Consultation
Notes of a meeting held on 22nd August 2005
Westminster House, Birkenhead

Present

Older people’s representative
Service user/carer representative x 2
A representative of Wirral MIND gave apologies
Advocacy Services Representative
Councillor Pat Williams (Lib Dem)
Councillor Denise Roberts (Labour)
Councillor Les Thomas (Con)
Mike Fowler (Assistant Director Finance & Support Services)
Breda Dutton (Business & performance Manager)
Hilary Grant (Client Financial Services Manager)

Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to consult with party spokespersons and a number of representatives of users and carers on Wirral’s charging policy for social care services delivered to people in their own homes. It is intended that the outcome of this and other consultations will be presented to the Health and Social Care Select Committee prior to recommending to Cabinet any revisions to the Charging Policy as directed by Cabinet in March 2005.

Process
Mike Fowler (MF) gave a presentation (attached) which outlined the type of services the Council charges for and how they are calculated. The presentation went on to explain why the Council believed changes to the policy were necessary and what options might be considered.

The Group asked questions during the presentation and these are recorded in the attached table. The Group did not intend to make any specific recommendations to Council but agreed to review these notes and make subsequent representations as were considered appropriate.

It was recognised that not all client groups were adequately represented and MF gave assurance that there would be other processes to ensure as many people as possible were consulted prior to Cabinet making a decision on future charges.

Notes of User/Carer Consultation

Presentation Discussion and Comment
1. What Services are charged for ?
MF explained the three types of charges. These are (a) for people who live in residential or nursing homes, (b) for people who are helped to live at home, and (c) for meals-on-wheels. Noted
The remit of this consultation is (b) and (c). Charges for residential and nursing care are set by Government and cannot be influenced locally. Noted
MF explained charges for people who are helped to live at home are based on Government guidance ‘Fairer Charging’ which assesses people’s ability to pay (based on their income, benefits and savings) It was noted that Councils do not have to charge, but if they do they must adhere to the principles within this Guidance.
People who receive meals delivered to their homes were charged £1.60 per meal. No account is taken of their ability to pay. In response to a question raised by Councillors, MF confirmed this price had not been changed since December 2000, and if inflation had been applied each year the charge would now be £1.81.
2. How are charges worked out?
MF went through the steps to calculate charges for people supported with a community care package and identified the three bases of charges. These were:- Noted
(a) Charges against disposable income.This is currently 27%. Disposable Income is the amount above the minimum the Government believes is necessary to live on (ie Income Support levels). MF confirmed that (i) people whose only source of income was Income Support were not charged, (ii) carers income was not taken into account, and (iii) Mobility Allowance was not included as income.
(b) Charges against benefits.Currently £5.27 per week for people who receive Disability Allowance (DLA), or £7.27 for higher DLA The group asked for information on the current levels of this Allowance. HG responded £40.55 per week for Medium DLA, and £60.60 per week for higher DLA. Over 80% of claimants receive the Medium level.
(c) charges against savings.Currently £1 per week for every £250 above £12,500. People with more than £20,500 are assessed to pay the full cost of their care MF clarified the £1 was the assumed income from savings to be added to Disposable income in 2(a) above. The Group asked who set these levels and MF responded they are in the guidance but Council’s were free to set higher figures (not lower).
3. Why does the Council think the policy should be reviewed?
MF summarised the ‘Fairer Charging policy, the main principles are:-(a) Charges should take account of people’s ability to pay

(b) Charges should be equally applied across all client groups

 It was acknowledged the current policy does this in accordance with the Fairer Charging Guidance.MF reported there were some groups, and service types, not being charged in the same way. These were (1) Adults with Learning Disability who attend Day Centres, and (2) Adult living in Supported Living services – previously classed as residential care.The Group felt this was unfair, and that everyone should be assessed in the same way, although it was noted the group most affected were not represented at this event.
MF reported the existing policy had not been changed for 5 years Noted
The Council agreed budget savings in 2005-06 of £150,000 from Fairer Charges and £50,000 from Meals Noted
4. Options
MF summarised the options that could be considered by the Council. These are:-(a) Charge more for people with over £20,500 savings (ie raising the full price)

(b) Charge more against disposable income

(c) Charge more against Disability related Benefits

(d) Increase the price of Meals on Wheels

(e) Include people who only receive Day Care or Supported Living Services in the charging policy

 There was concern that people just over the limit would have their savings reduced rapidly. MF confirmed the Council ‘could’ raise the threshold for being assessed to pay the full price.The Council could either change the %-Take figure or increase the minimum level before charges start to apply (eg Income Support + £10)

The Council could change the charge against Disability benefits. Few Councils take all the Benefit in charges, many take between £10 and £15 per week.

The Council can charge up to the full price for meals (currently £2.42)

Most Councils operate the same Fairer Charging policy for these type of services
5. Exploring each option in turn ->
(a) Charge people with over £20,500 more.
The current policy is to charge £6.14 per hour. The actual cost to the Council is between £9 and £11. If the Council raised its charge to £7.14 an additional £75,000 would be raised.		 The Group asked how many people this would affect, MF reported approximately 500 people (there are actually 540 people paying on average £27 per week, which raises £750,000 pa)The Group felt it would be fair to charge people more who were more able to pay because they had more assets, but were concerned people who were just over the threshold would quickly drop below it. There was also concern people would divest themselves of their savings purposefully to avoid paying charges.

MF explained there were few people who were ‘just over’. Most people paying the full price had elected not to reveal the level of their savings and had ‘chosen’ to pay full cost.

The group would like to ask the Council to consider raising the £20,500 threshold to protect those who were ‘just over’ the limit. On this basis, people with more substantial savings would be more likely to accept higher charges; bearing in mind the subsidy that would still remain.
(b)Charge more against disposable incomeThe current policy is to charge 27% of disposable income. MF explained that for every ‘percentage point’ above this the Council would raise an additional £10,000 (eg if the charge was 30%, £30,000 would be generated. MF confirmed there would be 1,200 service users affected by varying the %-Take figure.Many other Authorities charge between 30% and 35%.
(c) Charge more against Disability related BenefitsPeople who get DLA/AA are charged £5.27 per week at the lower level or £7.27 at the higher.

Raising the charges by £1 per week would generate an additional £94,000 per year.

 The Group felt it fair that people should use these benefits to pay for their care as this was the purpose of the benefit.
(d) Increase the price of Meals on WheelsThe current price per meal is £1.60. The average in the North West is £1.85. The price had not changed in 5 years. Raising it to £1.85 would raise an additional £30,000. The Group asked what the actual price of each meal was. MF responded £2.42 taking into account the cost of the meal, regeneration, and transport.The Group still felt at £1.85 it was good value for a two course meal
(e) Charge people in Supported LivingMany people are not charged for Supported Living
Services. Applying the Fairer Charging Policy would raise £40,000 per year		 The Group felt people receiving these services should be assessed to pay charges in the same way as other service users. MF reported up to 80 people would be affected.The other group not currently charged is Adults with Learning Disability who only receive day care. Up to 100 users may be affected and MF reported potential collection difficulties.
MF asked the Group to comment on the current method of payment.Users currently receive a statement against which they can make regular payments using a swipe card The group felt the statements were a good idea but felt regular monthly invoices would be an improvementThe group also felt more use of standing orders and direct debits would aid collection (this needs to be offered as a choice)

The Group asked MF to consider ‘rewards’ for opting for Direct Debits similar to those offered by utility Companies
Summary of messages from the Group to CommitteeMF asked the Group what comments they would wish to make to the next Committee
  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Summary

The meeting ended with the following bullet points to be included in a report to Committees in November 2005

  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Next Stage

MF reported an intent to report the outcome of consultation to the Health and Social Care Select Committee in October and Cabinet in November. However the fact that representatives of Learning Disability services could not attend it was decided to delay the report for one month. This
would also give an opportunity to invite further comments from older people themselves by a postal questionnaire.

Recommendations

Members of the Group are asked to confirm this record as a true reflection of the discussion that took place on the 22nd August and make any further representations they feel appropriate.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Have improvements to make Wirral Council’s decision making better got bogged down in bureaucracy?

Have improvements to make Wirral Council’s decision making better got bogged down in bureaucracy?

Have improvements to make Wirral Council’s decision making better got bogged down in bureaucracy?

                                     

The New Year is a time of looking back to the previous year and forward to the new one. So please cast your minds back to November 2013 and a meeting of the Improvement Board held in public.

Prior to this there had been a short ten-day consultation on the Improvement Board Review report.

As the Improvement Board Review report is sixty-three pages long I will quote the sections I am referring to here about changes to the Audit and Risk Management Committee (the committee referred to in the quote from section 95 is Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee):

“ 20. Action Taken

…
20.4 It is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members.” (page 15)

“PRIORITY 2: CORPORATE AND DECISION MAKING

95. It is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members.” (page 34)

“Next Steps

112. Compliance with the constitution will be through more rigorous challenge from Audit and Risk Management Committee. It is proposed that would be enhanced, by (subject to Council agreement) appointing a majority of independent members of the committee.” (page 37)

“SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS FOR WIRRAL

167. A key challenge is to ensure compliance to the revised procedures. Compliance with the constitution will be through more rigorous challenge from Audit and Risk Management Committee. It is proposed that would be enhanced by (subject to Council agreement) appointing a majority of independent members of the committee. The Leader of the Council has indicated that he will develop a proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution.” (page 49)

Prior to the Improvement Board public meeting on the 15th November there were special meetings of both the Coordinating Committee and the Audit and Risk Management Committee to discuss the Improvement Board Review report.

The Coordinating Committee agreed this:

That this Committee welcomes the Report. It clearly states that the Authority is moving in the right direction.

This Committee pledges to play its full part in continuing that direction of travel.

All Members will be encouraged to engage in the next steps identified within the report.

We must not be complacent as we still need to improve in many areas identified in the report and embed positive changes.

We thank all members of the Improvement Board for their help.

We thank all employees and Members for their efforts in this journey of improvement.

We would recommend the approach adopted by the Local Government Association, in piloting sector led improvement, and would recommend it to others who find themselves in difficulties.

and the Audit and Risk Management Committee (by eight votes to one agreed):

(1) That this Committee welcomes the report of the Improvement Board, which draws attention to the significant progress Wirral has made in the last 20 months.

It recognises that there are still issues which need to be addressed but believes it is clear that Wirral is now an outward looking Authority – open to constructive criticism and willing to address problems when they occur.

We would recommend the sector-led approach to change and development to other authorities who find themselves in difficulty.

(2) That the thanks of the Committee be accorded to the Improvement Board, all staff and Members who have participated in the change process. It now remains for Members to continue to participate in their own development and not become complacent but ensure that change becomes embedded for the future.

(3) That the recommendations contained within the Review report be endorsed and that, subject to clarification as to the ownership of the steps required to support continued improvement, all Members be encouraged to engage in the work required in those areas.

Here is a transcript of the answer given to my question on this issue at the Improvement Board meeting of the 15th November 2013 on the issue of changes to the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

In the review report it states “it is proposed to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit and Risk Management Committee through the appointment of a majority of external members”. How many independent members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will be appointed, who will they be appointed by and will the Audit and Risk Management Committee be chaired in future by one of these independent members?

You can watch Graham Burgess’s and Cllr Phil Davies’ reply to this question by following this link to footage of the Improvement Board meeting.

Graham Burgess replied, “In terms of the request to strengthen the independent nature of the Audit & Risk Management Committee. First of all I think it’s going to be proposed by the Leader of the Council that for the new municipal year, after the elections in May, that there should be a majority of independent people on the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

There’s only one other Council in the country that’s adopted this approach and the Leader may wish to speak for himself on this matter but I think it is, it’s got to be recognised I hope, the willingness of this Council to open itself up to external scrutiny by I don’t know the numbers yet because that’s going to be discussed, it will be and Phil’s agreed that it should be referred to the Council’s scrutiny committee to discuss the best way to do it, the best way to recruit them, the exact numbers, but certainly I think it’s really brave of him, the fact that this Council and the other one Council to open themselves up in this way.

And the sort of people who might be ?????, and again there’ll be discussions with scrutiny and looking at elsewhere and taking advice from audit. I suspect there’ll be a number of people with a financial background to challenge that.

There’ll be a number of people who can represent key community organisations and can represent individual voices on the Wirral. So there’ll be a mixture I suspect of professional and lay people who can judge whether this Council is actually operating well in terms of its audit responsibilities.

I think that’s another demonstration of the openness that Phil and all parties I suspect want going forward and to be challenged. So in theory and in practice in fact, the councillors can be out voted by the independent members on that panel.

Might I also say that the Council does intend, again this is not finalised to retain the Chair of that panel as a councillor. The majority will be non councillors and that’s because it’s still a Council committee and in terms of organising things we need the availability of a councillor to do that, but I don’t want to be drawn about that.”

Cllr Phil Davies: “Just a sentence to say I think it will enable kind of an ongoing challenge to be built into monitoring, reviewing how we go forward in terms of all of the issues that have been looked at by the Improvement Board over the last eighteen months.

So I think it’s just another kind of check going forward that we’ve got an external voice or external voices, not part of the Council to really scrutinise what we’re doing on our performance going forward and I welcome that.”

So just to go back to a quote from the Improvement Board review report “The Leader of the Council has indicated that he will develop a proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution.” Well on Monday 6th January 2014 at a special meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee councillors (and the independent members of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee) will discuss a review of Wirral Council’s constitution and a survey of councillors. The survey itself states “This feedback will inform a full review of the Constitution that will be undertaken in January 2014” asking for councillors to return the survey by the 7th January 2014 (the 7th January 2014 is stated on the survey, but the recommendation in the accompanying report states 24th January 2014).

Yet nowhere in the thirty-six proposed amendments to Wirral Council’s constitution is there even one that refers to appointing a majority of the Audit and Risk Committee as independent members. The Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee is the Council committee that proposes and scrutinises changes to Wirral Council’s constitution. So why haven’t changes to Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee appeared on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee agenda for the meeting on the 6th January?

The Improvement Board will be returning in March 2014 to see the progress Wirral Council has made, so why the delay on this matter. Does it require the matter to be referred to the fifteen councillors on the Council’s Coordinating Committee to agree things like “the exact numbers” of independent members on the Audit and Risk Management Committee? If the intention is a majority of independent members that can outvote the councillors you merely have one more independent member than councillors and remove the casting vote of the Chair?

Where is the Leader’s “proposal for consideration by Councillors alongside the review of the Constitution” and why isn’t it included in the agenda of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee’s meeting of the 6th January? Why delay implementation of this until after the elections in May? Surely if it’s a “demonstration of openness” this could (as was indicated in the Improvement Board review report) be included in part of the January constitutional review and these changes to the constitution agreed at the Council meeting in either February or March?

At least then when the Improvement Board returned to check on progress in March (although the independent members wouldn’t have been recruited yet) the constitutional change to the Audit and Risk Management Committee could be pointed to as evidence that Wirral Council has actually implemented one of the Improvement Board’s recommendations?

If a simple recommendation to have a majority of the Audit and Risk Management Committee made up of independent people has to go to a meeting of the Coordinating Committee to be agreed in principle (November 2013), the Audit and Risk Management Committee to agree its recommendations (November 2013), then the Coordinating Committee (again to agree the details), then the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (to recommend the constitutional changes to Council), then full Council (to agree the constitutional changes), is it any wonder that the Anna Klonowski Associates report referred to the “bureaucratic machinations” of Wirral Council (which seem to still be alive and kicking) and that the Wirral public (as expressed at the public meeting of the Improvement Board in November) are sceptical that there is a political will to change Wirral Council in the direction of more openness in what most people would consider a reasonable timescale?

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: