|
|
 |
| |
Stealing from the poor and giving to the rich
• IN slavishly reporting the scaremongering nonsense spouted by Councillor Roger Robinson at the full council meeting last week you do a disservice to a serious debate regarding voluntary sector funding (Slaughter of advice centres goes ahead, January 11).
The council agreed to maintain total voluntary sector funding at £8.9 million – the highest level for any London borough.
Support for law and advice centres remains at very high levels, when account is taken of the different funding streams they can tap into.
The initial proposals were rebalanced following consultation with interested parties. But the Lib Dem-Conservative administration rightly decided to fund a broader range of priorities, in line with commitments made in election manifestos.
Significant funds will be made available for initiatives to boost community safety, to raise environmental understanding, and to promote financial inclusion.
I am proud to declare an interest here as a Director of Camden Plus Credit Union. The new financial inclusion funding stream should help Camden’s new credit union get off the ground.
It will offer a better deal to people who are ignored by the banks, and left vulnerable to doorstep lenders with extortionate interest rates, or even illegal loan sharks.
Some Labour councillors appear to have turned increasing the council tax into a badge of honour. I cannot agree with that view. Council Tax is unfair to people on low-incomes. Yet it went up and up under the profligate Labour administration, without a second thought about spending taxpayers’ money.
The new executive is making better use of high levels of support for the voluntary sector, while keeping a lid on the Council tax. I endorse its approach.
Cllr James King
(Lib Dem)
Town Hall
Judd Street, WC1
q The Labour Group had to call a special council meeting to get a chance to scrutinize and discuss the Voluntary Sector Review, and associated cuts.
Now it seems a case of “here we go again”. The consultation on the future of Kentish Town Baths, and the announced closure of the Baths for three years, from February 25, has popped out of nowhere - with no Executive report, no opportunity for scrutiny, nothing but an informal “working group” meeting which looked at the consultation leaflet.
This project involves an investment of £22.7 million, punching an enormous hole in the council’s capital budget. The idea that we wander into such a project without so much as an executive report, or any public accountability, is quite extraordinary.
COUNCILLOR PENNY ABRAHAM
Town Hall
Judd Street, WC1
•THE decision of the Lib Dems and Tories to proceed with cuts to the borough’s advice sector is a slap in the face to all those who care about these vital local services.
It is especially upsetting for Kentish Town residents that our Lib Dem councillors joined their colleagues in voting for the cuts. During the recent by-election, the three said clearly in the New Journal, in leaflets and on the doorstep that they would defend Camden Law Centre and Kentish Town Citizen’s Advice Bureaux from the cuts agenda of the other Lib Dems.
I will never trust anything the Kentish Town Lib Dems say again.
SARAH HAYWARD
Leverton Street , NW5
• THE ruling administration in Camden are obviously great fans of the BBC programme Robin Hood. Only they are supporters of the sheriff – taking the money from the poor to give to the rich.
They are currently “consulting” on the proposal to increase the charges on meals on wheels and senior citizens’ luncheon clubs by 50p per day or 21 per cent. Over a year this would amount to about £125, yet would save overall only £50,000.
At Queen’s Crescent Community Centre the luncheon club meals are freshly cooked, using wherever possible, fresh produce from the market.
The aim is to provide a balanced and nutritious diet. However, the luncheon club is more than a place to eat. We have regular outings in the summer, an annual holiday, bingo and keep fit. When we hear that one of our customers might be ill, or we do not see somebody for a day or two, somebody goes round to their flat to make sure they are alright.
Our concern is that some of our customers will not be able to afford this increase and will either go without their hot meal at mid-day or go and eat less nourishing food from the local cafés and miss out on the other activities.
Unfortunately no councillors from any party attended the consultation on increasing charges for care for elderly and disabled people last week. Do we gather from this that the decision on raising the costs by 21 per cent is a done deal and the consultation a sham?
Mick Farrant
Oak Village, NW5
Your report did not convey how keen Lib Dem and Conservative members were to point out that they had listened to feedback on their proposal to cut funding to advice centres in Camden by 42 per cent.
Indeed, they said so several times, but by moving ahead with a still massive 18 per cent cut in finding and claiming this will ‘stablise’ the voluntary sector, the administration has demonstrated that, while it may have listened, it has failed to understand the consequences of doing so, or doesn’t care.
I visited the Camden Community Law Centre last Wednesday and they didn’t have 18 per cent of appointment time free – they were turning people away as they couldn’t see everyone in the time available.
The myriad of cuts being pushed through by this administration will increase deprivation in the borough and result in higher social and financial costs down the line.
CLLr ADRIAN OVILER
Leader of the Green Group
Town Hall
Judd Street, WC1
• I AM writing to you as a concerned ex-Unison steward. It appears that Camden have again used consultants to spearhead a campaign to the ultimate detriment of staff and service users of the Camden Careline service.
Notably Camden’s new joint political parties and chief officer Moira Gibb have for sometime now been in consultation with the outside consultants to promote her new PR stunt which consistently seeks to convince all that everything can be done “cheaper and better” without impacting the core essential frontline services and its elderly and disabled clients.
Having had the opportunity to read various documents on the proposed impact of this cost cutting venture, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that job losses will of course be unavoidable, given they intend to cut the heart out of this fantastic service which for some years has indeed promoted security, reassurance and independence for a lot of its service users who have become accustomed to this essential service.
The impact of this venture has been for the consultants to review other outside boroughs with the same service, which accordingly are covering the same service albeit on a skeleton staff basis.
The implications are that Camden are considering reducing staff, whereby only one staff member will attend an emergency call out, instead of two members assisting in aiding an elderly care user from the floor.
I can only conclude that the health and safety of both staff and service users will be put at risk for the sake of Camden’s intention to save pound notes rather than assure its service users nothing will change.
It is obvious that any reduction or change of routine to this core service will ultimately impact and stretch the London ambulance service to the limits, as good old Camden will pass the buck to an outside service to obtain assistance to aid any fallen clients.
Although in general the death warrant of this service has not been served officially as yet because Camden allege that they are still in the process of consultation with staff, I suppose the tax paying people of Camden will be the last to know yet again, despite the orders from above that a plan of action to reduce services was instigated in the middle of 2006.
Further to that it is not yet decided whether Camden will be keeping the Careline monitoring station in Gospel Oak as figures have been obtained to venture this out to another outside contractor that could be India, Liverpool, Scotland, etc. God forbid that any new introductions in a change of service to Camden Careline service will hopefully not be to the detriment of an elderly individual service user, in which case Camden normally reassesses its service?
Surely it does not take brains to work out that there are too many chiefs already in power at the Town Hall, and not enough staff. Would the local councillors be willing to give up their new pay packets in order to slash costs? As if anything you were elected to voice the people’s opinions.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
• It appears that improving the health and wellbeing of Camden residents is a low, if not non-existent, priority for the council.
Health inequalities in Camden are glaring and require the council to play a significant role in enabling the health of its citizens – cutting funding for health and limiting voluntary sector provision to physical activity will not realise a healthier community.
Women+Health have been providing a holistic, integrated approach to women’s health for over 20 years in Camden.
We are extremely worried at this apparent abrogation of responsibility on behalf the Council in relation to health, when there are compelling reasons for Camden to maintain, if not increase, it’s funding for preventative health rather than reducing it.
The funding cuts will certainly jeopardise Women+Health and Camden’s other voluntary organisations. We are anxious that Camden’s successful and valuable voluntary sector will be a thing of the past if these proposals are approved and implemented.
CASS WEDD
Chairwoman
Women+Health
4 Carol Street, NW1 |
 |
|
|
|
