| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
SCOTTISH ADJACENT WATERS BOUNDARIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 July.
CONTROL OF HEDGEROWS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.
ZOO LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 May.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not in the best spirit of the House to seek a Second Reading on the day immediately following the printing of a Bill.
WILD MAMMALS (HUNTING WITH DOGS) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
MARINE WILDLIFE PROTECTION BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
RETAIL PACKAGING RECYCLING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 July.
PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 July.
HARE COURSING BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 May.
GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts
- That Mr. Richard Page be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Edward Leigh be added to the Committee.--[Mr. McNulty.]
Social Services (Southend)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McNulty.]
2.32 pm
Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): Social services in Southend are in crisis. That view is not mine but that of the all-party delegation that met the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), on 10 January. I was asked to join the delegation, so many of the opinions that I shall share with the Minister for Public Health are not mine, but those of the Labour and Liberal-controlled council. The Minister of State's heart belongs to Southend. He comes from the town and was educated there. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) must not hold a discussion in the middle of a debate.
Mr. Amess: The Minister of State listened courteously to everything that was said in the meeting and I want to share with the House the details and what has happened since. It is no exaggeration to say that a growing number of Southend residents depend on what the Minister for Public Health is able to say today. Unfortunately, the situation has grown somewhat worse since our meeting on 10 January.
Before the meeting, I was supplied with a detailed briefing which I shall summarise. The council budgets to spend overall at the standard spending assessment level. The political complexion of Essex county council has changed and is still in doubt. People often say that things are not as they wish when they take over, and Southend would argue that things were not in a good way when it became a unitary authority. The council says that it is budgeting to spend at SSA level on education in 2000-01. It recognises the budgetary pressures in respect of social services and affords priority to the service by spending above the SSA. I think most Members know how the SSA is calculated, but many of us would argue with the way in which it is calculated. The Government, and the Minister of State specifically, invited representations on that.
The difference between Southend's SSA and projected spending on social services in 2000-01 is approximately £1.5 million, which is a considerable amount. Many people think that Southend is a wealthy area with no social problems; if only that were so. The Government obviously realise that it is not, because they supported the town's bid for objective 2 status. Southend has a growing transient population from London. As a Londoner myself, I do not want to be too heavy-handed with London authorities, but many of their challenging problems seem to be arriving in Southend. Southend argues that it is not being given the resources that would enable it to cope with those problems.
As the Minister will know, having presumably been briefed, the main pressures on our budget relate to learning disabilities and looked-after children. Both show a high level of spending above the SSA. In respect of learning disabilities, an increasing number of service users are qualifying for care as a result of increased life
expectancy, ageing carers who are becoming unable to cope, and a perceived high proportion of service users in Southend compared with the average.Meanwhile, an increasing number of children need to be looked after. As the Minister will know, we have no home in Southend to look after them. I have no easy answer to the problems caused by children who will not go to school. Often they are the children of single parents, who say that they cannot control them. We have no secure residential accommodation for such children.
We are working with South Essex health authority, but we feel that, because we are under-resourced, we cannot chip in and help with its problems. The budget disaggregation that led to the redistribution of funds to deal with mental illness left the borough with a further problem: schemes that it inherited did not match the grant allocated by the Department of Health, and there was a shortfall of £52,000.
A number of cuts have been made. During the 18 years of Conservative Government, Labour and Liberal Members of Parliament used to criticise cuts, so I do not think it dishonest of me to share with the House the brief that I have received from the Labour-Liberal council telling me all about the cuts that it has made. Three of our six residential homes have been closed, which has saved £1 million, and a fourth has become a rehabilitation and respite care unit. The children's and young persons' division has been restructured, which has saved £300,000.
There has also been a large increase in home care charges. I have received many letters about that--local residents are facing extra charges for meals on wheels and all sorts of other services. The introduction of a new charging policy, extending charges to day care and other areas in 1999-2000, will apparently raise about £250,000; management has been restructured, and that will save £50,000. The situation is already serious, and, having analysed the projections for next year I believe that they will lead to further cuts.
I had an exchange in the House with the Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes). She obviously does not know Southend as well as I do, and depended on briefing. I do not criticise those who briefed her, but it was slightly disingenuous of her to criticise the council for the underspend of £31,000. When the Minister--who, I know, will not have time to reply to me fully today--looks at the figures, she will see that the money was ring-fenced and the £31,000 could not be used. In any event, it was a drop in the ocean of the overall shortfall.
The Under-Secretary said that the Conservatives could not even be bothered to present an alternative budget, and Labour Members cheered. It was not like that, but one of the problems with being in opposition is that the Government always get the last word, so it is difficult to come off best.
For the following year, the council will have to authorise a number of cost-reduction measures. I am worried that it is keeping a number of posts vacant. The director of social services will have a vacancy factor of £118,000. That is all well and good, but local residents will be very concerned if there are cuts in any key areas.
In its best value review, the local authority identified various savings: there will be independent sector efficiency savings of £89,500; the mental health grant and
independence grant will be redistributed, which will contribute a further £57,500; under a review of social services establishment, a senior practitioner will not be replaced, saving £16,000; changes to the reception area of Queensway house and Royce house will save £25,000; equipment store downgrading will save £20,000; a training scheme downgrading will save £24,000, and so it goes on. The headlines will refer to cuts. I do not incite people to write letters, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not represent the views of the local groups that write to me, so umpteen letters will find their way to the Minister's office and to her ministerial colleagues.Some of the letters that I have received about what is happening on the ground are very worrying. On 31 January, social services introduced a new charging policy for non-residential community care. Instead of a flat rate of £10.85, it was decided to introduce a banded system. Following that new policy, I have had many letters from elderly and disabled constituents whom the council--and perhaps the Government--feels should be able to pay for their non-residential community care. That fear is being stoked up because pensioners are getting only a 75p a week increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is well aware of the terrible problem in Southend. We had a ballot on whether the primary care group should become a primary care trust. Only 31 per cent. of doctors supported it, and doctors cannot be silenced, as we found. The Conservative Government did not try to do that, but we found consultants and doctors extremely challenging. Community care charges will mean a 400 per cent. increase in the weekly bills of local residents. Those people skimped and scraped to put together what they thought would be enough to look after themselves in later life, but it is proving very difficult.
At Southend hospital, 64 beds are blocked, 28 with social services cases. Local home owners are concerned because there is no longer any money for nursing care--it is all residential. I am advised that, as a result of Mrs. Coughlan's case--I know that the Government are appealing against it--any charging would be illegal. A new standard weekly charge of £485.50 equates to £69.36 per day. Private owners are expected to maintain their residents in the private sector on £36 a day. That is ridiculous. They have to maintain higher standards and higher staffing levels on half the amount that the council claims. It is a very difficult situation.
I have had a letter from Southend Rotary Club, which says how upset it is that it seems that the council will not continue to fund Crossroads. I have also had a letter from the treasurer of the Huntington's Disease Association. It is worth quoting. It says that it is disappointed with
- the treatment we are receiving from Southend Borough Council. First funding for Lulworth Court--
- was withdrawn causing its closure.
- Crossroads have lost the contract they had in favour of a nursing agency which is hardly the same thing.
Crossroads gave a unique service which will now be lost.
I have also had a long letter from Southend Mencap, which has tremendous problems with day-centre charges. It says:
- We now have the evidence that people in the same Day Centres, receiving the same benefits and receiving the same training programmes, are to be charged by the Southend system but not by the Essex system.
- We are aware that Government guidance gives local authorities discretion to make charges, with an implied threat that if they fail to do so their SSA could be affected adversely. This is at the root of the problem.
Earlier in the year, the council said that it had 447 "nationally assisted" asylum seekers. First, the number in total was between 700 and 1,000. Now it looks as if it is well over 2,000. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), is visiting Southend on 9 March, I believe.
The local authority's report goes through all the pressures, not just on schools and on policing but on social services in particular. I know that the Minister will not have time today to reply in detail to the matter, but the local authority is concerned that the grant will not be honoured in total. It has had word that the national budget is overcommitted and that grant claims may not be met in full.
There we are. I say it again. It is not the hon. Member for Southend, West saying that social services in Southend are in crisis--we all have better things to do with our time than to keep moaning about things--but the people whom I represent. The plea is coming in particular from councillors in Southend.
I hope that the Minister, if she is not able in the short time available to go into huge detail about the problems, will at least speak to her colleagues. Please, please, please will she do all in her power to help my constituents? I represent an ageing population. It is ironic, considering the matters that we have just debated. Life is very precious. All local residents, regardless of their age, are entitled to decent treatment, particularly from social services in Southend.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |