Council sparks anger over refusal to release details of care cuts agreement with consultancy 

Disabled campaigners say they are “horrified” at a council’s lack of transparency after it refused to release documents that would have revealed details of its agreement with a consultancy it is paying to help cut people’s care packages. 

Bristol City Council is paying management consultancy Peopletoo more than £1.5 million to review the care packages of at least 190 disabled people with what the council calls “complex” packages of support.  

But following a freedom of information request from Disability News Service, the council has refused to release details of its agreement with Peopletoo. 

It is also refusing to release details of the financial packages being offered to locum social workers who are being recruited to carry out reviews of care and support packages in the city. 

The council’s response, which was a month overdue – itself a breach of the Freedom of Information Act – claimed it was exempt from the duty to release the information because the details requested were “commercially sensitive” and releasing them would “disadvantage the supplier”. 

It added: “In all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.” 

The council has been at the centre of controversy since early last year over proposals to offer disabled people a “residential or nursing home placement” if a care package that would allow them to remain at home “would substantially exceed the affordability of residential care”. 

The concerns about what the council called its Fair and Affordable Care Policy were first raised by the grassroots disabled people’s organisation Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living (BRIL). 

The policy was eventually withdrawn, but this year the council brought forward new cuts worth millions of pounds that were also likely to push disabled people into residential care, as it aimed to save nearly £7 million from its funding of adult care and support packages in 2024-25. 

As part of its new plans, the council will review the care packages of at least 190 disabled people with complex support needs. 

It plans to pay Peopletoo £1,550,000 to carry out these reviews, and there are concerns that freelance social workers could be paid commission if they manage to cut people’s packages. 

Peopletoo boasts on its website of how its reviews of council services “typically identify savings in the region of 10-20 per cent of service base budgets”. 

It points to one council it has worked with to embed a “Strengths Based Approach” across adult social care, language similar to that used by Bristol City Council when announcing its planned reforms. 

Last month, Disability Rights UK (DR UK), Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP), Inclusion London and WinVisible all wrote to the council to express their “deep concerns” about its proposed actions. 

They said its plans would fail to uphold the rights of disabled people in Bristol to receive the care and support they needed, based on their personal choices, and that the new proposals were “arguably worse” than its “outrageous” Fair and Affordable Care Policy. 

Val Stanfield, a member of BRIL, said: “We are horrified by the lack of transparency. 

“It begs the question: why? What have they got to hide? Would any transparency validate everything that BRIL and the wider movement is saying?” 

Rick Burgess, from GMCDP, said the council’s freedom of information (FOI) response was “disingenuous”.  

He said: “Contracting out is a well-trodden tactic to attempt to move information beyond FOI’s reach. It smacks of bad faith.  

“Given the attention and distress this issue is causing, a responsible approach would seek to be transparent and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; they are failing in both respects.  

“I would hope the new Green broom sweeping through the council will abandon this secretive approach and work with disabled people and our organisations.” 

WinVisible said it was “a scandal” that the council was refusing to say how much it was paying Peopletoo and locum social workers “to cut the services on which ‘high-need’ disabled people depend for our survival”. 

Rensa Gaunt, Inclusion London’s communications manager, said: “We think being ‘fair and affordable’ involves transparency around use of public money, especially if it’s being used to try and force disabled people into institutions.  

“‘Strength-based’ reviews seek to take vital care and support away from us, fundamentally attacking our right to independent living in the community.  

“This comes at the same time as the national government is trying to cut PIP disability benefit entitlement.  

“As disabled people, we are a convenient target for some. But what we need is investment in services that enable us to live good lives, not short-sighted cuts.” 

DR UK called for the council’s new leadership to ensure a new culture of transparency. 

Mikey Erhardt, DR UK’s policy and campaigns officer, said: “A well-functioning democracy requires transparency and the ability to scrutinise how those in positions of power are making decisions that affect us.  

“We all have the right to live in an inclusive society where everyone has a fulfilling life and feels connected and valued. 

“We know our lives are not valued equally to others, so the idea of making cuts in secret and hiding away when we rightly ask questions, all in service of a spreadsheet somewhere in College Green [where the council is based], is unacceptable.  

“How many more times must we go down this road?”  

Peopletoo had not commented by 11am today (Thursday). 

A council spokesperson said: “Disclosing the information requested under FOI would mean anyone from anywhere in the world would then have access to it, which would disadvantage the supplier as competitors would have access to it. 

“In line with Information Commissioner’s Office guidance, we wouldn’t release any information that would cause financial harm to either the council, its contractor or both, unless it was in the public interest to do so.  

“In this case, the public interest is to ensure that the council and other public bodies are consistently able to purchase goods and services at optimal value and that contractors to this council and other public bodies are able to compete fairly and with the confidence their commercial interests are not unreasonably harmed.” 

Picture: City Hall, Bristol. Picture by Google

A note from the editor:

Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations.

Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009. 

Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS…