SNP COUNCIL CUTS UNDER CONSIDERATION RISK PUTTING GLASGOW'S HOMELESS, ELDERLY & KIDS AT RISK
Having been privy to some Glasgow City Council Option papers considering 'savings', it becomes clear Susan Aitken's administration is risking breaching statutory obligations
Susan Aitken’s Glasgow City Council (GCC) has been considering brutal cuts to Social Work. According to GCC option papers I have seen, the SNP run Council has been considering further cuts to funding for Care Home placements. The cuts considered are on the table as an option despite the warnings about the implications of the additional savings. To quote the document I have been privy to
“This additional reduction in funding would represent a further 8% reduction to this service. To achieve this the Council would not be able to accommodate any new placements to care homes, with the exception of respite care.”
On average there are 100 new service users being placed in care homes every month to meet existing demand. If the cuts being considered in the GCC option papers are true, then none of those new service users in Greater Glasgow could be placed. The scale of this is significant enough to merit a particularly direct warning in the GCC options paper which reads
“This would result in the Council breaching its statutory responsibilities and result in the Council being challenged under judicial review”
But this isn’t even the worst of it. Other options Aitken’s SNP are considering for further ‘savings’ may potentially put kids at risk. The service ‘Children and Families - Placements and Family Support’ has already submitted £1.586m in ‘savings’, but needs to find £2.968m in additional cuts to meet Aitken’s SNP target. But the warnings of some options being considered are stark, “there are no other options for reducing spend other than the removal of care and support to families”. Worse still, the additional savings to Children and Families budget would mean “care placements would need to be removed from approximately 58 children, with no scope to offer alternative support”.
At this point it’s worth remembering that GCC has a duty of care to vulnerable children under law. The ‘Children (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 17.1a’ spells matters out, Councils have a legal duty of care to “safeguard and promote [children’s] welfare”. Surely if the SNP proceed with cuts that mean removing care placements from 58 kids with no possibility for alternative support is a total violation of the statutory obligations? Put simply, the ‘savings’ Aitken’s Glasgow administration is insisting on risk GCC being in breach of the law.
Let me be clear and spell matters out, GCC is considering options for additional ‘savings’ which would potentially leave children in circumstances where they are subject to abuse and neglect; with their safety compromised. But don’t take my word for this, the options paper has the explicit warning under the column ‘implications of additional savings’
“Given our statutory duties to safeguard children , this would result in the Council breaching its statutory responsibilities and result in the Council being challenged under judicial review”
At this point a picture is forming. Glasgow Council is considering Social Work cuts which risk placing the administration in violation of its statutory obligations. We can see this in the case of the options for considering regarding Care Homes and also Children and Families. However there is more yet to cover dear reader. I can report that Aitken’s administration is also examining ‘savings’ on Homelessness too.
The Homelessness Service has already submitted £2.086m in ‘savings’, but is being pushed to find £3.924m in ‘additional savings’. This means under Aitken Homelessness Service is being driven to apply cuts totally £6.028m. Potential implications are stark
“This additional reduction in funding would represent a further 8% reduction in services. This would result in the service not being able to support approximately 717 individuals each year”
According to GCC’s own Options papers, SNP cuts would mean 717 of our city’s most vulnerable people - the homeless - being abandoned each year. Given the Council has a duty to provide housing support to people assessed as in need, I wonder how these ‘savings’ being considered square with GCC obligations under the law.
“Reductions in emergency accommodation without sufficient alternatives will lead to a significant rise in rough sleeping” reads the documents. The so-called ‘savings’ are so severe that the papers actually say “If additional funding is not secured, the reduction in service required to deliver a balanced budget would equate to 35% and the inability to support 3,139 individuals each year”
GIVEN the sheer scale of SNP austerity being considered for our formerly beautiful Glasgow, you’d expect GCC to be aggressive in securing repayment of debts owed to it. But you’d be wrong.
It has come to light in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request that Pride Glasgow still owes GCC debts which date as far back as 2018. Pride Glasgow’s failure to repay debts owed to the Council in 2019 for example resulted in the LGBT charity losing rights to using the Riverside museum.
It is with interest then that an FOI dated January 2023 reveals that more than £41,000 is still left uncollected by GCC. More interestingly still, Pride Glasgow’s chairperson is Christopher Lang Tait. He ran for the SNP as a Council candidate in November 2022 and lost to Scottish Labour’s John Carson.
So, here we have an organisation owing a cash-strapped Council more than £41k, led by an SNP supporter who has stood as an SNP candidate…and the debts go uncollected from as far back as 2018.
Meanwhile GCC simply has to consider ‘savings’ options which would risk placing it in breach of its statutory obligations. Pride Glasgow can operate on the go-slow repaying money to the Council, but the homeless, vulnerable kids and elderly desperate for care home places can go whistle?
There is something wrong here. Very wrong. But if we listen to SNP Council leader Susan Aitken, she views her mission as one to bring an end to “the old style socialism of Scottish Labour.” She explains Glaswegians need to get over our “paternalism”, and stop assuming “council knows best”. Mrs Thatcher would have nodded in violent agreement Ms Aitken. Forgive me if I do not, endangering vulnerable kids in order to implement Holyrood SNP austerity isn’t my cup of tea.
My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber
Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciated
Excellent work Dean....