You probably think I wrote that headline to be deliberately provocative and in reality this post isn't going to amount to much, huh?
Well you'd be wrong.
In what is surely the most radical move yet fro ma government which is already intent on a wholesale reform of the NHS, they have put on the table the possibility of removing all duties to perform social care from councils.
That's right, councils may not have to do anything to help disadvantaged adults or children in future.
Of course it might not come to that, but the fact that they re even putting it on the table is itself pretty shocking.
The human costs would be massive, after all who would step in to fill the states place.
Plus, what would the role of social workers be if that is actually the result? Redundant I suspect.
As usual we have a half-cocked proposal on social care.
It is totally wrong that the issue should even be dicussed without the solution to how social care is provided - just a year or so ago we had the prospect of a National Care Service, that would be an alternative solution - that is nationally led rather than local authority provision - but that has disappeared of the table since the change in Government.
We are still awaiting the result of the third successive consultation on care funding which is due in July - why question Local Authority provision before that consultaion has reported?
Social Care - under all Governments - seems to be something to be pushed aside, ignored, or put out to endless consultation.
It is time someone in Whitehall actually showed some interest in how we care for the vulnerable in society and give some leadership in providing proper provision for those who need it.
I have been covering social care for many years and this consultation is truly shocking. It beggars belief that the government is questioning the legislative framework for social care. Key safeguards for the most vulneable in our society are on this list, including the Children Act 1989, which underpins our child protection system. All in social care need to shout very loudly to stop important safeguards being repealed.
Ruth Smith Editor at Community Care
Twitter: @ComCareRuth
Email: ruth.smith@rbi.co.uk
It is disturbing that such an important aspect of society - providing care and support for the vulnerable - is being questioned in such an underhanded way.
By bringing social care provision into question through a DCLG consultation rather than through the Dept of Health means that many of us who look out for what is happening in social care would totally miss it (thankfully we can rely on Community Care) and by just lumping it together with all other LA functions just shows the level of value the Government give social care.
Perhaps more disturbing is the lack of mainstream media reporting on the issue - many 1000's of people could be affected by such changes and surely it is matter of national importance.
As a side note I just realised that the DCLG website says: "Please note that the DCLG draft list, for the time being, excludes duties stemming from Parts 1 and 2 of the Building Act, as we are in the process of undertaking a review of these."
Yet the fact that the Law Commission is currently reviewing adult social care law has made no difference to their inclusion.
Haven't they just listed absolutely everything that Local Authorities have to do?
The spreadsheet on the DCLG homepage seems to be broken at the moment, but the first 200 rows include:-
"To comply with the code of practice on publicity"
"To ensure that the Local Authority carries out court orders"
"Plans must be prepared in accordance with the Local Planning Authorities Local Development Schemes, national policies and guidance, Other statutory plans in effect for the area - eg/Regional Spatial Strategies"
That isn't quite the same as putting a proposal on the table to end these duties - some of them are more open to question than others. The duty to carry out court orders, for example, seems like something that could be removed without anyone batting an eyelid.
Of course in the devolved countries Social Work is a devolved matter, and we don't have a conservative/lib dem administration. We will end up with either the SNP returned, or Labour in this years May elections.
So once again the difference in the social care culture and ethos between countries could be further widened. An influx of people retiring to Scoland could be predicted if this goes ahead.
But of course...our MPs will vote on this issue in Westminster to determine the regime in England....and seeing as there are ( how many again? one?) Not very many Conservative MPs in Scotland for once you might be glad that a certain "Question" still hasn't been resolved
My understanding is that the government are keen to see a much better defined commissioner / provider split. For years we have seen the ramifications when LA's do both ... and there have been extremely concerning conflicts of interests. Including evidence of LA's who plough money into their own failing services to maintain 'jobs for the boys' rather than open up the sector to competition to drive up quality.
A commissioner / provider split is a good idea as it will improve quality. And LA's will still have a significant responsibility in commissioning. But those with Social worker qualifications will need to start deciding what side of the fence they want to sit on. A commissioner? Using their knowledge and skills to commission and monitor Social work services, or as a provider .. commissioned by a LA and delivering front line services.
OK, but where should we do the shouting? I don't have voting rights, so can't contact my MP.
This may well be the case, but I think the fact that they've uploaded the document, without attempting to streamline it and without any move to publicise it (and it's not even a 12 week consultation), is what's particularly outraging social workers. Certainly the ones I've spoken to.
They just feel it's the wrong message for the government to be sending out and shows a lack of joined-up thinking when other reviews are already looking into bureacracy issues e.g. Eileen Munro's review.
Mr.Pickles wants to cut council bureaucracy which is something most would see in positive terms - but how this can equate to abolishing local authority's duties under s.47 is quite beyond belief. As a safeguarding social worker I have applied for interim care orders on children twice within recent weeks. One was a very young baby with very serious non-accidental injuries. How this function could be perceived as red tape is incomprehensible. The only organisations which should rightly carry responsibility for providing these services are the statutory authorities who not only have the experience and the structures in place but they are directly accountable to the public through the council's elected representatives. What private or voluntary organisation is accountable in this way? Voluntary and private organisations come and go. The local authorities are part of the established governance of this country. Some duties to the most vulnerable in our society should remain firmly within the remit of the statutory authorities.
TonyButcher: Perhaps more disturbing is the lack of mainstream media reporting on the issue - many 1000's of people could be affected by such changes and surely it is matter of national importance.
I agree. There has been very little coverage of this, it is only through Community Care that I became aware of it. Surely the point of a 'consultation' is to consult people, how can they do that if no-one knows about it!
Streamlining is simply a euphamism for getting rid of the need for LAs. If Dave & Nick have their way, local authorities will neutered, their powers will be passed on to alternative providers (don't be fooled that any 3rd sector organisation will have the cash to bid for this role. Private companies will step in, the likes of SeRCO and Capita, who have made such a fantastic job of all the other LA roles they have undertaken, so far). The losers will be the service users left out in the cold, AGAIN.
Just because you are disenfranchised and don't have the vote doesn't mean you can't militate and state the lunacy of this proposition. Local unions are already calling for support to challenge the idiocy of this bunch of plonkers.
The whole situation is quite incredible - a constant onslaught against the public sector in avery area. LA's aren't perfect but they are accountable and much of the "bureaucracy" has been imposed from central government - it didn't just happen.
I am amazed at how silent the LGA are about his whole issue or maybe they aren't it is just that the media has no interest in reporting opposition to the government's policies.
It feels like a return to pre-victorian values and a dismantling of everything that has been built since the late 19th century to protect the most vulnerable and educate.
It is devaluing to dedicated public sector workers to hear that their jobs could be undertaken more effectively by either volunteers or the private sector - in fact anyone but the public sector.
I think that the financial crisis has enabled the government to pursue this agenda with limited opposition or proper questioning and the end result will be a complete disaster.
How did the public sector become public enemy number one so soon after the banking crisis seemed to question the whole viability of the free market let alone the whole expenses scandal in parliament?
People seem to have very short memories.
This madness needs to be stopped!
Julian: The whole situation is quite incredible - a constant onslaught against the public sector in avery area. LA's aren't perfect but they are accountable and much of the "bureaucracy" has been imposed from central government - it didn't just happen. I am amazed at how silent the LGA are about his whole issue or maybe they aren't it is just that the media has no interest in reporting opposition to the government's policies. It feels like a return to pre-victorian values and a dismantling of everything that has been built since the late 19th century to protect the most vulnerable and educate. It is devaluing to dedicated public sector workers to hear that their jobs could be undertaken more effectively by either volunteers or the private sector - in fact anyone but the public sector. I think that the financial crisis has enabled the government to pursue this agenda with limited opposition or proper questioning and the end result will be a complete disaster. How did the public sector become public enemy number one so soon after the banking crisis seemed to question the whole viability of the free market let alone the whole expenses scandal in parliament? People seem to have very short memories. This madness needs to be stopped!
Give me strength - its because the banking sector wasnt down to the failings of capitalism (indeed any so called failings of capitalism (and there are very few) are due to the fact it mirrors and is driven by human behaviour and if we want them to disappear we ill haveto evolve past our current condition!)
The public sector is indeed being attacked through ideology and its not necesaarily one i agree with but its factual that the public sector has grown to one which we cannot support in the current climate (or indeed any - its like a massive pyramid/ponzisystem - the more entrants we have the more we spend so we need more peope to come and earn money so we spend more on pesnions/ nhs etc.)
Until socialists find an answer to the latter question then the public sector will be only one that we can afford
The buearacracy has come from a cultural shift that has meant we are less risk averse becasue people dont want to get sued - people just wouldnt work for authorities if they didnt think they were protected - its nothing to do with central govt really - LA's would bring their own in - theyd just have to.
Romeo2001
Of course capitalism is driven by human behaviour - it is human behaviour ! It's not like the laws of physics - i.e. it doesn't exist independently of humans. That's why all political or socio-economic theories are imperfect.
The laws of economics are not well understood and everyone employed in the public sector pays tax and spends money which helps to support businesses.
I am not saying public sector good and private sector bad - they both have their merit.
Capitalism itself is a giant ponzai scheme - it is based on confidence and people believing that assets will continue to grow in value. There is little intrinsic value in anything other than air, water and food.
I am enjoyioing the debate though and look forward to your response.
This governments apparent rationale for this is stated to be two main reasons. The first is that it is burdensome to local authorities which is the point most commentators focus upon, and the idea is morally bankrupt of course. The seond is that this period of austerity is needed due to the excesses of the last government and the country needs to reduce the debt it holds. This is worth looking at in more detail.
An interesting point of fact was raised on another forum which showed that in 1996 we paid 8% of GDP to reduce the national debt yet currently we are paying just 6%. So a point of clear fact is that this government despite its massive cuts in public spending is paying off 25% less in debt than it did in 1996.
It may well be that there are too many duties and mandatory spend items for local authorities; or conversely this is just another piece of Tory dogma that public sector is inefficient - the usual statment of apparent fact that they never attempt to prove, unless they find an untypical case of some Somalian Lesbian Crack-Addict adoption that costs (according to the Daily Mail) about £17m per week... hyperbole but you get my point.
Unfortunately, facts tend to get in the way of such dogma, such as the 25% less we are spendign on debt repaymeents than in 1996. The vulnerable are all benefit scroungers / indolent / workshy / workless / uneducated / playing the system and a whole host of other 'convenient' tags. This proposal on duties is all about labelling the vulnerable in the same way they have labelled those on benefits and has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of who should claim or that social care is too burdensome.
Many in receipt of social care services, especially in the supported living model, will be in receipt of housing benefit that readers here will know of the huge changes being implemented and proposed. The Tories label those on HB as scroungers / workshy etc, yet conveniently fail to comment or recognise that greater than 50% on HB work - another pesky fact. Similarly this government also fails to acknowledge as the DWP did this week that this group that they call Low Income Working Families (LIWF) of which 2.5m claim HB, also constitute a further 1.25m persons entitled but dont claim.
I could go on with many more highly inconvenient facts.
However, the key issue is that whether you claim any benefits and now whether you are in receipt of social care services you are to blame for this. This nonsense from Pickles is all about apportioning blame and nothing at all to do with burdensome regulation. It dovetails beautifully with the Big Society and especially Localism which (allegedly) means local government determines local spending...and also means the local populace blame their local councils when services are not delivered. Not only does that transfer blame away from central government to local government it also keeps the apparent problems and dissatisfaction with it as 400+ local issues rather than being 1 national issue.
Its futile to keep dissent to these proposals on what is morally right or even on financial necessity: These proposals are all about blaming local government and a divide and conquer system being put into place on the national issue of reducing social care delivery due to central underfunding of these issues.
I cannot be the only one who gets a sense of despair everytime i go onto community care news. Whilst i do not believe that we have the socialist utopian ideal of state organised social care (that went in the first week of practice), it makes me proud to think of what we have accomplished over the past few decades.
The governments recent consultation and proposed vision is nothing less that a betrayal of the principles laid down 60 odd years ago on the formation of the welfare state. It's not a perfect system, not by a long shot, but it's all we have and the thought of the abandonment of states role in social care fills me with dread due to the vulnerable nature of the client base. That and the day that Macdonalds open there first social work dept is the day in which i leave the country.
My only hope is that a degree of common sense prevails or that the new system is so shambolic that they have to do a massive u-turn.
And don't get me started on giving GPs all health funding (sigh)
Oh my gosh! ; the elected government's going to consult the people about how their money is spent. What an atrocity. Don't they realise we, the bureacracy, the apparatchiks, the vested interest always know best. What a potential tsunami of human suffering.!
The term " year zero" was first used to describe the communist genocide in what was briefly Kampuchea. To use this term in the context of a restructuring of a bloated welfare system is glib, stupid and insults the memory of those who were murdered by the khmer rouge.
Only a few more days to respond to this because the deadline is 25 April.
I'd like to see any comments any of you have sent to the DCLG as well, if you're happy to share them.
My email is vern.pitt@rbi.co.uk
The public sector and social work as a profession will continue to be public enemy number one, until the next baby or toddler is found starved to death with multiple fractures and distended limbs and ruptured vital organs, at the hands of adults who were sipposed to keep him or her safe. At this point social workers alone will remain public enemy number one, whilst senior managers will scramble to the safety of closed doors, to ask political appointees for more and more cash, to pay the highest price imaginable to any fool who will walk yet again into the lions den of media galre and take the blame for something they had no part in. Thats when one madness stops and another one starts, but for a while all talk of reform will be silenced, Whilst we remain good scapegoats, we are safe. A child however, will pay the ultimate price; but not in money.
Well, this all seems to have been done and dusted now.
Congrats to all those readers who took up the challenge and wrote to DCLG with thier views. You made this happen.