Birmingham City Council is under growing pressure to stop targeting spending cuts on front-line social care and voluntary groups after being heavily criticised in two High Court decisions.
The local authority’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is facing a £19 million hole in its budget this year following judicial reviews which have halted plans to reduce social services provision and grants to voluntary organisations.
Mr Justice Blake ruled in the High Court that a decision to axe a £1.4 million funding scheme for 13 third sector groups, including the Citizens Advice Bureau, was unlawful.
Neither the cabinet nor the full council paid due regard to their responsibilities to promote equality under the Disability Discrimination Act and failed to consult properly with people who would be hit by the cuts.
Last week, Mr Justice Walker came to the same conclusion when allowing a judicial review into a cabinet decision to save £17.5 million by restricting social services care to adults whose needs are critical – the highest category of disability indicating an inability to perform the simplest tasks without help.
More than 11,000 people currently receiving help will be re-assessed and about 4,000 with substantial needs stand to lose council-funded care as a result. They will be directed to voluntary or private sector providers instead.
The financial implications from the latest court case could be serious. The council expects to save about £53 million by 2014 from limiting social services provision to adults with critical needs and may now have to find the money from elsewhere.
The cabinet is biding its time before deciding how to react to the latest setback.
The re-assessment programme has been halted and all adults with substantial needs will continue to receive care pending a full judgment to be handed down by Mr Justice Walker towards the end of May, but the council has indicated it may appeal.
A council spokeswoman said: “Like all councils, Birmingham faces a huge financial challenge, with adults and communities having to make a share of the savings and we need to assess the impact of this decision.
“It is also important to point out that this judgement is about the process we went through with regard to the Disability Discrimination Act, not the actual decision about where savings should be made.
“If we want to meet the savings challenge standing still is not an option, which is why the decision was made to raise the eligibility criteria as part of a wider new offer which will also see funding pushed towards prevention and rehabilitation.”
Both of the Birmingham judicial reviews are likely to be viewed with keen interest elsewhere in the country, where many other councils are also attempting to deliver Government-imposed spending cuts by reducing welfare spending.
Sir Albert Bore, leader of the opposition Labour group in Birmingham, believes the cabinet should meet as soon as possible to consider other ways of finding the savings.
He is also demanding a scrutiny committee inquiry into the way the decision to reduce social care spending was taken.
Sir Albert (Lab Ladywood) said: “Two judicial reviews found the council acted unlawfully in approving budget-making decisions. Something is clearly dramatically wrong in Birmingham.
“There should be early meetings of the cabinet and proposals put forward as to how the budget cuts affecting the elderly and those individuals with mental health and learning difficulties can be avoided.
“Some 4,000 people stand to lose their care packages and others will have care cut back. They are anxious and fearful for the future.”
Tony Rabaiotti, West Midlands head of local government at the union Unison, said: “This is a landmark ruling and a tremendous victory for thousands of vulnerable people across Birmingham who rely upon social care provision.
“Social care workers have been telling us over the past few months that they are genuinely frightened by the proposal to so severely axe provision. They have been telling us that vulnerable people will simply be left to fend for themselves.
“The council now has the opportunity to pause, think again and work with us to maintain quality social care provision for the people of Birmingham.”
Polly Sweeney, solicitor at the Birmingham office of Irwin Mitchell who acted on behalf of Ms A, a 65-year-old woman with severe learning disabilities, is urging the council to continue providing services for adults with both substantial and critical needs.
Ms Sweeney added: “This case has national significance. Proposals to cut mandatory duties and tighten eligibility for social care are the major issues in the social care sector.
“It is a very significant outcome and with Birmingham being the UK’s largest local authority, it’s very likely that the result will set a precedent. Other councils up and down the country seeking to target vulnerable groups through cost-cutting drives may be legally challenged.”
