Cuts fears remain after judgement

Advocates and activists continue to be fearful of an ongoing cutting agenda by Birmingham City Council despite judicial reassurance as Sunil Peck reports

People in Birmingham fear losing local authority-funded support despite a High Court ruling overturning the Council’s decision to restrict eligibility to people assessed as having critical needs.

Birmingham City Council’s programme of cuts included savings of £51million from its adult social care spending in 2011/12 and a major part of this was to be achieved by withdrawing Council-funded services from people assessed as having substantial needs.

The Council had said that it would signpost them to possible alternative sources of support, such as the voluntary sector, but no detailed plans were in place when the Council made its decision.

But a judge upheld a judicial review sought by four disabled adults assessed as having substantial needs and who had claimed that the Council failed to give proper consideration to the impact of restricting council-funded services to people with critical needs.

But as the High Court ruling relates to the process the Council went through rather than the decision itself, disabled people in Birmingham are concerned that the cuts will be made in the future.

Sandra Daniels, Co-ordinator of People First Birmingham, said that its members were concerned because organisations in the voluntary sector which may have been in a position to provide support were struggling to survive.

She said: “People are worried about their night-time support being taken away so they’ll be left alone to cook, lock doors and turn everything off before they go to bed.”

Pete Millington (pictured), Information and Community Empowerment Manager at Birmingham Disability Resource Centre, said that the majority of people he supports fall into the substantial needs bracket.

He said: “I know someone who is independent but who is worried. He has substantial communication and mobility difficulties yet he works. But if his support is withdrawn, something which looks like a strong possibility, he will be unable to work.”

He added that any future cuts which hit people who need support to look after themselves or attend day centres and colleges risked creating a situation where they would end up falling into the critical need bracket as a consequence.

Karen Ashton, the solicitor who represented three of the disabled people who sought the judicial review, said that even if the cuts were made in the future, the ruling was significant because it meant that local authorities would have to consider the needs of disabled people when deciding where to make cuts.

She said: “In cash-strapped times such as these, the public sector must do more to avoid the consequences of cuts falling on those who are least able to bear them. This is not just a moral obligation, but a legal one.”

Birmingham City Council was yet to decide whether or not to appeal as Disability Now went to press.