Barnet Forum for Independent Living on Barnet Labour’s ‘u-turn’ on the borough’s social care model

Hendon Town Hall - where Barnet Council holds its meetings — Hendon Town Hall – (Credit – LDRS)

In 2021, Councillor Barry Rawlings Leader of the Labour opposition, wrote that after “18 months forensically testing” the way Barnet Council delivers social care, he ‘d concluded that it “demeans service users by telling them what their needs are, and then defining ‘need’ to suit their budgets.”

In one go he had solved two contradictions at the heart of social care. No matter how much councils complain about under-funding, miraculously, no council ever fails to meet statutory needs. Not so miraculous however, if they adjust those needs to suit their budgets.

It was both immoral and unlawful under the Care Act.

The second contradiction is this. Councils tell the public the social care system gives people ‘choice and control’, that it works through ‘co-production’, that it ‘personalises’ their support, that it never takes resources into account when deciding need.

Indeed, the Directors of Social Services describe the service as “magnificent”. Yet the experience of social care is anything but. The British Public Attitudes survey shows “appalling levels of misery.”

Professionals, in cahoots with politicians, have built a house of cards. Its survival depends on fierce protection. Cllr Rawlings’ investigations, carried out alongside the Barnet Forum for Independent Living, had put him and the Labour group in a unique position, perhaps in the whole country. They saw behind the façade and knew what needed to change.

They had proposed to the council a simple plan. The individual together with the social worker should work out what the individual needed for their wellbeing; the council would be honest about how much of each individual’s needs it could afford to meet; all unmet need would be recorded to inform future budget setting.

It was a plan that would deliver the Care Act and ensure the best use of current resources. The only extra ‘cost’ would be political honesty.

But the then Conservative administration rejected it without debate.

So in the 2022 elections, Labour made a manifesto pledge to develop a “new model of social care that puts the person at its heart.” It helped them win control.

However, officers had other ideas. The house of cards must not fall. They said the existing model already had the person at its heart. They developed an “engagement strategy” and “charter” that would allow Labour to say their manifesto had been delivered.

But the way the process was set up ensured that neither would have the slightest impact on the existing assessment and resource allocation model. Labour meekly nodded them through.

Briefed by the Barnet Forum, Barnet Post challenged Cllr Rawlings on his u-turn. He told the Post he now believed the council was compliant with the Care Act. The problem in social care was a funding crisis requiring government action.

On July 11th, the Forum took a formal deputation to the full council meeting. It pointed out the obvious contradiction between Cllr Rawlings’ claim of a funding crisis and council’s claim that all needs under the Care Act in Barnet are being met. It asked the council to send the issue back to cabinet to take the action required for Labour to deliver its manifesto pledge.

Councillors from both sides of the chamber heckled and tried to score party political points, denying responsibility and blaming each other, whilst failing to acknowledge the issue was historic and making a farce out of something that deeply impacts upon real people’s lives.

Cllr Rawlings, in an angry and confused tirade, blamed austerity, disregarding the fact that the bulk of funding comes from local taxes.

The mayor gave the councillors three options – address the deputation at cabinet, require officers to prepare a written response or take no action.

Cabinet member for adult social care, councillor Paul Edwards, faithfully blamed government under-funding, whilst proudly boasting of there being no unmet need in Barnet. He proposed the ‘no action’ option.

To cries of “shame” from the public gallery, every Labour member recorded their vote to do nothing.

The only change to explain Cllr Rawlings’ u-turn is his new working relationship with officers upon becoming the council’s leader. He has failed to challenge their house of cards and keep his promise to residents to build something better.

He is acting knowingly.

Barnet Council leader, Barry Rawlings and cabinet member for adult social care, Paul Edwards have outlined their position on this issue here.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else. £84 annual supporters get a print copy by post and a digital copy of each month's before anyone else.