|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
many people already living in sheltered housing are unhappy about paying charges for a service they could manage without.
That shows just how out of touch Conservative Barnet council is. Not one of the dozens of people to whom I spoke suggested that they were unhappy with the service. Every single one, though, was extremely concerned and frightened about the consequences of the councils proposals. All believed the consultation to be a complete sham, based on bitter experience of Conservative Barnet councils past consultations.
The council suggests that part of the problem is inadequate financial support from the Government, yet it has had above-inflation rises in aggregate external finance every year since we came to power bar one, the year reflecting the census. It was widely believed to have underestimated the population, but Barnet council chose not to challenge it.
If the council wants to look for savings, it should start with the 22 per cent. pay increase that Conservative councillors voted for and Labour and Liberal Democrat groups opposed. If it had not recklessly lost £27 million in speculative investments in Icelandic banks, the interest alone would have gone a long way to meeting the costs of that dangerous cut. It is not fair to expect vulnerable elderly people in sheltered accommodation to pick up the bill for the Conservatives mismanagement of the council.
Many tenants make the point that they would not be in sheltered accommodation if they had been able to remain in their own homes. They are there because they require that support; indeed, they would not have been offered sheltered housing without first being assessed as being in need of it. The council suggest that others who are not in sheltered housing are being discriminated against because they receive less support. That is a false comparison, which shows the need to level service up not down, and the councils failure to provide adequate sheltered housing to those who need and want it. From
my own observation, as well as tenants own comments, it is clear that the majority would be unsafe if left on their own. They have varying degrees of frailty, many are bewildered and forgetful and it is clear that some really ought to be moved into higher dependency support. However, they manage to cope with the help of the current warden service.
Many tenants told me that they gave up larger, family-sized council or housing association properties, which are in high demand, in return for the offer of sheltered accommodation with warden support. Without wardens, the tenants would not have moved. The proposal therefore will have a deterrent effect on other elderly people occupying larger properties, because they will be less willing to downsize to sheltered accommodation.
it is a great injustice; it will cost more in the end;
its diabolical to pick on the elderly.
I was also shown a number of tenancy agreements that demonstrate that a significant proportion of tenants have a contractual right to a residential warden service, and that it would be a breach of contract to remove the service.
Many health issuesperhaps the most important kind of issuewere raised with me. Individual examples include epilepsy. One resident has had three epileptic episodes; he was found promptly by the warden and an ambulance was called. The fits struck so quickly that there was no time for him to have called for help. A resident with a laryngectomy valve has just one hour to get to hospital if the valve comes out. If it does, she cannotfor obvious reasonscall or phone for help herself. She relies on the warden to do so. An oxygen-dependent tenant relies on the warden to check on his medication and the oxygen to ensure that they are being taken and used properly. Another resident said:
I collapsed and knocked myself out. The warden came straight away.
I am asthmatic and the warden regularly checks on me.
Who will let in the ambulance staff if there is an emergency?
The warden calls the GP if we are ill. The GP might not come if it was just us.
He sits with me, reassuring me until the paramedics arrive.
She cooks a meal if someone is ill.
Wardens play a big role in the safety and security of their tenants and their homes. They help deter and keep out intruders, and alert the police if necessary. They check on the security of the premises, especially in the
evenings. Some tenants commented that, due to forgetfulness, doors are sometimes not secured at night. One asked:
Who will deal with the fire brigade? Our common parts alarm is not switched through anywhere, and we rely on the warden to call them.
The warden checks that our smoke alarms and emergency cords work.
I overcooked something, and the smoke alarm went offthe warden was there immediately.
Weve had two fires. We rely on the warden to deal with the fire brigade.
In another example of forgetfulness, a tenant left her handbag on an open staircase. Luckily, the warden found it and returned it to her. The level of reassurance given by the wardens presence cannot be overestimated
Every day, he checks on us.
The warden holds spare keys for us, in case we lose them or urgent help is needed.
In blocks with lifts and upper floors, wardens are a vital support for tenants who cannot use the stairs unaided in the event of an emergency or lift failure. For obvious health and safety reasons, such tenants will probably have to be rehoused at ground floor level, putting additional pressure on housing stock in acute shortage. Alternatively, they will have to be housed in accommodation with higher, more expensive support.
The warden made dinner for me, when the carer didnt come due to the snow.
Wardens know their own tenants wellby sight, name and behaviour pattern. They will be the first to know if someone is missing, unwell or otherwise suffering. No floating service could ever have such important, intimate knowledge of such vulnerable people.
The warden service really comes into its own when it comes to social needs. Its dedicated men and women support their tenants, in ways that go way beyond their contractual duties, out of their common humanity towards people who depend on them for help. Tenants spoke of their fear of isolation, without the social activities that wardens help to organise:
She helps make life liveable.
The homely touchshe puts flowers in the reception;
Who will put up the Christmas decorations and cook the Christmas lunch?;
The human factorshe remembers my name;
I cant read or write, and she reads all my letters for me. I dont want to ask others, as theyd know my private business;
The warden delivers meals from the on-site restaurant to me. Im 94 and cant walk far or prepare my own food.
Extra help given by wardens includes: information and advice; form-filling for benefits; the social clubcoffee mornings, visits and outings; cooking meals for the tenants together; help with minor home repairs; changing light bulbs; help with shopping; maintaining contacts and links with residents families; and ensuring that
residents are up and about in the mornings. None of that support can realistically be given by a floating service.
As part of my research, I also contacted and surveyed sheltered accommodation tenants whose warden service had been withdrawn and replaced with a floating service. All complained of very brief visits and a lack of interaction between the visiting support worker and the tenants, either individually or collectively.
Mr. Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab): I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest. What he describes is not only happening in Barnet and Hendon; he may not be comforted to know that many Conservative boroughs across London, including Hammersmith and Fulham, are doing exactly the same, and it goes alongside cuts to meals on wheels, domiciliary services and all services provided for social tenants. In every single case, and despite campaigns by the GMB and other unions, the cost goes up and the service quality goes down. We are talking about a concerted political campaign against social tenants, and it is continuing throughout London.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful for my hon. Friends intervention. He is absolutely right. I know a little about what has happened in his borough. If my local elderly people were look at what is happening in Hammersmith and Fulham, they would fear that Barnet might follow it with serious cuts to other services such as meals on wheels.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has seen the Help the Aged booklet published earlier this year on support for older people living in sheltered accommodation; there is a lot to recommend to him in that publication.
The root cause of Barnets cruel proposal can be found back in 2003, when the supporting people system was introduced, separating support services such as wardens from housing costs. I am sure that when these changes were introduced, it was not foreseen that councils such as Barnet would exploit them to cut services to vulnerable people. I urge my hon. Friend to carry out, as recommended by Help the Aged, a review of the policy on sheltered housing, including consideration of whether sheltered housing should be taken out of supporting people to end the artificial separation of housing management and support that will prove so detrimental to Barnet tenants if the council gets it way. We have to be absolutely clear who is responsible for what is going on in Barnet: the Conservative party, heartless, not compassionate, intends to withdraw this service.
It is clear that the councils proposals have caused immense worry and fear for the tenants who stand to lose their warden service. As part of my survey of tenants, I asked them to rate their service: only a handful gave ratings below nine or 10 out of 10, and many went even higher. Not one agreed with the councils proposals. The tenants referred to their wardens as materfamilias, friend and confidante, and our guardian angel. The human cost will be fear and isolation of elderly, frail and vulnerable peoplethose we should be doing everything we can to support. Some will die through lack of emergency response. Others will inevitably be forced to move to more expensive forms of support, which will no doubt prove to be a false economy. These
proposals cannot be justified, either subjectively from the tenants individual viewpoints, or objectively from their impact on other council services or budgets. The proposals must be withdrawn without delay to give elderly tenants in Barnet the safety and security that they need and deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Iain Wright): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing this important debate on warden services in sheltered accommodation in Barnet. I have read about his hard work on this matter in his constituency carefully and followed it closely. The whole House will acknowledge that such services are vital to many vulnerable people in the borough of Barnet. My hon. Friend is a great example of a connected, responsive and campaigning constituency Member of Parliament.
I should like to do two things in responding to the debate. First, I will set out the national policy context in respect of housing and related support needs for vulnerable and older people; then, I will turn to the specific concerns in my hon. Friends constituency. I am sure that he is well aware that this Government are mindful of the housing and support needs of all vulnerable and older people, wherever they livewhether in their own homes, with family, in supported housing such as sheltered or extra-care accommodation, or residential care establishments. The issue is becoming increasingly important as the population of this country ages. The Governments vision in this policy area is to ensure that our vulnerable and older citizens get the best housing and support services that can be provided, locally and in the most effective way.
In order to achieve that vision, we have provided unprecedented sums of money for local authorities to invest in this area. The supporting people programme has provided funding to local authorities to deliver housing-related support since 2003. As my hon. Friend knows, supporting people is a cross-cutting, preventive programme providing housing-related support to help vulnerable people to live independently. It helps more than 800,000 older people each year, enabling them to maintain their independence through, for example, sheltered housing, home improvement agency and adaptations services, community alarms, and floating support. Such support covers a large number and range of services, generally at a low unit cost, and it can secure independence for a large number of older people. The Government have invested more than £8.7 billion since the programme began in 2003, and we have announced a further £4.9 billion of funding up to March 2011. That three-year settlement will provide stability for service planning and delivery over that period. It will hopefully bring about efficiencies and economies of scale by providing certainty and longer-term contract and procurement services.
Housing-related support services are provided in conjunction with social services for those with more intensive needs. For frail older people, they can be provided in supported accommodation or, increasingly, delivered to their own homes. Those services are for a smaller number of peoplesome 30,000 a yearand
come at a relatively high unit cost, but they still avoid the need for expensive residential care.
That example illustrates an important principle of the supporting people programme, namely that it is an invest-to-save budget. Expenditure of £1.5 billion in housing-related support services, alongside other expenditure costs associated with supporting vulnerable people, such as social care costs, delivers estimated net savings to the Exchequer of £2.7 billion. That comes through costs saved to the NHS and savings on the provision of long-term, expensive residential care. The model underpinning that analysis shows the value of providing good-quality, strategically relevant services to meet local needs and priorities and to support the early intervention and preventive agenda. It reduces calls on other services, such as those on the NHS through emergency admission to hospital.
In this financial year, 2009-10, for the first time the supporting people budget has been paid to local authorities without being ring-fenced. That provides them with an opportunity to work more flexibly and to develop new and innovative ways to support vulnerable people in a range of situations, including by delivering more holistic and needs-based services for older people.
That brings me to an important part of my speechthe devolution of responsibilities and priorities to local government. We emphasise, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, that it is for local authorities to decide how best to design and commission services. Central Government believe that local authorities are best placed to identify services to meet the needs of their local areas, and to balance local priorities. Central Government are not in the business of dictating to local authorities or service providers the details of what local services to provide and how, or indeed of micromanaging the delivery of those services.
However, we are equally clear that in developing and commissioning local services, local authorities should take into account the views and experiences of local service providers, local people and especially service users. I shall discuss that in relation to Barnet in a moment. Consultation and needs assessment are critical to ensuring that any changes in services are effectively managed and reflect the wishes of service users as well as enabling local authorities to meet the needs of all such users. That was emphasised in the supporting people strategy paper, Independence and Opportunity, published by my Department in 2007. One of the strategys most important features is the emphasis that it places on keeping service users at the heart of the delivery of housing support.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|