Agenda item

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care.

The report outlines how the programme fits into the context of the wider change proposals, budget setting and the in-year financial position and provides more details following the November scrutiny committees on how this programme fits into the wider context of the Scrutiny Committees budget.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider and comment on the report.

Officer contact: Gill Lawton on Tel: 0161 474 3014 or by email at gill.lawton@stockport.gov.uk   

The Director for Adult Social Care submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) outlining how the programme fits into the context of the wider change proposals, budget setting and the in-year financial position and provided more details following the November scrutiny committees on how this programme fits into the wider context of the Scrutiny Committees budget.

The Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care (Councillor Keith Holloway) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·       There was a recognition of the difficult financial position for social care which had to be addressed.

·       It was noted that one of the comments from the consultation on fairer charging was regarding the purpose of the funding from the levy. Clarity was sought in relation to how the levy helped provide for the cost of the service. It was noted that without the precept, the situation would be even more difficult in providing social care services. The precept and its increase of around 2% each year would help to meet the challenges from increases in service demands and inflationary cost pressures from care providers.

·       Clarification was sought regarding how arrangements were made for an individual’s own care and how this was supported. It was noted that the Care Act 2014 required early prevention services to be provided by the Council and a number of early intervention services were provided to residents. These included advice and support facilities to help people to be independent as long as possible and to avoid any escalation in their care needs.

·       There was a question regarding the confidence in the deliverability of the £750,000 in savings outlined from managing the external care market. It was noted that officers were working closely with the integrated care board and locality team in order to ensure value for money was provided for the care purchased from providers and that this was appropriate for those residents.

·       There was a question on the use of artificial intelligence and how this could be quantified in terms of the impact on service delivery. It was noted that this was a positive opportunity but it needed to be treated with some caution at this early stage. It was noted that the focus was to use this opportunity to reduce the effect of wait times and to help provide a more responsive service.

·       The work done on the savings achieved was noted and it was asked how  deliverable the proposed changes were. In reply, it was noted that the use of resources was kept under close review and that the use of technology was key to reduce the burden on financial resources.

·       On the ‘fairer charging’ proposal from April 2025, it was asked whether the financial assessments for individuals would be completed from 1 April 2025. It was highlighted that that those affected from the removal of the subsidy from the national framework, would receive a financial assessment in that timeframe and resources were being arranged to provide for this. It was stressed however that charging for individuals would not take place until they had undergone a financial assessment and that further support would be provided by the Council for residents in this process.

·       It was noted that the key decision points for the proposals would be the Cabinet meeting on 4 February 2025 and then the Budget Council meeting on 27 February, and those residents affected would be provided with information packs on the proposals for charging during this process.

·       It was further asked whether these proposals could be phased in to help those affected. It was noted that all options had been considered but the financial challenge was pressing and therefore urgent action was required.

·       It was noted that the funding allocation was disappointing and it was asked how this could affect future year budgets. It was highlighted that if the same calculation was used for future years, this could have a severe impact on the service. It was noted that the Council had a lower core spending power than other Greater Manchester authorities, and also had an increasingly ageing population which would increase demand on social care services.

·       It was noted that the Councils webpages were being updated to provide more narrative information to incentivise those to take up the services provided by the Council.

RESOLVED- That the report be noted.