Mike Freer's Leader Listens blog is a taxpayer funded service where he is supposed to tell it straight to the people of Barnet. As he can't be bothered, here is the first in my series of questions, that I asked Mike Freer, Leader of Barnet Council. These are his genuine answers - No comment from me.
See if you think he's answered my question?
RT - Q: How many wardens are currently employed and
how many will be employed under the new
scheme?
MF - A: The explicit aim of the restructure is to target resources more efficiently to older
people who would benefit most from the support, regardless of where they live.
The proposal is to commission services that are needs-led and available to all,
unlike current sheltered housing provision that discriminates against those
populations who are less likely to wish to choose this housing tenure.
The new service will be structured in a very different way to the existing service
where scheme based staff may not be spending all their time on support activities,
but may be undertaking housing management tasks as well. It is not particularly
useful therefore to make direct comparisons between the 2 services.
The proposed new budget (c£600K) will be sufficient to for 15 full time staff, but
this indicative only and could vary depending on the kinds of activities they carry
out; a proportionally larger number of staff would be affordable if the establishment
included a mix of grades.
This is about one-quarter of the staff currently
commissioned under current sheltered housing contracts.
1 comment:
Rog
Cllr Freer’s answer is somewhat disingenuous. The “new” proposals are clearly an afterthought following the huge public backlash provoked by the initial proposal to slash the warden service.
There is nothing wrong with a “floating” service for people who wish to live in their own homes for as long as possible. What is so manifestly unfair and unjust about Barnet’s proposal is that it seeks to take away the wardens from people who already have them.
I can’t say whether this is a breach of contract, but the council has certainly not acted in good faith. Residents have gone into sheltered accommodation in the expectation that a warden service was available. You can’t then move the goalposts once they have signed up.
It would be a different matter if the council told new applicants for places that there might not be a permanent warden service available in the future. That would allow residents to make an informed decision as to whether to take up a place or not. But you can’t offer a warden and then take it away. That is morally wrong.
Councillors seem to forget that they will be old one day and they should treat our senior citizens the way they would want to be treated themselves. Yes, it costs a lot of money. But a council that wastes money the way that Barnet does could easily make the efficiency savings needed if only the councillors would get a grip.
Post a Comment