The Chair introduced the item by explaining that a number of parents of children with learning disabilities were present at the meeting in order to make representations in relation to the proposed changes to the Contributions Policy. 

Parent 1

·        Her child lived in supported accommodation.

·        Bradford Council had been proactive in the past for people with learning disabilities.

·        The large budget cuts were acknowledged.

·        The Council’s response had been disappointing.

·        There was no evidence of any alternate ways to manage the deficit.

·        Vulnerable people were an easy target.

·        The response from Council officers at the consultation had been shocking and was indicative of the underlying negative attitude towards people with learning disabilities.

·        It had been stated that people would pay what they could reasonably afford.

·        Her son’s contribution would increase four fold, it would take 100% of his disposable income and he would be left with a deficit.

·        Her son played learning disability rugby, which was very important to him, however, this would have to stop if he could not afford the £30 insurance.

·        There was no other situation where there would be a 100% increase to the cost.

·        The proposals would impact on her son’s behaviour, self esteem and health.

·        There would be an increasing likelihood of abuse.

·        A review had been undertaken and the charges did not have to be imposed.

·        The amount of the charge should be reconsidered.

Parent 2

·        He had a Down’s syndrome child.

·        How would anyone feel if they could not afford to participate in any social activities?

·        He could not understand the proposal to increase the contribution by 100%.

·        His child would not have a life and have nothing to look forward to.

Parent 3

·        She was a parent and carer for two sons with severe learning disabilities who lived in supported accommodation.

·        Socialising was very important for her sons.

·        Her sons required one to one support when they went out and the costs of the persons supporting them had to be covered.

·        Doctors had stated that her sons needed to be kept active with swimming.  If they could not attend they could end up wheelchair bound and this would not be good for their health.

·        Current staff were excellent, however, if cuts were made then a situation similar to Winterbourne View could arise.

Parent 4

·        His son had severe learning disabilities and had left the education system at the age of 19.

·        He had two other able bodied sons.

·        After a long process his son had entered into supported accommodation and everything had changed for the better.

·        His son had joined a football team and undertook 3 days voluntary work.

·        The activities his son participated in were not expensive.

·        If the increases came into effect his son would not be able to partake in voluntary work, play football as much or socialise.

·        He had found out about the consultation process by accident and had been horrified when he had recalculated his son’s budget.

·        His son was currently living a normal life and this would be taken away from him.

Parent 5     

·        His son lived in supported accommodation and he benefitted from this.

·        The review notes placed a distinct emphasis that the process would be made easier to understand and if the person had a limited income then they would not be asked to pay if they could not afford to do so.

·        The notes stated that disability related costs would be considered in the financial assessment, however, this did not include any expenditure that people with learning disabilities required.

·        His son required support when out and about and on holiday.

·        No incidental or additional costs had been identified.

·        Updated care plans were urgently required before financial assessments were undertaken.

·        The Council should expect to be challenged if the care plans were not fit for purpose.

·        There should be a sanity check to establish how much net income a person would be left with.

Parent 6

·        The Council would receive an extra 2% in order to accommodate the increases in Adult Social Care.

·        Bradford had always been a benevolent Council but they were becoming less caring.

·        People with learning disabilities did not understand money issues.

In response to a point raised, the Chair explained that the Government had allowed Councils to raise Council Tax by 2% to fund social care and then asked Councils to pay the living wage.