Dear Editor Northern Voices (27/10/2016),
As with many people who have been observing Rochdale
Council's Adult Social Care crisis I was
heartened to read Rob Greig, Chief Executive Officer at NDTi precision dissection of Rochdale
Councils current ' consultation' on
Adult Social Care cuts. Families &
Campaigners are clearly vindicated in their concerns ,and the 'outrage' felt
locally & nationally by those opposed to the Councils plans , so soundly
demolished by Rob Greigs articles ,will not be abated by his correct
observation that :
'Sadly the Director’s article largely confirmed my belief
that some key people in the Council may be pushing this change without really
understanding policy and practice.'
(Rochdale’s ‘Transformation’ of Learning Disability Services
by Rob Greig, Chief Executive at the National Development Team for Inclusion,
25 October 2016.
It's also important to note that the massive cutbacks ahead
will not just affect Learning
Disabilities alone.
Our Community is under attack by Tory Austerity . Our
majority Labour Council appear to be colluding in continued Tory Austerity
rather than protecting their Labour voters against it.
We will all have our quality of life diminished and eroded.
We did not elect majority Labour Councils , to have Labour
Councillors enter by the front door of Town Halls the length and breadth of the
North of England, merely to have them enable the
implementation of Tory policies smuggled in by the back door.
I'd urge every voter in Rochdale to read the proposals at : http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/consultations.
I tried yesterday to find paper copied in Riverside for
those without internet access with no success. Another worrying flaw in this
supposed 'consultation' process. As is the apparent total lack of alternative
versions such as large, print, braille or BSL British Sign Language. But that
aside these cuts will affect thousands of local people for the worse.
All the council spin in the world can not sugar coat a very
bitter and unpalatable pill indeed ; And this medicine will not make the
patient better , far from it.
CS-2017-305 Rationalisation of additional funding for Child
and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) will negatively affect Mental
Health Service Users,
NH-2017-312 Continued provision of School Crossing Patrols
at a charge to schools , will negatively affect Children & Parents ,
NH-2017-310 Proposal to review the Legal Advice: Welfare, Debt and Housing
support will negatively affect those needing advice, NH-2017-311 Review of
Community Centre grant funding , people using Community Centres .
Millions of people are going to go under the hammer
& anvil of Tory Austerity , with the
Westminster Tory's stoking the furnace and Labour Councils and Councillors
doing the hammering. Hundreds of thousands of local people will be directly or
indirectly emotionally , physically, mentally and financially damaged by this
slash & burn economic process.
Barrister Steve Broach has helpfully published an article
called 'Challenging local cuts – some key legal questions' for campaigners and
communities to ask of their Councils who are consulting on cuts with their
local tax payers. With this in mind I'd like to ask of Rochdale Council's
officials about to wield the axe to vital services :
Will the council be able to meet all its ‘specific’
statutory duties owed to individual residents? For example:
1.The duty to meet
all 'eligible' needs for disabled adults and their carers under the Care Act
2014
2.The duty to meet 'eligible' needs for disabled
children under section 2 of the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
3.The duty to provide free suitable home to school travel
arrangements for all 'eligible' disabled children under section 508B of the Education Act 1996
4.The duty to secure special education provision in health,
educatiin, health and care plans for disabled children and young people in section 42 of the Children and Families
Act 2014
5.The duty to provide advocacy to disabled people and carers
during the care and support assessment and planning process under section 67 of
the Care Act 2014.
Will the council be able to meet its ‘sufficiency’ duties to
have a sufficient level of particular services to meet local needs? For
example:
1.Childcare,
including childcare for disabled children up to the age of 18, under section 6
of the Childcare Act 2006
2.Short breaks for disabled children under regulation 4 of
the Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011
3.Education and care services for disabled children, under
section 27(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014
4.Children’s centres, under section 5A of the Childcare Act
2006
5.Services for disabled adults and their carers, under the
‘market shaping’ duty in section 5 of the Care Act 2014.
Has the council had ‘due regard’ to the needs specified in
the PSED (see above) – for example the need to advance equality of opportunity
for disabled people (children and adults)?
Will the proposed cuts give rise to unlawful discrimination
between different groups, contrary either to the Equality Act 2010 or Article 14 of the European Convention on
Human Rights ?
Has the council had regard to the need to safeguard and
promote the welfare of children under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 ?
Has the council treated children’s best interests as a
primary consideration in its decision making, as required by Article 3 of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ?
Has there been ‘fair' consultation on the proposals? In
particular (quotes are from the leading consultation case of ex parte Coughlan:
1.Has consultation
taken place at a ‘formative stage’, i.e. sufficiently early in the decision
making to influence the outcome?
2.Have consultees been provided with ‘sufficient reasons for
any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response’ – i.e. do
residents know what cuts are being proposed and why?
3.Have consultees had ‘adequate time’ for consideration and
response?
4.Once the consultation has finished, has ‘the product of
consultation’ been ‘conscientiously taken into account’ in the final decision.
It was Hannah Arendt who spoke of the terrible consequences
of blind obedience, the ' banality of evil' , these proposed cuts are quite
simply evil.
Sometimes no other word will suffice.
Those making them should pause to examine their moral
compasses for they will have to live with their consciences - if they still
have one?
To decide which side they are on
History will record
their names and actions for posterity.
Just as surely as students of local history are today utterly
incredulous at the callousness and
horrific actions resulting in the cruelties inflicted on the poor and
vulnerable by the ' guardians of the Parish' hundreds of years ago with regard
to those seeking Poor Relief or recourse
to the notorious Workhouse .So with absolute certainty will future historians
and public opinion judge their individual actions today .
Yours faithfully,
ANDREW WASTLING
Posts
