Let them sit in it...

And so we're back, and all set to go with more tales of the realities of public sector cuts...

We begin with the charming Hammersmith and Fulham council - the Tory flagship borough that keeps council tax down by raising charges on services used by the borough's poorest citizens.

Readers of this site will know that we've followed Hammersmith and Fulham council over the last couple of years as it has slashed services and funds, and looked to screw the shortfall out of people who can least afford it.    

The story we bring you today is of three disabled citizens who brought a case against the council for its decision to start charging for previously free home care.

The courts found in favour of the council, which had not technically broken the law by introducing homecare charges. That decision was upheld in a recent appeal. 

The justice who did the upholding didn't care much for his decision, or the council, though: he stated that the council had ‘sacrificed free home care on the altar of a council tax reduction for which there was no legal requirement,’ and observed that the good people of Hammersmith and Fulham might be surprised to hear that their council tax reductions were being paid for by people with disabilities.  

Plenty more to come on all of this - for now, below is the Hammersmith & Fulham Coalition against Community Care Cuts' press release on the decision. This is what a council tax cut really looks like. It ain't about saving money, or even making money, if the figures quoted in the release below are anything to go by. It's about shifting the tax burden from potential (upper and middle income) voters to the poor.

HAFCAC press release: 

'Whilst endorsing the concerns expressed by two senior members of the Court of Appeal, “HAFCAC, was deeply disappointed by the outcome of the recent Judicial Review appeal, heard in the High Court regarding Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s decision in June 2008 to introduce charging for essential home care services for disabled and older people from January 1st 2009.

The judgment

'Although the Court of Appeal ruled that the Council’s decision was
lawful, two of the Lord Justice’s expressed concern: one Lord Justice Sedley stated that he had ‘very considerable misgivings’ which were shared by the other, Lord Clarke, Master of the Rolls, an inaugural member of the Supreme Court.

Lord Justice Sedley observed that ‘the prior decision of the local
authority that council tax was to be cut by 3% had to be implemented. Once this was given, the only practical choice for social services was going to be to raise the eligibility threshold or to charge for home care.’

'This may surprise many local people who were not told that the cut to their Council tax bills would, in part, be paid for by disabled people.

'Lord Justice Sedley continued:

‘The object of this exercise was the sacrifice of free home care on the altar of a council tax reduction for which there was no legal requirement.

'The only real issue was how it was to be accomplished.’

'There was no criticism of the disabled people who brought the case. Indeed Lord Justice Rix, stated ‘I am full of admiration …  for the appellants, who attended the hearing of the appeal. The appellants approach the matter from the standpoint of a principled objection to the whole idea of charging. In that connection they are fully entitled to take advantage of all and any material which might indicate that the Council had not paid due regard to its equality duties.’

'HAFCAC also acknowledges the determination of the three disabled people concerned who were keen to ensure their own quality of life was protected along with many hundreds of older and disabled people.

HAFCAC comment

'The council refused to accept HAFCAC’s concern that introducing charges would mean more people struggling on by themselves, relying more on family members when they otherwise would have requested assistance from the council.

But that is precisely what has happened. In the 8 months since charging was introduced the number of disabled and older people receiving home care support has actually gone down. Even though in order to justify the decision to introduce charging, the council said – in January 2008 – that the number of services users was ‘predicted to climb significantly over the next 3 years”

Charging income the Council predicted would generate a gross estimated income of £260k for the period January-March 2009. To date £101k of income, less than half, has been received for the whole period January-June 2009, far less than predicted. (Hammersmith & Fulham council figures).

David Webb, a local disabled person said;

‘This is a Council that has cut Council tax since 2006; year on year by 3% claiming this is being achieved solely by being more efficient. This policy clearly shows that claim to be false. This has now come out in the court proceedings that the council knew full well after they announced the council tax cuts that the result would be to further impoverish local disabled people or to cut access to home care services. 

People who celebrate a council tax reduction should know at least who paid for it. In fact the administration promised in 2006 that it would not introduce charges for home care and then broke its promise.

The Council is now committed to cutting the council tax by another 3% in 2010 that will undoubtedly lead to further service cuts and charges. Given their track record it will be difficult now to believe anything they may say about avoiding further cuts and charges, or to believe that they will not transfer the burden yet again onto older and disabled people. 

Kevin Caulfield, Chair of HAFCAC said:

We are not talking about charging disabled people for having luxuries – the services/support in question assist people to meet basic human needs such as having a shower and going to the toilet. Basic needs that the rest of the community would view as an absolute violation of their human rights, if such day to day activities were conditional on paying an invoice from the council.

This decision again leaves groups of disabled people who need essential support at a significant disadvantage in relation to non-disabled residents. This judicial decision sadly demonstrates that institutionalised discrimination against disabled and older people that require independent living support is alive and well. Both policy and legislation needs to change.       

The three disabled residents concerned are considering their position in the light of the judgment.

ENDS

And a bit more:

In H&F News, the council's very large propaganda newspaper for residents, the council reports the above appeal decision in a very little par on page 15.

'The court of appeal has dismissed claims that H&F council did not take equalities issues fully into account when it decided to introduce charges for home care,' the story reads. The word 'dismisses' strikes us as a less-than-accurate description of the Lord Justice's above commentary, but there we go.