As I have reported before we are heading for difficult times it is good to know we have some excellent UNISON reps in London Region. Sean Fox, Branch Secretary Haringey, Phil O’Reilly Brent Branch Secretary, Dave Eggmore Camden Branch Secretary, Jon Rogers & Nick Venedi Lambeth Joint Branch Secretaries, Glenn Kelly, Bromley Branch Secretary, Onay Kasab Greenwich Branch Secretary, Brian Debus, Matthew Waterfall Hackney Branch Secretary, Noreen Morris Branch Secretary Hammersmith & Fulham, Sue Clark, Sonya Howard Kensington & Chelsea UNISON rep, Marshajane Thompson & Garry Chick-Mackay Havering Branch Secretary, Phoebe, Mandy, Phil, George from Camden, Andrew in Islington, Gary, Lynne & Steve from Harrow, Sue Plain & Chris Cooper from Southwark to name but a few.

 

But it was the Croydon branch that I want to give a BIG mention. Just over two months ago Malcolm Campbell their Branch Secretary and my good friend passed away. Malcolm was a fantastic branch secretary,the branch are still missing him badly, as all of his friends are. Malcolm would have been proud of the Croydon’s delegation which went to conference. They kept up his tradition of speaking up for members and challenging the bureaucracy that sometimes seems out of synch with the delegates at conference.

 

Many of the above have supported our branch and some will no doubt be visiting us at our Future Shape Lobby on 6 JULY

Monday 8 June Cabinet Committee

On Monday there was a fantastic turn out for the Cabinet Committee meeting. Over 300 residents largely residents or relatives of people using the Sheltered Housing Service turned up to protest then listen to the debate concerning their future.

Media were there in numbers, local press BBC London, LBC radio and a Panorama film crew!

I agree with the Deputy Chief Executive who in this week’s First team said “……public question time took up the first half hour of the meeting. Strong passions were firmly articulated.”

As Max Boyce used to say ….I was there! But I don’t think that it is fair to describe what is happening with this campaign as simply residents opposed to change. I have long memory and can remember Councillors being rushed into decisions about our residential and day care services for older people against UNISON advice. The same arguments about progress and no change is not an option were used to undermine UNISON’s report to the Council. Needless to say UNISON was right to urge caution, we are currently being taken to court by the Provider who took over our council services. Furthermore we have a ludicrous situation two tier standard, with some Barnet residents in the former council residential homes still living in what was described back in 1999 as unsuitable and other residents in the new homes, all on the same contract. How clever is that?

Back to Sheltered Housing, it is clear residents are scared and are not convinced that this cut will lead to a better service. A lot of work is needed to address these concerns.

Don’t take my word you can listen to the residents yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1YxHg4VkDc

 

Tuesday 9 June Ad Hoc Scrutiny Committee

This is a cross party committee specifically to look at what happened to the Councils investment in Icelandic banks. The purpose of this meeting was to select a firm of consultants to carry out an investigation.

The consultants have to carry out a review guided by the Terms of Reference agreed at the Annual General Meeting to view click here

A robust discussion was had. There was cross party consensus for the need for transparency. They are working to a tight timescale as the finished report needs to make the council meeting on 14 July 2009 (one for your diaries!)

And the winning consultancy firm issssssssssss!

 

Thursday 11 June General Functions Committee

For those of you who don’t know. This is the staffing committee. If there is a restructure it has to go in front of councillors here. If your restructure goes there it does not mean the end of consultation. Councillors want to know early if there are going to be any redundancies, so a restructure may have to report back to this committee.

I always advise staff if their jobs are going to this committee they should attend to witness the discussion.

Last night our members working in Registrars came to the meeting to witness a discussion on their restructure. They were clearly disappointed as there was no discussion/questions about their restructure. However they were pleased to hear agreement for an extension to the consultation. After the meeting my colleague Maggi Myland and I gave a de-briefing to our members on how committee works and the consultation process, which they all felt was useful.

Barnet Trade Unions issued the following Press release today

Reading the report going to Cabinet Committee

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=8162

I was struck by the numbers of responses. Clearly this issue has been taken up by residents, relatives, providers and the community. The question of whether services are being targeted to those in need was lost when the proposal was presented as a budget cut.

What we can see in the report is the strength of feeling about the proposal. I have copied a section near the end of the Council report which details the concerns. Reading them it is hard to see how they could be disregarded. Residents are afraid and it is not clear from the report how this fear is going to be addressed.

The Main Issues and Concerns Raised 

Loss of Scheme Manager Service

• Security
• Safety
• Having to rely on alarm service
• Community and social life
• Individual emotional support and pastoral care
• Loss of Scheme Managers knowledge of residents and their situations
• Support planning
• Health emergencies
• Disabled, older or frail residents need consistent support by someone they know and trust
• No monitoring or preventative work carried out
• Maintenance and repairs – support in reporting/chasing up/allowing access
• Practical problems – lost keys, residents stuck in lifts etc
• Health and safety issues
• Liaising with and monitoring other services
• Will lead to strain on residents if younger/fitter have to help others, inappropriate as not trained 

Floating Support

• Lack of operational detail, unconvinced it will work
• Inappropriate – adds to security concerns
• No social or community aspect – isolation will increase
• Difficulty accessing by phone
• Cannot cope with high levels of need/chronic conditions/dementia
• Is the funding enough to cover all needs?

Alarm Service  

• What will happen about communal areas if assessed individually?
• Cannot respond as promptly as on site staff
• Slow response

No longer Sheltered Housing

• Younger people moving in

• Potential for ASB and other crime – less secure and easily identified as scheme housing some vulnerable older people

Effect on Other Services

• Increased demand so longer waiting times and higher costs
• More bed blocking and demand for residential and nursing homes

Longer Term

• Planned move into sheltered as long term solution, needs will not be met
• Older people in community will have no incentive to give up larger properties
• Funding for Floating support being cut

Reasons for and Context of Residents Views
Many of the reasons for and justifications of residents’ views are reflected elsewhere in the report but can be summarised as follows. 

• Sheltered housing currently provides a cost effective service that is highly valued, the proposals would effectively end that.
• The security and safety of a vulnerable group will be compromised.
• The assessment process meant the vast majority of residents had identified support needs when they entered sheltered housing, these have not reduced but rather have grown so sheltered housing is sustaining the oldest and frailest people partly as a result of this, there is no evidence the support is not wanted or needed.
• Sheltered housing meets both general and specific needs e.g. language, cultural and religious, disability and ill health.
• Staff have invaluable knowledge of residents and are trusted by them, cannot be replicated by Floating Support.
• Many examples of a responsive on site service assisting promptly with illness, falls and other emergencies whereas delays were anticipated re alarm service response.
• The preventative role will be lost, the social and community life will suffer and this is often important in maintaining health and well being. Daily checks help pick up signs of ill health or deterioration that residents themselves may not be aware of.
• Services can be delivered/monitored effectively as there is a concentration of older people
• Lack of evidence that Floating Support works, those whose needs are too great currently referred by Floating Support to sheltered housing
• Independence can be maintained with low level but consistent support and prevents the use of more expensive residential care
• Reasonable expectations and contractual obligations to continue the service will be broken. This point was emphasised by residents who had freed up large accommodation to move into sheltered accommodation for support.

Despite the attempts of the report to try to address some of the concerns rasied in the consultation it is clear from above that residents/relatives don’t believe it will deliver.

When a report has been published it usually means the decision has been made and it is a rubber stamp exercise.

However……………………………….…

Residents/relatives will be attending the Cabinet Committee, maybe …just maybe members of Cabinet may reconsider. It would be a revelation…….never happened before…… but when politicians ask the community for their view …sometimes…they hold up their hands and recognise they got it wrong……..could this happen on Monday night?

Will Barnet be the first?