Comment May fails to show her caring side
those in the middle. Council tax hits middle-earners, or what we now call the “just about managing”.
Why, then, has the Government chosen this method of raising money? Social care services are provided by councils, but councils actually get most of their cash from central government, not council tax.
The explanation is that Ministers know voters tend to blame their local council, not central government, for increases in council tax bills.
So on the one hand, councils are being forced to impose massive cuts.
And on the other hand, the Government is making councils increase the bills it sends to residents significantly above inflation, in order to put a sticking plaster over the problem.
Incidentally, there should be no doubt that the cuts we are seeing in local authorities across the country have been imposed on councils.
Ministers argue that local authorities should make efficiency savings instead of reducing services.
And there probably was scope for doing things better and cheaper – at first. Many managers in public services will admit, in private at least, that the cuts imposed by the Government since 2010 forced them to become more efficient and make changes for the better. But that’s only part of the story. The cuts have gone beyond a point where they can be dealt with just by making efficiency savings.
Government funding for Birmingham City Council has been cut by more than a third since 2010, and there’s no such thing as an organisation that can lose hundreds of millions of pounds in funding without actually doing less.
The planned council tax hike suggests Ministers know there is a real need for more cash for social care as, in fairness, Prime Minister Theresa May admitted in the Commons.
But rather than make anything approaching a difficult decision to deal with the problem, they have dumped it on local authorities.
Social care doesn’t sound like an exciting topic.
It’s sometimes hard to grasp what the phrase really means.
But look at what Birmingham City Council plans to cut, over the next four years. Examples include:
£16 million cuts to the “enablement” service, which provides help for elderly or infirm people in their homes such as assistance getting in and out of bed, or help with shower- ing, dressing and preparing meals;
£10 million cuts which the council hopes to make by changing the way people’s needs are assessed;
£11 million cut in funding for care provided to older people and people with physical disabilities in their home. This will be achieved by providing one carer, using specialised equipment, where currently two carers are provided;
£2 million saving from delaying a planned wage increase for some care staff ;
£7 million cut in funding in day care for older adults;
£4 million cut in funding for residential care;
£5.25 million cut in funding for “high cost” adult social care;
£3.75 million cut in funding for the service providing advice to people who contact the council asking for help;
£1 million cut in funding for adult social care switchboard staff ;
£1.5 million saved by axing a grant of £250 which is currently available to people caring for a loved one to help pay for equipment or professional services.
In response to Mr Corbyn, Theresa May said the Government would work on “a longer-term solution” for social care funding.
That’s good to hear, and we’ll wait to learn what it is.
But her short-term fix is a disgrace. The Government must not be allowed to get away with washing its hands of the issue and dumping the problem, and the need to raise extra cash, on local authorities.
Ministers know voters tend to blame their local council, not central government, for increases in council tax bills