Agenda item

The draft response to the Consultation was approved, noting the need for modifications to respond to question 3 in order to strengthen the response.

The Council's decision to disagree with the proposals included in the White Paper was supported.

The report was submitted by Cllr Dafydd Meurig  

DECISION

The draft response to the Consultation was approved, noting the need for modifications to respond to question 3 in order to strengthen the response.

The Council's decision to disagree with the proposals included in the White Paper was supported.

DISCUSSION

The report was submitted noting that the Government had published the White Paper looking at Re-balancing Care and Support. It was noted that the White Paper highlighted the Government's vision which included moving away from complexities, moving away from prices and closer to social value and to shift from an organisational focus to focusing on effective collaboration. Support for the vision, which aligned with the vision within the Council, was expressed.

It was stressed that, from looking at the documents, the main problem was how the Government would deliver this. It was further noted that the White Paper stressed the element of simplifying, but complicated the arrangements by noting standard commissioning processes, creating a National Office and Boards, and establishing the Regional Partnership Boards as legal corporate entities. A feeling that the above intention was contrary to the vision was highlighted, and that this had been stated in the Council's response. 

The Corporate Director added that, at first sight, it aligned with the Council's vision and was a good response from the Government. Nevertheless, it was noted that having taken a closer look, it was contrary to the vision noted. It was noted that the field was made more complex by adding further layers and specifically in large regions such as North Wales. It was added that this would move the far-reaching decisions further away from the individual. It was stressed that buying individual support was a large part of the document and was contrary to the principles of Gwynedd of working on the basis of the individual rather than a choice of support.

It was noted that the document highlighted the need for better terms and conditions for care staff but that it did not note what the solution was. It was highlighted that there was mention of regional cumulative funds but it was stressed that this would not provide a solution. It was noted that there was no mention of the far-reaching document, A Healthier Wales, which clearly stated that there was a need for a regional vision but local provision. In terms of the response, it was noted that the responses were seen in the appendices but the need to send a letter as well highlighting what the Council was doing to align with the vision highlighted, was noted.

Observations arising from the discussion

¾    It was noted that sending a letter with the responses was acknowledged, but that it was possible they would only look at the responses. The need to highlight clearly the objection to creating a regional legal corporate entity was noted.

¾    Concerns were outlined about regionalisation as it would be taken further away from the citizens. 

¾    It was noted that there were risks of creating funds and that these needed to be highlighted in the response to strengthen the objection to creating a regional body.

¾    It was stressed that the vision aligned with the Council's aspirations. It was noted that there was no mention of good practice that could be seen across Wales, and no mention of the public's observations either. The need to be open was stressed, and for the public to be aware of what was being offered.