Cabinet 13 February 2012

Transcription

1 b Cabinet 13 February 2012 Proposed Criteria for Discretionary Freedom Passes All Wards Cabinet Portfolio: Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing: Councillor Jim Dickson Report authorised by: Executive Director of Adults and Community Services: Jo Cleary Executive summary In line with other local authorities, Lambeth uses national eligibility criteria when awarding Freedom Passes to older and disabled people. However, in addition to the mandatory concessions, currently Lambeth provides Discretionary Passes to residents who do not meet these national criteria, mainly for people with mental health difficulties. As part of Service and Financial Planning, earlier this year Lambeth consulted residents on proposals to end the provision of Discretionary Freedom Passes. The overwhelming feedback that was received was for the need to retain this provision. Having listened to what people said, Cabinet in July 2011 made the decision that the Discretionary Freedom Pass scheme should continue but requested that there should be further consultation on the introduction of eligibility criteria for the scheme. This further consultation took place from October 2011 to January 2012 and people were provided with draft eligibility criteria for comments. The proposed eligibility criteria have been developed to ensure that Lambeth, unlike many other boroughs, could continue to offer Discretionary Freedom Passes inspite of the severe financial constraints the council is facing. Consultation papers can be found in Appendix 1. The discretionary scheme in Lambeth is projected to cost an estimated 478,000 this year. The full year impact of savings at current prices will be as stated below in that there will not be an impact on the Council s costs until 2013/14. The are currently 767 people in Lambeth with a Discretionary Freedom Pass with an approximate cost of 597 each. At present 19 councils in London say that they provide Discretionary Freedom Passes. However, Lambeth has the third largest number of these. While the proposed eligibility criteria for Discretionary Freedom Passes are intended to limit future financial impact, it will also ensure that passes are awarded in a fair, transparent and consistent way. A further objective is for the discretionary pass to support the therapeutic and recovery plans of mental health service users, allowing a pass to be awarded for a specific period when it is most needed rather than creating an ongoing dependency provision.

2 Summary of financial implications The cost of the concessionary fares scheme is 12,294,099 for 2011/12. Payments to Transport for London (TfL) are 11,447,787, with the remainder of 846,312 paid to London Councils. The cost of the concessionary fares scheme for 2012/13, which has recently been released, is 13,153,344, with payments totalling 12,237,505 to Transport for London and 915,839 to London Councils. These costs are calculated using usage data for the years 2009/10 and 2010/11 and are fixed. As a result, any savings made from withdrawing the Discretionary Pass will not have any impact on the Council s costs until 2013/14. The 767 discretionary passes currently in issue have an approximate cost of 597 each. The budget is held in Adult Support Services Business Unit in Adults and Community Services Department. Recommendations (1) To agree that the proposed Discretionary Freedom Pass eligibility criteria are fully adopted and thereafter all current holders and new applicants to be assessed against this criteria from March (2) To agree that Discretionary Freedom Passes are only awarded to people who meet the council s new eligibility criteria, ensuring a consistent approach so that passes are allocated on a fair and transparent basis for the purpose of delivering therapeutic and recovery plans. (3) To agree that all current 767 Discretionary Freedom Pass users may continue using their passes for travel until 20 May If their application for a Discretionary Freedom Pass under the new eligibility criteria is unsuccessful then their passes would be cancelled from 21 May (4) To agree that Discretionary Freedom Passes are only awarded for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years; thereafter applications to renew must be made. (5) To note and take account of the outcomes of the consultation exercise set out in Appendix 1 and the equality impact assessment set out in Appendix 2. 2

3 Consultation Name of consultee Department or Organisation Date sent Date response received Comments appear in report para: Internal Jo Cleary Executive Director of Adults and Community Services George Marshman Divisional Director Adult Social Care and Community Safety Simon Froud Assistant Director Adult Social Care. Mike Dickens Governance and Democracy Pete Hesketh ACS Departmental Finance Ama Ackom- Corporate Finance Mensah Cllr Jim Dickson Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing Report history Decision type: Key decision January 2012 Key decision: reason EITHER a) expenditure or savings of 500,000 or more Authorised by Cabinet member: Date report drafted: OR/AND: b) proposal affects significantly two or more wards X Date report sent: Report deadline See above Report no.: Report author and contact for queries: 278/11-12 David Bello, Head of Service Physical Disabilities dbello@lambeth.gov.uk Background documents Proposed withdrawal of Discretionary Freedom Pass (date to Cabinet July 2011). Appendices Appendix 1 Consultation report on Discretionary Freedom Passes Appendix 2 Equalities Impact Assessment 3

4 Proposed Criteria for Discretionary Freedom Passes 1. Context 1.1 There are a range of door-to-door services in Lambeth providing essential transport for those with special needs and/or mobility impairments. These services are both statutory and non-statutory but are essentially similar with some overlapping of their service users. These services are Taxicard, Dial a Ride, Capital Call, Community Transport/ Plusbus, Special Educational Needs (SEN), Adult Services Transport and NHS patient transport services. In addition some residents can be awarded a Freedom pass and Blue Badge if they meet the national eligibility criteria. Discretionary Freedom Passes are also issued but mainly to people with mental health difficulty. People are also generally entitled to claim a refund of their travel cost following a visit to their health practitioners. However, during the consultation, mental health service users explained that the process of claiming back travel costs can at times be arduous. There is a future need for co-ordination between these services for residents in order to reduce potential duplication and improve efficiencies. 1.2 In 2008 people aged 60 and over and eligible disabled people in England became entitled to free off-peak travel on all local buses anywhere in England. The Mayor of London extended free travel for Londoners to any time of day. It became unlawful for any Authority to issue a National Freedom pass to anyone who did not meet the National criteria. However an Authority is allowed to establish discretionary criteria to provide passes to other user groups, which can only be used for travel in London. Given the change in the concessionary travel entitlements, Lambeth stopped issuing new Discretionary Freedom Passes for mental health users in April Transitional arrangements for existing users allowed their passes to continue until a final decision is taken about the future of this scheme in Lambeth. The scheme is projected to cost an estimated 478,000 this year. 1.3 At the end of the last financial year March 2011, Lambeth had a total of 34,671 Freedom passes in circulation which equates to 29,648 older people passes, 4,255 disabled passes and 767 issued on a discretionary basis only. 1.4 Following the introduction of the Transport Act 2000, new criteria were introduced which set out seven categories of persons entitled to a National Freedom Pass. These are: 1. people who are blind or partially sighted 2. people who are profoundly or severely deaf 3. people without speech 4. people who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has left them with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to walk 5. people who do not have arms or have a long-term loss of the use of both arms 6. people who have a learning disability, that is defined as, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning 4

5 7. people who, if they applied for the grant for a licence to drive a motor vehicle under, Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their application refused pursuant to section 92 of the Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol. 1.5 These criteria effectively ruled out Mental Health service users, unless they had a physical disability or met section 7 of the National criteria above At present 19 councils in London say that they provide Discretionary Freedom Passes. However, Lambeth has the third largest number of these. The two other boroughs with the highest are Harrow and Westminster respectively. Five Councils figures show that only two boroughs provide more discretionary passes than Lambeth, namely Harrow and Westminster. Five boroughs provide between two and nine passes; others range from 16 to 537 passes. Camden council discontinued their discretionary Freedom Pass provision last year after their consultation exercise. Camden had approximately 1500 discretionary Mental Health pass holders and of these just over 400 successfully met the national criteria. 1.7 Although it is estimated that the proposed new eligibility criteria will result in a reduction in the number of discretionary passes issued, as the future award of a discretionary pass will depend on an assessment, it is not possible to provide aad act number although it is estimated that around 200 people still be eligible. 2. Proposed Eligibility Criteria for Discretionary Freedom Pass. 2.1 It is proposed to continue to issue Discretionary Freedom Passes (DFP) to some mental health service users, outside the national statutory categories of eligibility. The DFP can be used for travel in London only. It offers the same entitlement as other Freedom Pass holders on Transport for London buses, underground, trams, DLR and national rail within Greater London The award of DFP will be in exceptional circumstances eligibility is proposed that applicants will be eligible for a Discretionary Freedom Pass if they: 1. Are not eligible for a Freedom Pass under section 151(4) of the Transport Act 2000 and the Greater London Local Authority Act 1999; and 2. Have a mental health condition that is permanent or which has lasted 12 months or which is likely to last at least 12 months and which has a substantial effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Confirmation of permanent or substantial mental health impairment must be received from a GP, a psychiatric report, or a community mental health team assessment; and 3. Have a mental health condition that leads to a serious impairment of social functioning, or places the person at risk of social isolation or social exclusion. 4. Have monthly contact with a mental health professional, including a social worker, consultant, or community psychiatrist nurse. 5

6 Applicants must also provide evidence of at least two of the following: 1. Be in receipt of Lower Rate Mobility and Middle or High Rate Care components of Disability Living Allowance 2. Travelling is identified by Community Mental Health Teams as a pathway to attaining vocational training or employment, time limited volunteering in order to gain experience for employment opportunities. Referral must be made by care management 3. Be in receipt of a care package and support, with travelling identified as a need in their support plans following a Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) Assessment. 3. Proposals and reasons 3.1 To maintain the Council s discretion to provide Freedom Passes to service users with severe mental health needs, it will be necessary to adopt the proposed eligibility criteria so that passes can be awarded consistently and equitably. It will allow orderly transition for those applicants for whom travel is integral to ensuring delivery of their therapeutic plan. 3.2 The inclusion of DLA entitlement in the proposed criteria ensures that those with mental ill health and reduced mobility can be accommodated within this process because they may need help with mobilising in public places and are likely to be more at risk of social isolation. The added advantage is that the inclusion of DLA will generate more uptake of this benefit. The Government has proposed to replace DLA with Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and this criteria will be reviewed in response to these changes. 3.3 The proposal will allow the current 767 Discretionary Freedom Pass users to continue using their passes for travel until 20 th May 2012 in order to provide sufficient time to assess existing users against the new eligibility criteria and time to support unsuccessful applicants with alternative travel arrangements. 3.4 It is essential that all the necessary arrangements are made by May 2012 because Transport for London (TFL) calculates the cost of Discretionary Freedom Pass on numbers of holders as at the end of May. Further financial apportionment is estimated on historical volume of trips made. 3.5 The criteria has been developed to ensure that only those with regular contact with mental health services would be eligible for a pass allowing for a more targeted provision balanced against limited financial resources. 3.6 The requirement in the proposed criteria for all applicants to demonstrate monthly contact with a mental health professional, including a social worker, consultant or community psychiatrist nurse has generated the most interest during consultation. The list of professionals intentionally excluded GPs in order to limit volume since a large number of mental health service users are generally referred back to their GPs for ongoing monitoring. The overwhelming majority of responses during consultation were against the inclusion of this requirement in 6

7 the criteria. After carefully considering the comments submitted both by individuals and by organisations, it is recommended that the proposed criteria are not changed. This is because if this requirement was not included then the number of applicants entitled to a Discretionary Freedom Pass will increase and make the scheme financially unaffordable. It will also be contrary to the main principle of the pass that it should be a short term entitlement when it is most needed and is not intended to be a permanent travel concession. 3.7 Changes have been made to the criteria to reflect the comments made for volunteering to be included in the evidence section (2) of the proposed criteria. This would mean that those who are volunteering to improve their employment prospects are adequately supported. 3.8 During the consultation, people told us that people with moderate needs will lose an important service. This point is acknowledged but there are a range of community support available to mental health service users with moderate needs for example, Family Mosaic and when reopened, the Effra centre. 3.9 It will be necessary to apply a maximum of two years when each award of Discretionary Freedom Passes is active. Thereafter applications to renew must be made. This will ensure that reviews of entitlements are continuously undertaken to assess changes in individual circumstances and whether there remains a need to continue the award The conditions of use will be the same as that imposed by the National Freedom Pass. A Discretionary Freedom Pass is not valid for travel outside London. However, there is similar entitlement as other Freedom Pass holders on Transport for London (TFL) buses, Tube, trams, DLR and national rail within Greater London The appeal process for unsuccessful applicants will be carried out in the same way as are currently in place for people applying under the National Freedom Pass eligibility criteria The Council is committed to working in partnership with service users and carers, and with organisations such as Lambeth LINk, DASL, Transport for All, Lambeth Mental Health and Disabled People s Action Group, and Lambeth Mind, to improve access to transport to vulnerable Lambeth residents. 4. Finance Comments 4.1 Providing the Discretionary Pass is estimated to cost 392,000 in 2011/12, which is calculated using the 2011/12 apportionment, and the number of pass holders at 31 st May London Councils provided data distinguishing journeys taken by Elderly and Disabled Freedom Pass holders, which enabled the average cost of each type of Pass to be calculated. This cost will rise to approximately 457,000 in 2012/13 if no action is taken. 4.2 The implementation of eligibility criteria is expected to reduce the number of discretionary passes issued. However, it is not possible to quantify the saving 7

8 with any certainty as it is dependent on the individual circumstances of each person being assessed. The value of savings achieved will be established after the assessments have taken place and any saving will be taken into account as part of the 2013/14 Service and Financial Planning process. 4.3 Due to the methodology used to calculate the costs of freedom passes being based on the previous year s data, any saving to the Council will only be realised from 2013/14. If the eligibility criteria are implemented later than the end of May 2012 the savings will not be realised until at least 2014/ There is a long term trend of increasing costs associated with the freedom pass scheme as a whole. As such it is likely that any savings achieved will be more than matched by increases in costs to the Council relating to the national scheme. 5. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy 5.1 Provision for travel concessions in England is at present contained in five separate pieces of primary legislation: the Transport Act 1985, the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Transport Act 2000, the Travel Concession (Eligibility) Act 2002 and the Concessionary Bus Travel Act Section 240 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) provides: (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may enter into arrangements with Transport for London under which (a) Transport for London grants, or arranges with some other person for that other person to grant, such travel concessions as may be provided for by the arrangements to such of the persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below as are specified in the arrangements; and (b) that local authority reimburses (or, as the case may be, those local authorities in such proportions respectively as they may agree amongst themselves reimburse) the cost incurred in granting those concessions. (3) The concessions that may be provided for by any arrangements under subsection (1) above are concessions on journeys (a) between places in Greater London; (b) between such places and places outside but in the vicinity of Greater London; or (c) between places outside but in the vicinity of Greater London (5) The persons eligible to receive travel concessions under arrangements made under subsection (1) above by an authority are persons appearing to the authority to be persons], (a) who have attained the age of 60 years; (b) who are blind; (c) who are partially sighted; (d) who are profoundly or severely deaf; 8

9 (e) who are without speech; (f) who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to walk; (g) who do not have arms or have long-term loss of the use of both arms; (h) who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or (i) who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol. 5.3 The arrangements described above are discharged, pursuant to section 244 of the 1999 Act and other enabling powers, by a joint committee consisting of participating councils called the London Councils Transport and Environment Committee (LCTEC). Its functions include: To manage on behalf of the Participating Councils the Concessionary Fares Scheme and in particular to make arrangements to reimburse to the Transport Operators the cost of the Current Concessions providing that nothing herein shall prevent any of the Participating Councils from setting their own eligibility criteria for the discretionary elements of the Concessionary Fares Scheme 5.4 The agreement includes the following provisions: The cost of reimbursement to The Transport Operators in respect of the concessionary fares scheme, together with the cost of survey and other work needed to assess the reimbursement due to The Transport Operators, are: (a) in respect of permits issued to eligible London residents, allocated to Participating Councils in proportion to the number of persons resident in those boroughs holding valid permits to travel on 30th September in those years in which permits are reissued, or on such other dates as LCTEC may determine following consultation with the Participating Councils and (b) in respect of permits issued to eligible persons under section 145A(4) of the Transport Act 2000, allocated to Participating Councils in such proportions as may be agreed by LCTEC 5.5 With regard to the consultation exercise carried out by the Council as detailed in this report, the following principles of consultation were highlighted in a High Court judgment in July 2011 (in the case of R (on the application of Peat & Others) v Hyndburn BC) First a consultation had to be at a time when proposals were still at a formative stage. Second, the proposer had to give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. Third, adequate time had to be given for consideration and response, and finally, the product of consultation had to be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals. The process of consultation had to be effective and looked at as a whole and it had to be fair. That required that consultation took while the proposals were still at a formative state. Those consulted had to be provided with information that 9

10 was accurate and sufficient to enable them to make a meaningful response. They had to be given adequate time in which to do so and there had to be adequate time for their responses to be considered. The consulting party had to consider responses with a receptive mind and a conscientious manner when reaching its decision. 5.6 Section 149 (1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 states that: a public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; 5.7 Section 149 (3) states that having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. 5.8 Section 149 (7) states that the relevant protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. 5.9 Part of the duty to have due regard where there is disproportionate impact will be to take steps to mitigate the impact and the Council must demonstrate that this has been done, and/or justify the decision, on the basis that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Accordingly, there is an expectation that a decision maker will explore other means which have less of a disproportionate impact In considering whether to adopt the recommendations of this report, members are exercising a discretion and should therefore have in mind the following principles of administrative law: (i) A decision must be within the Council s powers; (ii) All relevant information and considerations, including the Council s fiduciary duty to the Council Tax payer, must be taken into account; (iii) All irrelevant considerations, including unauthorised purposes, must be ignored; (iv) A decision must not be irrational in the sense that it is one which no reasonable authority would have come to in all the circumstances. 10

11 6. Results of consultation 6.1 Lambeth has carried out a full consultation programme asking people about the draft eligibility criteria and their use of discretionary freedom passes. The consultation included two public meetings, two meetings with people who attended local day services, and a meeting with the Cabinet member for Health and Wellbeing. All the meetings were attended by senior managers in the department. 6.2 In addition, hard copy questionnaires were sent to all the people who currently use a discretionary freedom pass, and the questionnaire was available online. We also sent information and questionnaires to local community groups, including those working with people with mental ill-health. We also offered a free phone number and address for people to respond to or to ask questions. 6.3 Around 60 people attended the two public meetings, and 45 people attended the meetings with day services. 20 people attended the meeting with the Cabinet member. Over 170 people completed the questionnaire. 6.4 The key feedback was that many people felt that the discretionary freedom pass was vital to their health and wellbeing, and that the loss of the pass would impact negatively on their mental health. People also felt it was unfair that the national criteria excluded people with mental health problems. 6.5 When giving comments on the proposed eligibility criteria, people suggested ways that it could be amended in order to be less restrictive. Some people commented on the requirement to have monthly contact with a mental health professional, including a social worker, consultant, or community psychiatrist nurse. People said that it was important to include contact with a GP as another option. This was because many people no longer have contact with a community health team, and instead see their GP. 6.6 Another aspect of the draft criteria is that travelling should be identified by Community Mental Heath teams as a pathway to attaining vocational training or employment, Requests were made to include volunteering as well People also commented on the requirement in the draft criteria for people to be in receipt of a care package and support, with travelling identified as a need in their support plans following a Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) Assessment. Some said that many people had not had a FACS assessment, and that this would therefore cause more of a burden in the costs of carrying out assessments. 6.8 Welfare benefits changes were also mentioned, as the draft criteria includes being in receipt of Lower Rate Mobility and Middle or High Rate Care components of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Because DLA may change, based on proposals in the Welfare Reform Bill, it was suggested that this part of the criteria needed to be reconsidered. 6.9 A full report on the consultation and feedback received is attached as Appendix 1. 11

12 7. Organisational implications 7.1 Risk management: 7.2 There is a potential risk that we could be asked to widen the scheme to cover other disabled groups who do not qualify within the National Freedom Pass eligibility criteria. However, people with physical disabilities or an injury are adequately covered within the National eligibility framework. They can apply for a Disabled Freedom Pass if their ability to walk is substantially impacted or if they are unable to operate a parking machine due to loss or disability in both arms Equalities impact assessment: An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out and considered across all equalities groups. The EIA notes that the likely impact will be high in relation to disability, medium in relation to socio-economic, race and gender, and low for all other equalities groups. A full EIA is attached as Appendix 2. As the reassessment for the new criteria is carried out, we will review and update the EIA, to ensure that any different impacts are assessed, and that mitigation is reviewed. 7.4 Community safety implications: 7.5 N/A. 7.6 Environmental implications: None 7.7 Staffing and accommodation implications: None. 7.8 Any other implications: None. 8. Timetable for implementation 8.1 As set out in the recommendations 12