Ahead of this, Medway Labour can already see that this will be a budget full of broken promises.

The Tories promised not to cut front-line services, but this budget will fall heaviest on certain parts of our community: children and young people, the disabled, hard-pressed families, and the elderly.

At the last budget meeting only one year ago, the Tory administration rebuffed efforts from Labour to ensure Sure Start – as a vital local service – be protected for years to come. They made much of their ‘safeguarding’ Sure Start, though in reality funding saw a drop in real terms.

This time around, the picture is even starker: budget proposals released so far show a direct cut in funding for Sure Start. If ‘safeguarding’ means cutting Sure Start budgets for our children, then the Tory idea of guarding our services will not keep them very safe at all.

Protecting Sure Start – a broken promise.

Likewise, cuts are planned for ‘Supporting People’, a scheme that supports charities and community groups to help rehabilitate some of our most vulnerable residents, including those with mental health issues, those who are trying to rehabilitate from addictions and those fleeing domestic violence. These cuts will mean when our most vulnerable residents need support it simply will not be there.

At the same time, the administration already plans to cash in on proposals to close the Balfour Centre, a day centre for people with disabilities, and privatise three local care homes, despite a majority of users opposing this move.

Protecting front-line services – a broken promise.

And despite the Tories’ promise to create more jobs, unemployment is rising in Medway, with 268 more people joining the ranks of the unemployed in just the last month alone and an average of 11 people in competition for every job vacancy.

Cllr Paul Godwin, Leader of the Labour Group said,

“We oppose this budget, not to reject everything for the sake of it as the Tories will no doubt accuse us – but because, forced to vote on the budget as a whole, a number of items contained within it make it impossible to support. The Labour group will not be voting for cuts affecting the elderly, the disabled and children, and we are proud to take this standpoint”. 

Cllr Vince Maple, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Finance spokesperson said,

“This is the first time in Medway Council history where we have seen the double whammy of a Tory led Council and a Tory Led Government in control for a full year and the people of Medway are realising what that means to them – Broken Promises.”

“This is to be a budget of broken promises, which hurts but doesn’t work for the people of Medway.”

Campaigners say no to plans for an airport in the Thames Estuary

Medway Labour has expressed concern at the delay from the Conservative-led government in responding to a cross-party letter that was sent to Transport Secretary, Justine Greening on the 18th January 2012, a whole month ago.

The letter signed by all the Council Group leaders articulated our united opposition to the Airport on the Peninsula and called for a meeting to discuss our concerns.

As yet not one member of the Conservative-led government has sent a reply.

Commenting Cllr Paul Godwin, Leader of the Labour Group and one of the signatories to the cross party letter said,

“Given the significance of this issue for Medway it is shameful that Justine Greening MP has not bothered to acknowledge our cross-party letter for representation.”

“Medway Labour will be campaigning with residents to oppose the Estuary Airport this weekend and are calling for more transparency with the public”

Videos from the campaign:

The task group’s establishment follows an ongoing campaign by Labour members to warn of the dangers of predatory loan shark companies, and to encourage the Council to do more to tackle this issue.

Cllr Vince Maple, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group said,

“This task group is needed now more than ever. With unemployment on the up, and a lack of jobs to go round, more and more people are turning to loan sharks to make ends meet. But sadly, what seems like a quick fix, can end up costing a fortune in interest charges – for example, people have been forced to pay up to 4000% APR.”

“Already, reports say that payday lenders are likely to overtake credit cards as the most popular form of borrowing in the country – but people need to know the huge risks involved. It is also vital to have good independent financial advice and education, from people like Medway CAB, and to raise awareness of the alternative lending options offered by community based credit unions like Medway Credit Union and Kent Savers.” 

“I look forward to working with Council colleagues from all political parties to see what we can do to tackle this worrying situation.”

It’s Hurting But It’s Not Working

Medway Labour are frustrated by the announcement of today’s unemployment figures, which show Medway unemployment has risen by 268 people in just a month since December. This brings the total unemployed in Medway to 7,416.

Meanwhile national unemployment has hit 2.67 million, the highest level for 16 years.

Yet, hopes are unlikely to be raised for the thousands now claiming unemployment benefits in Medway, as figures show an average of approximately 11 people applying for every job vacancy.

Cllr Vince Maple, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group said,

“It is very sad to see that yet again in Medway unemployment has continued to rise.”

“The government’s economic plans have hit too far and too fast, and the damage to Medway is clear. The local Tories have done little to help the situation, and there are simply not enough jobs to go around.  As the Labour team both here in Medway and in Westminster have been saying, it is time for a plan B.”

Notes:

The full statistics for Medway can be found here.

Labour’s Plan B can be found here.

Medway was the worst of 67 councils in the region, ahead of other similar sized unitary authorities including Slough, Southampton and Brighton & Hove.

Commenting Cllr Vince Maple, Deputy Leader and Finance Spokesperson said,

“This is just the latest piece of news that further proves that the Medway Conservatives are out of touch, in a week when we see the administration breaking election promises.“

“It is clear that we are not all in this together – as it is the most vulnerable, families and the young who are suffering under the Tories. Remember that less than a year ago they were promising to improve front line services not cut them, we now see a very different picture.”

 “It is morally bankrupt that whilst Tories propose closures of local care homes on the basis of finance, the public are reading about overspending on projects, mismanaged data and poor financial control.”

 “The public know that this Tory Council is amongst the worst for fraud, and now we are the bottom of the list for Council tax collection too.”

Cllrs Teresa Murray and Vince Maple take time looking at all the responses received as part of the Council consultation, which show mass opposition to the proposals.

Medway Labour councillors have submitted an official response to the consultation on the future of adult social care service provision at:

• Balfour Centre
• Nelson Court
• Platters Farm
• Robert Bean Lodge

The Labour Group rejected the proposed changes as laid out in the various consultation documents. There are a number of reasons for this position, which cut across all four sites.

Firstly, the overwhelming response from service users, carers, families, staff and medical professionals has been that the closure or outsourcing as proposed should not go ahead. Thousands of petition responses have been received, and moving testimonies have been heard at the consultation meetings which all say the same thing.

We believe the plans, if enacted, would have an incredibly negative impact, both on individual service users and on the community as a whole.

Worryingly, it is furthermore not clear that the services that will be lost, for example from the Balfour Centre’s closure in particular, can be re-provided elsewhere.

The same also goes for the quality of care that users can expect to receive once services are privatised. What struck the Labour group were the testimonies of service users who have had a poor experience in the private sector – making clear the importance of having council run services as not only a source of assured quality, but also a safety net for those who have been failed by the private market.

Additionally, our response raises concerns about the manner in which the consultation has taken place, with issues including: poorly disseminated information, lack of key facts or evidence, failure to consult all the right people, and suggestions that the decision has in fact already been taken anyway.

We therefore believe for the reasons laid out in our official response that the proposals consulted upon should be rejected. We therefore urge the Tory Cabinet to listen to our response, alongside all those who have contributed to this process – and do the right thing.

Cllr Teresa Murray, Medway Labour’s spokesperson for Health and Adult Social Care said,

“I hope the Cabinet will take our report seriously and reject the proposals. The testimonies of services users, their families and carers at the consultation meetings show how highly valued these council services are. The vast number of written responses I read emphasise this – there is not one single response in favour, even a Tory MP from Sittingbourne has sent a letter supporting the Balfour centre, and among the many GPs signing the petition is an ex Tory councillor, Dr Dudley Hubbard. Even if the Cabinet decide to go ahead, we’ll continue fighting to save these vital services.”

Read our full consultation response document here.

Commenting Cllr Glyn Griffiths, Spokesperson for Regeneration said:

“Wind technology is an important component of the UK’s energy mix as we seek to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. With onshore wind production being technically easier and therefore cheaper than offshore, there must be a role for it in the right locations.”

“Support for wind production is particularly important in this part of Kent given that the international wind technology company Vestas has opened a new facility in Sheerness with the intention of employing up to 2,000 people, as it increases its production of wind power. Opposition from local Tory MPs to onshore wind generation could place those new jobs in jeopardy.”

Further responding to article today by Tracey Crouch MP, Cllr Tristan Osborne said:

“It is a bit of an own goal that Tracey Crouch talks today about planning and localism, when in the same newspaper we have Cameron and Osborne colluding over the destruction of the Peninsula, over and above the wishes of the local community.”

“Perhaps if Tracey employed proper research she would know that Capstone Valley would not be considered viable under the Medway Local Plan for wind farms.”

“Perhaps she should speak with Gordon Henderson MP about the importance of wind engineering as a regional employer before jumping on the next bandwagon”

Editor Notes:

* “Medway’s Local Plan makes it clear that Capstone Valley should not be used for development” – Cllr Jane Chitty (Conservative)

** The Vestas site in Sheerness is owned by Medway Ports, which has a direct link with local economy in North Kent and Medway

• Balfour Centre
• Nelson Court
• Platters Farm
• Robert Bean Lodge

The Labour Group reject the proposed changes to service provision as laid out in the various consultation documents[i]. There are a number of reasons for this position, some which cut across all four sites, some which are specific to certain sites.

Public opinion

It is clear from attending the vast majority of consultation meetings that there is no public appetite for these proposals – the overwhelming response from service users, carers, families, professionals, medical professionals has been that the closure or outsourcing as proposed will have an incredibly negative impact, both on individual service users and on the community as a whole.

At several consultation meetings, many people have rightly raised the point that these services are some of the very best that the council provides and should be held up as exemplary, not closed down in the case of Balfour or changed so that no certainty of service provision is there, as for users of Nelson Court, Robert Bean Lodge or Platters Farm.

Alongside the consultation meeting there have been various petitions[ii] which have gathered thousands of signatures – these collective views should be given due consideration by decision makers.

Misleading or limited information

We believe some information provided during the consultation meetings was misleading e.g.: the costs for private homes did not include their ability to charge top up fees – which the council is not permitted to do – making the cost comparison with council run homes unrealistically high[iii]. Also, the ability of service users to mix direct payment services with council supported services was not made clear; it was inferred that users in receipt of any element of direct payment could not use the Balfour centre or council day services[iv], which is simply incorrect.

Many residents have raised concerns about the quality of the impact assessments for these proposals. We believe this could leave the council at risk of legal challenge if assessments do not fully account for the impact on people with disabilities using evidence-based information.

The proposals up for consultation also did not offer any alternative modes of delivery or management such as the formation of an ALMO or a Co-operative. These options could be considered if council ownership can be maintained, whilst still offering the potential to yield more sustainable, lower risk efficiency savings, as well as maximising the ability of the existing valued services to attract direct payments.

Issues with the consultation process

Some questions must be asked about the consultation process. The consultation was too short, and initially the venues, times and transport chosen for the public meetings were difficult for users and carers to access. As many of the service users are disabled or have mobility needs, a need to facilitate for this during the consultation should clearly have been anticipated.

In terms of timing, some residents have suggested to us that the timing of the process over Christmas was a cynical attempt to further shorten people’s ability to participate.

Communication was poor – it must once again be noted that some service users and staff found out through local media outlets[v], which is simply unacceptable.

Precluding the outcome of the consultation

The savings anticipated from these proposals have been wrongly included in the budget proposals for 2012/13, even before the consultation has ended, creating the appearance of a done deal[vi].

Confidence in the consultation process is therefore weak. Respondents to the consultation have asked just what level of unified opposition must be registered in order for these proposals to be dropped, if indeed that is even possible – that is to say, many feel that whatever view they express, in the long run they will simply not be listened to.

Furthermore, the savings anticipated cannot be realised in a full year, and as such take no account of future projections for demographic impact or disability needs within the local population.

Who makes the decision

Service users and their families have made the point that too few councillors involved in decision making have direct experience of the services, which may have an impact on their ability to fully grasp the wide range of services provided.

Furthermore, the public have noted limited attendance from Cabinet members at consultation meetings.

No medical practitioners who refer patients to the Balfour centre and day services have been consulted on the proposals before they were published  – this leaves the consultation lacking sound medical opinion on potential impacts.

Quality of care

The parliamentary public accounts committee[vii] has stated that as yet it is difficult for councils to control the standard of care in the private sector and is issuing guidelines to strengthen the Council’s ability to do this. The proposals up for consultation take no account of the forthcoming guidelines.

Nevertheless the CQC[viii] has already detected problems at 3 Medway homes where care is commissioned, and notices have been issued. We believe moving to a scenario where there is no direct in-house provision leaves Medway in a high-risk environment, both with regards to service provision and pricing of services, and does not reflect the established economic interdependency of the public and private sectors.

Many of these users have shared their own bad experiences of care from the local private sector in the course of the consultation. They have expressed concern that monitoring of these services is inadequate. The Labour group accepts the need to commission from the private sector but believes that privatising the council’s homes would significantly weaken the council’s ability to step in where the private sector fails because access to impartial staffing teams for this purpose would not be available, as they would have to be commissioned too.

Lack of alternative provision

The promises of re-provision and alternative services so far published are unrealistic in terms of capacity, transport and range of activities and services on offer, so would not result in service users being able to replicate the facilities they now enjoy elsewhere. This has been consistently one of the biggest concerns raised by service users and families who currently use the Balfour Centre.

The three council homes each offer very different services making the possible tendering process complex, lengthy and costly. We believe if the council is serious about choice, that having both independent and in-house provision offers genuine choice to residents.

National backdrop

At time of submitting this response, there is a high court challenge[ix] taking place, supported by 4 national charities to challenge the right of councils to take their financial situation of disabled people into account when assessing their needs. The outcome of this could force the council to re-provide certain services; so closing them may be a short-term false economy.

Conclusion

We therefore believe for the reasons laid out above, that the proposals which have been consulted on should be rejected.

The draft proposals, which will be debated at the next Full Council meeting on 23rd February, show dramatic cuts to adult social care budgets, including ‘Supporting People’ funding which is targeted at the most vulnerable in society, including those with mental health issues and victims of domestic violence.

The budget also presumes that the closure of the Balfour Centre will go ahead, precluding the outcome of the consultation – but also offering another stark contrast to the Conservative election pledge of “Continuing to improve front line services such as care homes”.

Likewise Sure Start centres, which give invaluable support to families across Medway, were a key source of debate during the election. The Tories claimed Medway’s Sure Start centres were ‘safe’ with them and would not see funding reduced – yet they are now highlighted as a target for budget reductions.

Commenting Cllr Vince Maple, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group said,

“This shows that not only are we seeing cuts in services, but it will be some of Medway’s most vulnerable who are being targeted. This sits alongside a national backdrop which sees the Tory-led Coalition Government cutting too far and too fast. Less than a year ago the Tories in Medway were elected on the promise of improving front line services, this budget does the opposite. There can be no doubt that this budget will have a negative impact on the lives of Medway residents.”

Notes:

See the Tory election pledges here. And Tory election materials which claim that Sure Start will not be cut. 

Despite a general unwillingness amongst the Tories to accept any sort of culpability for the stagnating economy and rising unemployment – both locally and nationally – Medway Labour were interested to note a more realistic analysis within our Tory-run Council’s own documents.

The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy admits, “…growth in the UK economy is expected to be weak in the next two years and there is a risk of a technical recession…GDP growth has basically flat-lined since the election of 2010 and, worryingly, the economic forecasts for 2012 and beyond have been revised lower on a near quarterly basis”.

Notably, this is directly linked to government policy, saying “The Comprehensive Spending Review, which seeks to reduce the UK’s annual fiscal deficit, will also depress growth during the next few years”.

It continues, “With the impact of the Government’s austerity strategy resulting in steadily increasing unemployment during 2011, there are limited prospects for any improvement in 2012 given the prospects for weak growth”.

Meanwhile, a report this week from the respected thinktank the National Institute of Economic and Social Research confirms this further, saying that the UK will slide into recession this year as the government continues to “deliberately” damage the economy with its unwavering fiscal squeeze.

Cllr Vince Maple, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, said,

“It would be hard for anyone to deny that the economic picture looks increasingly bleak, but it is telling that the government’s policies are listed in the report as directly responsible. These are not the words of politicians but non-political council officers who are using a variety of trusted sources. As both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have repeatedly said, it is time to change course with Labour’s alternative Plan for Growth and Jobs”

Are the Tories and their Lib Dem colleagues finally ready to admit that they have cut too far and too fast, holding back growth, and putting more people out of work? We know it’s time for Plan B. See here for Labour’s alternative ‘Plan for Growth and Jobs’: http://www.labour.org.uk/plan