Lambeth: 'Chilling' plans for the elderly

A hospital boss has criticised a council's plan to restrict care provision to elderly and disabled people - reports ICSouthLondon.

Patricia Moberly, chair-woman of Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, has described Labour-run Lambeth's plan to restrict care to people in critical need as "chilling".

She said: "We have been trying over the years to make things better for vulnerable people in our society.

"It's much better for people to be looked after at home.

"The potential of these cuts is actually quite chilling."

Under the plan, elderly and disabled people in "substantial need" of care would no longer receive support services from the council.

The council also plans to ramp up care charges for things like home help from £7.55 to £17.50 per hour. It would see the council make a profit out of the service.

The plans met with a massive backlash when they were published this year.

Around 450 pensioners, disabled people and carers marched on Lambeth Town Hall in protest.
The backlash forced the council to extend a consultation into the proposals prior to their implementation.

A decision will be made next month whether or not to press ahead with the plans.

Ms Moberly made her comments at a meeting of Lambeth's health and adult services scrutiny committee on Wednesday night.

Other health professionals also slammed the strategy.

King's College Hospital stakeholder relations manager Phil Bollman said: "It seems to me that this will only shift care back to the hospitals and have an impact on care. People will end up stuck in hospital blocking beds."

Lambeth's cabinet member for health and adult services Councillor Donatus Anyanwu insisted efforts had been made to try to avoid the proposed cuts. But he warned Lambeth did not have the cash to prevent them.

He said: "We can't invent money, we can't make money. We can't rob some other area to pay for these services."

However, the government could afford to give Lambeth a bigger grant to maintain these services without cuts or increases in fees charged to vulernable people if it wasn't planning to gift an extra £2.5 billion a year to the audit-failing EU ... despite the EU's on-going failure for twelve years now to explain how the "majority" of its money is being spent.

So how is local MP Kate Hoey going to vote, when the EU budget deal comes up in Parliament for approval? In favour of lavishing billions more pounds on the EU without justification? Or in favour of saving public money from waste and its investment in better local services instead?