Liberal Democrats are attempting to overturn a controversial decision to cut social care in York.

Under the council’s plans its community care service will be available only to those with substantial or critical needs, rather than those with “moderate” needs. The moderate group includes nearly 200 residents who receive support to help with home care services or are supported to attend day activities.

The Liberal Democrat Group has decided to formally call-in the decision meaning that it will now go to the Council’s corporate scrutiny committee on Monday 13 August to be reassessed. The Group has said continuing the current levels of care support is affordable and have raised concerns about the consultation carried out and the viability of the council’s plans.

Councillor Keith Aspden, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Adult Social Services, commented:

“We believe that Labour has made the wrong decision and we hope that they will reassess their plans. These unnecessary cuts will affect some of the most vulnerable residents in York and we have raised genuine concerns about the consultation carried out and the viability of the council’s plans.

Despite their claims, Labour has choices on spending. These cuts are not a necessity and if Labour cut things like the Leader’s £1 million personal slush fund they could afford to maintain the current levels of frontline social care. We hope the Council will reconsidered this decision at Monday’s meeting.”

Notes:

The full wording of the calling-in from Cllrs Aspden, Cuthbertson and Runciman is:

‘The Liberal Democrat Group formally oppose the decision made by the Cabinet Member and believe that the eligibility criteria should remain unchanged at Moderate, Substantial and Critical. The Cabinet Member has failed to take into account any of the representations made by the Group, prior to taking her decision:

• The consultation was misleading as it failed to tell residents that there are alternatives to withdrawing care provision from York residents. Therefore we believe the results should be treated with extreme caution.

• The consultation exercise was also poorly conducted and an investigation needs to be undertaken to determine why mistakes were made. As the report states, 200 residents were sent the wrong information and feedback from residents said the consultation was “confusing”, “patronizing”, contained “wrong” information, was “very poor”, that “questions were impossible to answer”, and complained questions were “ambiguous”.

• The 31% response rate means that of residents sent consultation packs only 20% agreed with the change in eligibility levels, with 10% disagreeing and the overwhelming majority either not answering that specific question or not taking part in the consultation. In other words, only 1-in-5 people have actively supported these proposals and even these did so through a misleading consultation document. This means that the Council can not claim there is a proper mandate for the changes. For such a vital issue, we do not believe that this flawed consultation exercise is good enough or can form the basis for an informed decision.

A number of concerns raised by partners particularly the York Older People’s Assembly:

• Low level intervention at modest needs level can help sustain independence for longer and any short-term financial gains should be set against the costs of having more people fall into the ‘substantial’ and ‘critical’ needs bands because they lose this crucial support.

• The ability of the voluntary sector in York to provide the level of personal support envisaged in this report. The report provides no detailed evidence from the voluntary sector on this point.

• The report states that the £150,000 cost of not introducing the changes can not be found elsewhere in the Council’s Budget:
“There is no indication at this stage of the year that other areas of the council budget are able to make additional savings to avoid the need for this proposal.”
The Liberal Democrat Group believes that savings could be made elsewhere to protect social care. In our February Budget proposal, we outlined how reversing some of Labour’s planned spending increases and making savings elsewhere could fund this area.’