Councillors urge cuts not to fall on the vulnerable

A letter (£) in The Times this morning urges councils to protect the vulnerable. It s carefully worded to allow it to attract signatures from Labour as well as Conservative and Lib Dem councillors but its message is pretty clear that councils should and could look for alternatives than raiding the Supporting People funding by cutting services for those most in need.

The letter says:

Sir, The government-funded programme Supporting People provides vital help for more than a million of the most vulnerable in society — including older people, victims of domestic violence, and those at risk of homelessness — helping them to live more independently in their own homes.

Despite the Government’s insistence on protecting frontline services, this funding has suffered severe cuts as councils face pressure to reduce costs. Some local authorities have already announced that their Supporting People budgets will be slashed by 50 per cent. Services under threat include outreach schemes for young homeless people, women’s refuges, money and debt advice, and home-based support for pensioners.

Getting rough sleepers off the streets in Westminster

Cllr Daniel Astaire, the Cabinet Member for Society, Families and Adult Services on the real way to help the vulnerable

Westminster City Council’s proposals for a byelaw to ban soup runs in and around Victoria have provoked controversy and even led to accusations that the council is undermining the Big Society. This could not be further from the truth.

Our real aim is simple. It’s to get vulnerable people off the streets and into the care and accommodation that can start rebuilding their lives with health, education and other practical help. To do this the councils works with and funds charities such as Thames Reach, St Mungo’s and the Passage to work together to achieve this common goal – Big Society in action.

This is working, with official figures showing that the number of rough sleepers in the area has more than halved in recent years. Yet the area around Cathedral Piazza just off Victoria Street, has become a hotspot for soup runs over the last decade. We’ve seen rough sleeping decline from close to 300 to under 100 individuals while the number of soup runs has risen to around 30 per week.

We have tried to work with providers to ensure better co-ordination while the volume and frequency of soup runs in the area has increased. Well meaning people come from all over London, and as far afield as Essex, Kent and Hampshire to deliver food to homeless people from across the capital who converge on Cathedral Piazza. Surely they would be better served by offering local assistance in their own communities?

Shapps criticises councils over Supporting People budget cuts

Housing Minister Grant Shapps is among the signatories to a letter to the Daily Telegraph this morning criticising councils for making excessive cuts to the Supporting People programme.

Several councils have been plannning big cuts in this area - both Labour such as Southwark, which is almost halving the budget for it, and Conservative ones such as Cornwall.  Of course we should not assume a crude link between a budget cut and a service cut. Cornwall argue thee is great potential for efficiency gains and that the budget cut is a "target." But councils which do cut services to the most vulnerable deserve to be held to account by their electorates.

The letter is as follows:

Councils shouldn’t neglect Middle England’s old people

Laurie Thraves, Policy Manager of the Local Government Information Unit, says councils should encourage those funding their own residential care to take independent financial advice

The divide between health and social care in the UK is a cruel one. On the one hand, people who need care from a hospital receive it gratis regardless of their wealth.  On the other hand, people who need care from a residential home, but have assets of more than £23,250, must dip into their own pockets.  In residential homes up and down the country, thousands of these “wealthier” pensioners are watching their life savings dwindle as they fork out £30,000 in care fees each year.

These wealthier pensioners are a significant asset for the taxpayer. Were it not for their contributions, the state would need to find an additional £5 billion each year in care fees.  But, despite the size of their contributions, self-funders are getting little support from the state in return.  New LGiU research, conducted in association with the insurer Partnership, found that many pensioners are not accessing financial advice that can help them sustain their savings in the longer team.  As a result, 25 per cent of people who pay for their own care will go through their savings at such a rate that they’ll reach the £23,250 threshold or run out of money entirely.

Running out of money is bad news for both councils and individuals. Councils retain liability for self-funders who run out of money and, as a result, are picking up a bill that we estimate at £490 million per year but could be as high as £1 billion.  Individuals, meanwhile, often have to contend with a traumatic move to a cheaper new care home that they won’t know and may not be to their liking.

The case of Holly Vincent

Mark and Riven Vincent asked for extra respite care from South Gloucestershire Council to help them cope with looking after their daughter Holly, who has some severe disabilities. They were turned down. As a result they feel unable to cope and they plan to place Holly is residential care.

Mrs Vincent says:

“The care at the moment costs £15 per hour which is £90 per week but they’re not going to increase it for us. If Holly has to go into a residential home it will cost £2,000 to £3,000 per week. It’s crazy.”

She feels let down as she met David Cameron before the election and he told her that it would make sense for people in her position to get more respite care. This is a promise he is keeping with an extra £20 million for respite care - coming from some of the savings from scrapping the Child Trust Fund. The change takes place in April - but that could be too little too late for Holly. South Gloucestershire aren't cutting their support in this area in general or to this particular family. But they haven't given extra help.

Is the BBC more biased than The Guardian?

We have a free press and The Guardian take advantage of that to adopt a distinctive, left wing, editorial stance with which we are familiar. We also have a system of public service broadcasting including requirements of political impartiality which the BBC routinely disregards with a mindset much the same as The Guardian. (Not that the BBC is unique. The TV news coverage with the most consistent and outrageous left wing bias is Jon Snow's Channel 4 News.)

The odd thing is given that The Guardian is perfectly entitled to have a left wing allegiance, while the BBC isn't, is that often The Guardian takes more trouble to give Conservatives fair treatment than the BBC. Of course given the great volume of coverage this can only be the most sweeping generalisations.

But one small example over the last 24 hours from my own council of Hammersmith and Fulham backs the thesis. We are changing our "service provider" for providing caring for carers. After due professional rigour of tendering process a decision has been made that the service could be improved by changing those providing it. The decision was that those who have been providing it hitherto are not up to scratch. The service will continue. The budget is not being cut. Of course I can understand how an organisation who loses a contract are angry as it means a loss of job. But the point is not to provide a job creation scheme. It is to provide the most effective back up possible for the carers in our borough.