Councils turn backs on care for older people

In the same week as MPs voted in favour of gifting the audit-failing European Union a massive and unjustifiable increase in funding of £7bn, it has been revealed that nearly three-quarters of local authorities in England are rationing social services to exclude tens of thousands of vulnerable people from help with the basic tasks of daily living.

The Guardian reports today that official figures obtained by the charity Mencap reveal the worsening plight of people who cannot wash, dress, prepare a meal or go to the shops unaided - a growing problem this blog has been recording now for more than a year.

It said the problem affected older people and adults with learning disabilities in areas where cash-strapped councils have decided they can no longer afford to provide services to everyone in need.

The information, from the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), found 73% of local authorities were planning to refuse care to everyone whose needs were not considered to be "substantial".

The government's definition of substantial covers people who "cannot carry out the majority of their personal care or domestic routines" and do not have anyone available to provide voluntary help.

It excludes people with "moderate" needs who may not be able to carry out several daily routines such as getting up in the morning, bathing and doing the washing up.

The CSCI found four local authorities intending to ration services even more tightly to provide care only to people whose needs are "critical".

Under this definition, people would not get support unless their life was in danger or they were at risk of serious abuse or neglect.

The four were Northumberland, Surrey, West Berkshire and Wokingham councils. They are about to be joined by the London borough of Harrow, which yesterday defended plans to tighten its eligibility criteria at a judicial review in the high court.

Dame Jo Williams, chief executive of Mencap, said: "These figures show the true extent of the crisis in social care. It is unacceptable in the UK in the 21st century that local authorities are refusing support to very vulnerable people with a learning disability who have no one else to turn to.

"Last month the government gave an increase of less than 1% for social services. Given rises in demand, we will just see more and more cash-strapped councils cutting back."

The tightening up of council funding means the number of households across England receiving local authority care fell from 528,500 in 1991 to 345,000 this year, despite growing numbers of older people.

The CSCI data showed rationing has become much tighter over the past two years. In 2005-06, 54% of authorities restricted services to people whose needs were deemed "substantial".

This increased to 62% in 2006-07 and - according to councils' official plans - would reach 73% by the end of March.

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said: "Chronic under-funding of home care services means people are being deprived of the help they need until they reach crisis point ... We need a better system for paying for care to end the postcode lottery and the unfair way people on low and modest incomes are charged."

The Local Government Association said: "Councils want to provide the services vulnerable people need but are increasingly unable to do so because central government funding has not kept pace with the demands of an ageing population."

David Rogers, chairman of the association's community wellbeing board, added: "Ministers need to turn with urgency to the long-term overhaul of the future funding of adult care services ... It is unjust that people have to wait until their life is threatened, or suffer from a serious mental and physical illness, before they receive care.

"If society is to meet people's needs and aspirations, the social care system needs root and branch reform, giving individuals choice, independence, dignity and control over their lives."

Harrow council last night defended its decision to save £2m by withholding services from people in substantial need. Chris Mote, the leader, said it received less from the government than other London boroughs and had to concentrate support on the most vulnerable.

"We were forced to take action ... to balance the budget" he said.

MPs have a moral obligation to be far more responsible with scarce public money than gifting it to EU, which has a terrible reputation for waste, fraud and mismanagement.

They must choose to stand up for properly-funded care for vulnerable people and vote against the European Communities (Finance) Bill at its final reading in a few weeks time.