Front line council service cut due to £1 bn black hole in council funding

Front line council services will be cut and thousands of workers are set to lose their jobs as recession-hit town halls struggle with a £1 billion black hole.

A Daily Telegraph investigation has established that local authorities in England and Wales are slashing budgets by up to 10 per cent, with social services, education and transport bearing the brunt of the cuts.

Councils also revealed that they were planning to claw back some of their losses by increasing charges for facilities such as car parking and cutting services such as lollipop ladies and meals on wheels.

Many authorities insist that the cuts are necessary to compensate for a lower than average government grant settlement, at a time when demand for services, such as care homes and advice centres, is rising as the pressures of the recession bite.

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: "Income is falling away very sharply at a time when more and more people are turning to councils for help."

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.

Norfolk: Warning over the cost of care

Old people face having to pay more for their care and some will miss out completely as Norfolk social services prepares to make millions of pounds of cuts - reports the Eastern Daily Press.

The department is trying to make £13m of savings from the adult social services budget next year alone, a figure which rises to £37m over the next three years.

It is part of what County Hall chiefs described as a “difficult” picture for all the council's services. Although the county council will not hear about its government funding settlement until next month, it is expecting to receive an extra £16m from Whitehall - but faces paying an extra £38.7m in inflation costs and to meet rising demand for services, leaving it to make £22.7m of savings next year.

Paul Brittain, the council's head of finance, said: “There are savings right across the board in adult services, children's services, planning and transport and so on. It is a very difficult financial situation.”

Harold Bodmer, director of adult social services, said: “It is a tough situation. We have to set this on the context of a very difficult budget.”

The most severe cutbacks proposed are reducing the number of people who receive care by 1,084 over the next three years, saving £3m next year and more than £19m in all.

Hilary Macdonald, chief executive of Age Concern Norfolk, said that some people might choose to do without services if they were faced with having to pay more.

She said: “Inevitably the burden is going to fall on family and other carers.

“We are very concerned that with the need for cuts - and this is across the board, in health services as well as social services - preventative services will fall off the agenda. It is vitally important that older people receive the support they need”.

Chris Mowle, cabinet member for adult social services, said: “Quite clearly the government is underfunding social care by a massive amount, therefore if county councillors hold to their pledge and keep council tax down, services for vulnerable adults are at extreme risk.”

Lewisham: Plea over service cuts for old folk

Community groups are campaigning to raise awareness of potential cuts to elderly and disabled people's services - reports the South London Press.

Lewisham council could slash adult social care services for people assessed as having substantial needs.

A consultation period for the changes has been extended by a month to September 15.

Lewisham Mencap and Age Concern Lewisham are pleading with people to make their views known.

Both charities believe if the cuts go ahead their clients' conditions may worsen, and that many people probably don't know what is being considered by the council.

Nick O'Shea, of Lewisham Mencap, said: "We have been rallying parents, holding meetings and getting people to fill out the consultation forms.

Lewisham council is considering three options, including only providing non-residential adult social care to those with "critical" and "greater substantial" needs.

It is believed if the cuts go ahead it will affect 580 people and save the council around £1.6million.

Chris Lunn, of Age Concern Lewisham, said: "We recognise the council has to make decisions but we want to present the case for older people as strongly as possible.

"We are asking people to really consider how this will impact on themselves, their family and those who already need these services.

"There is a lot of evidence that shows people in these circumstances get worse quickly without help and end up needing intensive and very expensive services instead."

Social care hit by NHS deficits

Social care for vulnerable people is being squeezed as a result of NHS deficits, according to the Local Government Association (LGA) - reports the BBC.

The LGA says costs are being shunted to social services departments as the NHS in England aims to balance its books.

A survey of 95 councils which run social services found two thirds say NHS debts are affecting them.

The Department of Health said the NHS and local authorities had to work together for patients' benefit.

Forty per cent of the councils surveyed by the LGA said the knock on effect of the financial pressure in the NHS was worse than in previous years.

When the organisations were asked what the NHS had done in their area to affect them, half said beds had been closed, and a quarter said there had been a reduction in district nurse numbers.

Another 14% said there were increased waiting times for NHS services, such as admission to hospital while 13% said community hospitals had been closed.

In addition, more than a third of the councils in the LGA survey say they are having to take responsibility for more cases normally dealt with by the NHS.

The continuing care of elderly patients is the main area where responsibilities overlap. Almost a quarter (24%) say the local NHS is failing to fund agreed or joint services.

This might involve cuts to nursing services, meaning home helps have to take on tasks such as changing wound dressings or checking insulin levels.

Funding disputes have increased, the councils reported.

The LGA says there is deep concern on the ground about the trend towards cost-shunting and its impact on already stretched council social care services.

Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the LGA, said councils did not want to start a war of words with the NHS.

But he added: "There are grave financial pressures on both councils and the NHS that are starting to impact on the quality of service."

Brighton: City's £20m cuts shock

Town hall chiefs are being forced to consider more than £20 million of cuts to services to avoid council tax rises of up to 30 per cent over the next four years - reports The Argus.

Brighton and Hove City Council is already considering slashing the budgets for street cleaning and social services after revealing it needed to claw back £3 million of debt accrued so far this financial year.

But the authority is predicting a freeze in Government funding - meaning huge pressures on every department's budget.

The news led campaigners last night to call for a root-and-branch review of local government funding.

To avoid slashing services, council tax would have to increase by 4.9% in April next year, 8%the year after, then 7% in 2009/10 and 6% in 2010/11.

This would result in the average Band D household paying an extra £400 a year by April 2010, or £1,661 in total.

But ministers limit council tax increases to 5% and a council spokesman said it did not plan to go beyond the cap - meaning savings of more than £20 million will be needed.

Before the end of the financial year, the council is set to close a home for five children with autism, stop the night-time street cleaning service and cut just under £1 million from adult social services, including scores of council employees not being replaced when they leave.

Council leader Simon Burgess also warned of job losses.

Green councillor Keith Taylor said he would be pushing for charities and not-for-profit organisations to take on more of the council's work.

He said: "We cannot carry on delivering the same for less. It is impossible to carry on making cuts."

Dorset: County council cuts libraries

The Blackmore Vale magazine reports on page 124 that swingeing cuts are being planned to Dorset's libraries in a bid by the County Council to bridge a funding gap.

The article states that: "A reduction in social care provision and the closure of a number of libraries across the county will not bridge Dorset County Council's funding gap.

"Further measures, including redundancies at County Hall are to be taken over the next three years to achieve potential savings of £20 million."

Surely it can't be right that the government is unable to find the money to provide Dorset with enough to sustain these essential local services, but can find the money to increase payments to the audit-failing EU by an extremely generous 63%.

Let's hope Dorset's MPs don't vote for such an obvious failure to properly prioritise scarce public resources, when the EU budget deal that pledged this increase comes before Parliament for approval.

Certainly the claims of MPs that vote for the terrible EU deal will never be able to claim credibly that they are standing up for public services.

Article submitted by: B.W., Dorset

Oxford: NHS cutbacks hit social care

Oxfordshire's social services are creaking at the seams because of the NHS funding crisis, councillors claim - reports the Oxford Mail.

County councillors are set to complain to the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust that changes to its services are putting the social care department under extreme pressure.

On Tuesday, members of the council's cabinet called for a halt to cuts in community-based NHS services. The knock-on effect has forced the council to spend £250,000 more on social care at this stage of the financial year than projected.

This figure looks set to more than double by the end of March next year, as NHS cuts cause demand for council-run services to grow.

At the cabinet meeting, councillors were told that:

- a joint primary care trust and council budget used to buy care home beds for the elderly was £300,000 overspent by the end of May and planned expenditure for September was now being used;

- an NHS fund to pay for long-term care beds was not increased in line with inflation this year, putting more pressure on the same budget

- the ORH is reducing the average length of time people spend in hospital, leading to increased demand for social care beds;

- some 31 beds in the Radcliffe Infirmary have been closed this year and while PCTs are paying for alternative beds this financial year, there is no commitment for payment to continue next year.

With this news, can Oxford's MPs in all conscience vote billions of pounds extra per year away to the EU - completely without justification - while local services clearly need more cash to provide necessary care? What would such irresponsible choices with scarce public money communicate to local voters about the real interest of their MPs in ensuring decent local health and social care services?