Wigan Council “Do not operate individual budgets”. Formal complaint to Enable Scotland Council as their presentation is further exposed as highly misleading hyperbole.

DGPPG circulated the following relevant but hitherto unpublished information from Wigan Council on 27-Dec to involved Dumfries & Galloway Councillors and Officers, MSPs, MPs, media and carers.  As a complaint it requests and requires action by and answers from Enable Scotland and further comments on the Council position.  This information sets the Enable Scotland ‘Keynote presentation’ on 30-Nov at Easterbrook Hall into a truthful context and further exposes the highly misleading hyperbole surrounding both Enable Scotland and the Dumfries and Galloway Council presentation of the supposedly new idea of  ‘Personalisation’, which is now being used to justify closing the six Dumfries and Galloway Council ARCs   

The 15-Dec FoI request to Wigan Council was mentioned at the meeting of more than 25 carers with Mr John Alexander & Ms Heather Collington on Weds 16-Dec in Castle Douglas.  For the 24-Dec Galloway News verbatim press report of that meeting please use the following link:  

Council’s social work chief fails to rule out ARC closure

FORMAL COMPLAINT requiring action by:  Enable Scotland incl both Norman Dunning & Alex Russell of Castle Douglas.   In view of the Wigan Council response, please will you explain on the record how and why both Enable Scotland and your keynote speaker Ms Tomlinson at the 30-Nov conference explicitly stated that Wigan Council operated ‘individual budgets’ and that her son Joe Tomlinson was the first in the UK to get one.  This was claimed in the Enable promotional literature and the presentations, when those attending were unreasonably prevented from asking any questions from the floor in open session.  May we suggest that in any future presentations and literature the whole truth is fully and properly disclosed in context without exaggeration and hyperbole designed to market Enable Scotland, not actually benefit and help the learning disabled.   Please treat this as a further formal complaint to the Enable Scotland Council.

Background:  On 24-Dec  Mr Tim  Turner, Data Protection/FOI Officer Business Support Services for Wigan Council, wrote in reply to a FoI request 15-Dec:     I am emailing to respond to your FOI request.   We do not operate individual budgets.   Ms Tomlinson was involved in an early pilot scheme involving 13 families. The amount of funds allocated in the pilot scheme were determined using eligibility criteria under Fair Access to Care (with Wigan meeting Critical and Substantial needs only). Once the level of funding had been determined the cash was allocated to the individual via the Direct Payments scheme using Direct Payments policies and procedures

We do not therefore hold the information you are requesting as the only information we have is about this single pilot – any information we hold would be about a very limited number of individuals participating in a specific pilot. The Council is moving toward personal budgets, but they are not in operation in Wigan at the moment.” 

On 30-Nov there was no mention whatsoever that this was  a very limited “pilot”, now seemingly 6 years ago according to Ms Caroline Tomlinson, who proudly indicated during the lunch break that the largest Wigan Council ‘care package’ was more than £200,000pa in total value, with the clear implication this was for her son.  But even then she did not explain this was a “very limited … specific pilot scheme” for only 13 participating individuals, and the “cash was allocated” conventionally under well established ‘Direct Payments’ policies and procedures.  Being 6 years old this is hardly “new”, being a further example of the confusion caused by using ‘Personalisation’ as though it is a some wonderfully innovative and novel concept.  As far as many can determine it really is a case of ‘old wine in new bottles’, with this jargon term ‘personalisation’ being used to confuse, hide and obscure the real Council intentions of cost cutting, like the six ARC closures

To remind those who did not attend on 30-Nov, the Enable Scotland “Event Programme” schedule, hyped up as “A Brave New World for Social Care” read as follows:  

10:40 – 11:10am  Caroline Tomlinson is the mother of the first person to get an individual budget in the UK.  She will talk about how having choice and control made a difference to her son’s life.  She will talk about how he is doing six years on and share her experiences as a mother.

Her evangelical presentation went on for more than twice the scheduled time, being followed well after 12:00 by Judith Proctor, the second ‘Keynote Speaker’ scheduled as:

11:10 – 11:30am  Judith Proctor, Head of Strategic Planning, Commissioning and Performance at Dumfries and Galloway Council will talk about personalisation in a local context and explain the implications of Dumfries and Galloway being a test site for personalisation.  She will also talk about the Council’s future plans. 

Unfortunately and very surprisingly the one subject Ms Proctor wholly omitted to mention in any way, despite being the joint author of the 12-Oct Dumfries and Galloway Council and NHS Dumfries and Galloway Joint Futures ARC closure plan, was her planned intention to close the six Dumfries and Galloway ARCs, in the name of ‘personalisation’.  As reported above, this is now confirmed by her other co-author, Mr Alexander.  This deliberate failure to mention the ARC closures was despite the programme and promotional billing explicitly stating she would “talk about the Council’s future plans”, as Mr Alexander finally did on 16-Dec, but only to a limited number of carers who could attend in time with only 2 day’s notice.  We all look forward to the much bigger follow up meeting at the end of January, which is now being arranged.  This meeting is essential.  

The lack of information is why many carers present at Easterbrook Hall 30-Nov wanted to ask Ms Proctor and Enable questions from the floor, but Ms Proctor declined to do so and any such questions were then expressly barred and prohibited by Mr Dunning, Chief Executive of Enable Scotland.  This is despite the Enable Event being heavily promoted by Dumfries and Galloway Council via the ARCs as an opportunity for all service users and carers to be informed and educated about the “Brave New World of Social Care” and the changes and cutbacks of personalisati

This perhaps further explains why a carer was directly reported in the Galloway News as accusing Mr Alexander at the 16-Dec Castle Douglas meeting of being “evasive”.  (read the article using the above link) 

We look forward to a formal response from the Enable Scotland Council and shall be submitting a formal complaint about all of this to the Chief Executive of Dumfries and Galloway Council, under the new and revised independent procedure operating in 2010, as requested by the Care Commission.  In due course all will be published as a matter of public record on the DGPPG www site.  We hope this will soon include the outstanding and overdue requested D&G FoI responses for information about the 12-Oct plan and all the 2009 D&G Council activities under the heading of, “personalisation”.

Another ‘option’ for a budget cut. Cease public funding of UCI as it is suggested no value is being obtained by the learning disabled

The following email was sent to UCI on Mon 21-Dec at 00:12.  Copied to Elected Members and others it asks whether public funding for UCI is ‘best value’ and if it should continue in view of the lack of representation and real involvement with the learning disabled community.

Attn Trustees & Management Committee UCI.   81-85 Irish Street Dumfries DG1 2PQ  OSCR: SC031835

It is understood that:

• UCI is a registered charity SC031853; Office at: 81-85 Irish Street Dumfries DG1 2PQ
• UCI is partly funded by D&G Council.  Is it 50% of all funding?  What is the source and application of funds by year for the last 5 years by year and the amount of Public funding?
• UCI has a ‘Learning Disabilities Project’, where you are seeking further funding.  What public Council / NHS funding has been received by year for the last 5 years for Learning Disabilities?
• The Project Coordinator is Carolyn Little
• The Learning Disabilities Project Worker is Morven Campbell
• Administrative Support Lina Viciulyte
• UCI also has Older Adults/Dementia & Mental Health Project Worker - John Robertson
• UCI tel: 01387 255330 details at:  http://www.userandcarer.co.uk/

The feedback and questions in this message enquire whether UCI is effectively and accurately representing the learning disabled and representing best value for money in that area.  Further, it now appears that UCI passively, if not actively supports the wholly negative ARC closures, which would be in direct contravention of the stated Mission as below and charitable objectives.

Urgent ‘on the record’ replies and comments are invited to all the following questions, because there may be little or no evidence that continuing UCI ‘involvement’ in matters like ‘personalisation’ and ARC closures is providing any benefit to the learning disabled and that UCI may not be able to demonstrate an effective mandate to purport to ‘represent’ service users in this area and receive public and charitable funds to do so.

The UCI Mission is:

To ensure that people who have mental illness, dementia or learning disabilities, and their carers have a representative voice and, as a result, see positive changes in their service provision.

Learning Disabilities Project (copied from UCI www site as above)

User and Carer Involvement was commissioned to focus on people with Learning Disabilities for a two year project.  The purpose of the project was to help people with learning disabilities have their views heard within service provision and to influence service design for the future.

Initially the project was involved with the production of the Partnership in Practice report with Dumfries and Galloway Council and also produced booklets which guide people with learning disabilities and their carers through the Adults with Incapacity Act.  The second half of the project focused more on encouraging people with learning disabilities to become involved with service design at a strategic and operational level. This has resulted in activities such as developing training designed to help people with learning disabilities better understand and become involved in working with groups such as committees, having an input into the design of Dumfries and Galloway Council website and being involved in the national Involvement Charter for people with learning disabilities.

The purpose of the project now is to build on this work and encourage others who wish to become involved in wider community inclusion. This could be activities such as expanding local support services and putting people with learning disabilities at the heart of their communities in a way which is equal and meaningful.

The project is also seeking funding at this stage to ensure the continuation and development of current networks and to ensure their co ordination.

OSCR income data is: (ref: http://www.oscr.org.uk/CharityIndexDetails.aspx?id=SC031853 )

Of this ~£100K in 2008, (and presumably a similar sum in 2009?), how much has been allocated to and spent on Learning Disabilities and for what purposes?  How is best value and the return on this expenditure and the benefits to the learning disabled community being independently assessed?  Where are the report(s) detailing this?

Whilst the “Mission” and Learning Disabilities Project rhetoric sounds very laudable and really positive, nevertheless it appears that many ‘LD’ carers have seen little if any benefit or utility from UCI.  Many ask “What is UCI?” and “What does UCI do?”.  This is in sharp contrast, for example, to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, who for very many years have provided a real ‘hands on’ support and benefit to so many carers and thus service users, and have an active network and meetings.  Why is UCI seeking to replicate this excellent work and receiving public cash to do it?  In short from a carers perspective.  One carer has said verbatim, “**** – utterly hopeless – takes a salary and represents no one”.  That may be extreme and perceived as unfair by UCI, but it is a valid viewpoint based on real experience, which surely requires an answer?  What exactly has UCI really achieved for the LD community, given their passive support for ARC closures?

It appears that UCI are bound up deciding upon and promoting ‘personalisation’, just like Enable Scotland, which includes the planned move away from “buildings-based services”.  That means closing the ARCs, as detailed in the Alexander/Proctor Plan, which is the “acceleration” of personalisation.  Exactly when and how many ARC carers and service users has UCI consulted and ‘involved’ who are in favour of ARCs closing?  Without such data what input is UCI making to the Personalisation Change Programme Board, which is planning the closure of ARCs.  Why is the UCI Learning Disabilities Project Worker Morven Campbell sitting on that Board?  What mandate does UCI have to purport to represent the interests of service users and carers in this way, that is to support the closure of ARCs?

It seems to carers that outside bodies, like Enable Scotland and UCI, are increasingly involved in promoting changes that they have not discussed with those that are affected and are not wanted by them.  Yet these bodies do so without any meaningful consultation or responsibility or accountability for their actions.  If, as in the case of UCI, this activity is significantly funded by public money from D&G Council and NHS, then should there not be some real public accountability?  For what many may see as ‘meddling’, is potentially harmful misrepresentation.  As UCI may now have noticed the majority, if not all ARC service users and carers, do not want their ARC to be closed, whilst many others are queuing up for a place.  Are they all wrong?  Do UCI, like Enable Scotland, know what’s ‘best’ for them?

An attempt was made on 30-Nov to establish the UCI position on the ARC closure issue, since UCI was a ‘stallholder’ at that Enable Scotland event, which was clearly promoting ARC closures as a move away from ‘buildings-based services’.  The LD Project Worker could not or would not state a position, yet sits on the Board deciding these matters, presumably representing others who do know what they want.  Is this a case of ‘Pipers & Tunes’, given the Council & NHS funding stream, whilst the presence of UCI on that Board provides the illusion of consultation and representation, which the prima facie evidence suggests does not exist?

From what budget(s) is the UCI funding provided?  At this time of austerity and other front line cuts, is this public cash, perhaps up to £50K or more, justified and money well spent?  Should this be a potential ‘cut’ for 2010/11, rather than other front line services that may have a greater real benefit?  We ask both Officer and Elected member recipients of this note to consider these questions in their deliberations.  Meanwhile UCI comments and answers are awaited.  Thank you.  This enquiry will also be posted on:  www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk

Trish Godman MSP who sits on the cross-party group for the learning disabled is asked about the role of the Scottish and UK Governments in ‘personalisation’.

Today at 09:30 DGPPG sent the following email message to Trish Godman MSP, who sits on the cross-party group for learning disability.  As a representative of Dumfries and Galloway Council and NHS Dumfries and Galloway, Judith Proctor Head of Strategic Planning and coauthor of the Alexander/Proctor 12-Oct ARC Closure plan, met Ms Godman, who trained as a social worker, at the recent ‘Festival of Politics’, which Trish Godman chaired, because she has “particular interest in personalisation”.  This is according to what we understand agreed minutes of the ’secret’ September Board meeing report.  We have asked for all these reports, including under FoI, which Mr Alexander assured us would not be necessary.

Attn Trish Godman MSP   Also as a Member of the cross-party group for learning disability.

We are writing to you about serious matters happening to, that is being done to, the learning disabled in Dumfries and Galloway as a result of actions by the Council, which appear to have connections with the Scottish Government / Parliament.  The Council are certainly citing national policy as a justification/reason for their plans and using central funds, all in the name of ‘personalisation’.  A jargon term that seems to mean whatever the user wants it to suggest, which also creates confusion and opacity, possibly the intention.

The learning disabled have been kept in the dark about all this until a major closure ‘option’ was announced on BBC Radio on 20-Oct, to be implemented by 31-March 2010.  The situation is worse than a shambles, with Enable Scotland also mixed up in these affairs and attracting great public criticism as well.

We are slowly prising information out of the Council and doing our own research.  We have made several FoI requests, but it’s like pulling teeth.   You and the “Festival of Politics” chaired by you is specifically mentioned in a minute of a “Personalisation Change Programme Board Meeting” of 9-Sep 2009.  It says you have “a particular interest in personalisation (she trained as a social worker) …”.  Judith Proctor attended your event on behalf of Dumfries and Galloway Council and NHS Dumfries and Galloway and we are interested why and what was discussed?

You can see from the attached (recent emalis copied to Ms Godman) what we have written to Mr Russell MSP and our other local MSPs, Dr Murray, Alasdair Morgan and Alex Fergusson, refer to the email and this site dated 18-Dec, subject “unintended consequences …” .  There is a real and ongoing problem as detailed in the attached emails, with more history posted on this DGPPG www site:  www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk.

Our research is uncovering a national dimension that is either driving the Dumfries and Galloway Council vision or being used to justify it, or both.  In any event we request that you look into this as we understand you are interested in the welfare and well being of the learning disabled.  Neither are being promoted by this current action or ‘vision’ intended to close excellent and vital ARCs.  After the meeting 16-Dec, key action reported on this site, and despite all the plausible reassurances, we are in no doubt that the ‘personalisation project’ and pilot scheme now spending £1.2million of public money from the Scottish Government, obviously intended to use this ‘extra’ cash to close the ARCs and that this ‘vision’ of an apparently ‘Brave New World’ still remains the driving force.  We wish to get to the bottom of this and remove all the uncertainty so that real choice is maintained for the learning disabled; to ensure those who benefit from and actually require a ‘buildings-based’ service are allowed to continue to choose to do so.  Isn’t personalisation really meant to be about increasing ‘choice’, not reducing it and diminishing quality of life?

Is the following correct, as many carers in the DGPPG understand, since this was also stated in the same words at the Enable Scotland ‘Brave New World’ presentation at Easterbrook Hall Dumfries on 30-Nov.  We were then told that the whole ‘Brave New World’ approach is coming from Westminster and is a Labour policy issue, being rolled out to the rest of the UK, but not Wales.  Personalisation is one part of that policy.  The intent is to get people services in their own homes or ‘in the community’, whatever that meaningless mantra really means, but not in a “building-based model”.

However this does not work well for all of the Learning Disabled community, as we are sure you know.  The carers now forming the DGPPG are responsible fof some of nearly 250 service users in the six Dumfries and Gallowy Council ARCs, some as guardians or welfare attorneys under the AWIA.  There is a waiting list and an upcoming large cohort in transition.  So we all have a big stake in the outcomes of such a policy.  One carer remembers being a rather concerned when first hearing discussions about this at the TUC, especially the fact that even ardent disability campaigners, who strongly and rightly believe in more self-directed support for those who can benefit from it, were very wary of how it would work in practice for learning disabled, as opposed to able minded physically disabled people.  For some individual budgets will be a great advantage and move forward, as long as their individual budget keeps pace with any increases in self purchased ‘care’ costs and is not capped to a lower cost inflation rate in future years.  This could be a way of saving money in the longer term, something mentioned in the Dumfries and Galloway plan.  So is this a covert cut in service to save money in the longer term, or could that be an unintended consequence?

Please can you tell us what on earth is going on in Scotland at the National centre amongst the ‘great and the good’ that is having such a disastrous negative impact on the ground here at the font line of care.  There are many tears of frustration and anger, all now compounded by insidious and pernicious uncertainty that a crucial element of very effective care and transition work is being removed because of a national policy that we do not want for this group of the learning disabled.  One size cap does not fit all.

We look forward to hearing shortly.  Thank you.  DGPPG

Enable Scotland submitted this statement in response to public criticism in Dumfries and Galloway

ENABLE Scotland made this statement today at the invitation of DGPPG about changes to day services in Dumfries and Galloway, in reply to public criticism.

-         We are an independent charity, run by our voluntary members.  Neither Dumfries and Galloway Council, nor any other public body has any say over our governance or our position on issues affecting people with learning disabilities.

-         We categorically oppose any cuts to spending on support for people with learning disabilities. When efficiency savings are made, these should be re-invested in supporting people with learning disabilities. We do not run ARCs and have no power to close them.

People with learning disabilities should be consulted and involved

-         We want the best possible support with a range of meaningful options. People with learning disabilities and their families need information on what is possible and what might work best in their community. This is particularly important in Dumfries and Galloway where our members have told us that communication with people has been poor up until now.

-         To this end we will continue to inform them, local authorities and health services and encourage the sharing of experience from different parts of the UK.

End of statement.  18-Dec at 12:52

Freedom of Information request: the ‘Personalisation Board’ spending £1.2Million of public money

The following FoI request was submitted to Dumfries and Galloway Council at 09:16 today.  Given that on Weds 19-Dec Mr Alexander assured 25 carers that using FoI was not really necessary, because  he would ensure full information was freely published, this is only a formal ‘backup’.  We are confident Mr Alexander will circulate all the ‘personalisation’ records very quickly by email as attached files.  This will also be a topic for full discussion at the wider meeting to be arranged later in January.

Today at 09:16 DGPPG wrote:  Dear Mr Little.

You have a copy of the action points from the Castle Douglas meeting 16-Dec (sent 17/12 at 11:53) and will have noted our concerns about the failure to answer the first FoI 9822 properly and fully within 20 days.  We discern a rather clever legalistic nit picking over semantics and titles, which is hardly in the spirit, if not outwith the legal intent, of FoI.

Please note this and the following is a further FoI request seeking everything relating to the Personalisation project, which must date from late 2008.  This preamble is so there can be no doubt what it is we are seeking and why, in both the public interest and that of the ARC service users.  All must be in electronic form within Council records and we request delivery by email in pdf or Word format please.  All these records should be very easily accessible and require no copying or post or printing.

Unless we are reading the situation incorrectly then the ARC closures could appear to be an opportunistic, pre-emptive and some may say cynical move by D&G Council to take advantage of the Scottish Parliament ‘personalisation’ pilot cash and use the budget ‘cost saving options’ as a way to achieve closure of the ARCs.  Is this also an ideological issue, since we know from the past there has been a fixation with an ideal of inclusion, enshrined in the meaningless mantra, “in the community”.

Or is it more prosaic and simply commercial/political ‘wheeling and dealing’, as we understand could have been mooted by someone who sits on the ‘Personalisation Change Programme Board’?  Could it be that the intention is to sell off or hive off in some way the so far unidentified four ARCs that were scheduled to be closed and de facto privatise that element of care provision?   We know that such divestment of assets was a Dumfries and Galloway Council underlying policy intent, as this was behind the intent to close Dunmuir Park and other facilities on the late 1990s.  The proud boast of the then Social Work Director that Dumfries and Galloway would be the first Council in Scotland to only commission such services from others in the private or ‘not for profit’ sectors.  Is there still a remaining hangover of that ideology and policy as well.  Members may wish to comment on this from their knowledge of the highest level Council strategic policy making meetings?

We are forced to ask speculative questions like this and request full disclosure under FoI, because those actually and directly affected, both service users and front line staff, have been kept entirely in the dark about all of this.  Is it correct that the ‘Board’ Members deciding these matters and who all presumably knew about and agreed with the ARC closures are:

John Alexander Chair

Pat Riley  (Commissioning Officer (Direct Payments and Carer Issues)

Judith Proctor Head of Strategic Planning, Commissioning and Performance

Morven Campbell  User and Carer Involvement  (50% funded by D&G Council)

Melita Loaring  Local Area Coordinator

Heather Collington Operations Manager Learning Disability

Alex Davidson  Project Manager Scottish Government

Julie Sheehan  Lead Officer

Janet Sutton Finance Officer

Gerry McCabe  Team Manager

Harry Hay  Acting Area Manager

Peter David Operations Manager Frontline Improvement Team

Dave Bleasdale Turning Point Scotland   (Is he a close relative of Beth Bleasdale – manager Newton Stewart ARC?)

Geoff Dean Operations Manager Children & Families

John Lynch Operations Manager Housing

Geoff Mark  Strategic Planning and Commissioning Manager

John Dowson  Coalition of Disabled People  (DGPPG has already stated publicly that he does not represent us)

Helen Drinkwater  Benefits Maximisation Team

Sheila Clingan  Commissioning Manager Children

Paul Garrett  Operations Manager Accountancy

Marion Jackson  PA to Director of Social Work (Minute and Note Taker)

How much is it costing us for this ‘Board’ to meet and all the other new bureaucracy created by the £1.2Million pilot, which was so heavily and severely criticised at the meeting on 16-Dec.  Is it perhaps the case the structure may be a tad ‘top heavy’, with too many chiefs?  Certainly no one is effectively representing the actual service users and families, those directly affected by the grand plans of this ‘board’, namely closing the ARCs.

We understand this ‘Board’ met on 9-Sep in Dumfries and before that on 4-Aug and there was a “Scottish Government Update Meeting” at the end of September attended by Ms Proctor & Ms Sheehan.  Who did they meet and where are the minutes of all those meetings?

Also that this ‘Board’ was to meet again on 4-Nov 2009 and 13-Jan 2910 at Woodbank.  Minutes please of the 4-Nov meeting and an invitation please to 13-Jan at least as observers.  Note that neither Mr Dowson nor UCI have a mandate to represent the interests of the families and service users in the matter of the ARC closures and future.

Also we note with concern the date coincidence of 4-Nov with what we were told by the Chief Executive was a LDMT meeting held on 4-Nov for a “stock take”.  We understand this took place at Castle Douglas ARC.  Under Freedom of Information we were told there were no notes or records taken at that meeting.  We now ask again for transparency and honesty for any notes minutes and records whatsoever relating to the ‘Board’ on 4-Nov and all previous meetings under whatever precise title that relate to the ‘Personalisation’ project, plus answers to the above.

Hopefully the media may have some pertinent questions about all this as well, since it involves £1.2Million pounds of public money that those directly affected are saying publicly is being mismanaged and wasted.  See comments on DGPPG www site.

We look forward to hearing.  Thank you.  DGPPG   www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk

MSPs asked if ARC closure plan is an unintended consequence of Scottish Parliament plan now revealed by DGPPG research.

Our local MSPs and later Trish Godman, who is a member of the cross-party group for learning disability, were asked by DGPPG if the unintended consequence of a Scottish Parliament plan is to cause the closure of Dumfries and Galloway ARCs?

Dr Murray, Alex Fergusson, Alasdair Morgan, and Michael Russell.   This is a matter for MSPs.

This matter is not party political.  After the Castle Douglas meeting on 16-Dec , you have details of this or please see www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk since we have done some research of our own.  From what we find it seems that the underlying driving force of the ARC closures, that no one wants, is in fact the Scottish Government / Parliament.  Are we correct and did you understand this?  Is it yet another unintended consequence of well intentioned ideas from those who don’t actually understand the day to day reality of the lives of the learning disabled and those who care for them?

Someone in the Government / Parliament wants everyone with needs to have an individual budget.  So it’s now renamed “Personalisation and Self Directed Support”, more confusing jargon.  The definition in the master plan is:

“Personalisation describes a model of care that gives the person needing support the means to decide and purchase or secure it in a way that best meets the outcomes that they want for their lives.  It is about the people that need support defining, to an extent, the support that they want and about them being given an amount of resource that enables them to procure it”.

We understand that this drive to give people their own cash as a budget to spend is for a much wider population than just the learning disabled.  Of course it is much easier for the able minded to manage their affairs in this way and a ‘good thing’ for those who want it.  But it doesn’t need a huge pilot to establish that with ARC closures as a consequence.

But the experts want everyone to use it, perhaps it saves money?  We have discovered, because it seems to be kept secret from us, the “Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme” and the “Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009”, which emanate from the Parliament.  The way we read it the intended ARC closures are explicit and embedded in this plan or programme, with “doubled up” cash provided by the tax payer to do it.  Are we correct because you cannot agree with or approve of this action having so rightly and vociferously opposed it over the last two months?

The Scottish Parliament master plan discloses funds to D&G to do this are:  2008/9 £170K;  2009/10 £510K and £510K for 2010/11.  We wish to know how these funds have been used this year and how they are be budgeted to used next year and have asked this in the 16-Nov meeting action points, to be confirmed under FoI.

Everyone agrees the ARCs do a great, essential and valuable job.  They are vital.  So no one could understand the plan to close 4 of them by 31^st March 2010.  Moreover it seemed to cost more.  But we didn’t know about the “doubled up” funding!  Do you and can you explain this?  We all feel it’s a gross waste of taxpayers’ cash at a time of acute shortages and front line cuts.

What is the Personalisation Change Programme Board? We have asked for immediate formal representation on this on behalf of more than 250 existing and potential Learning Disabled service users.

ARC “redesign and closure” is a vision explicitly stated in the Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme and the Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009.   Not only does this Plan set out the funds detailed above, but it also lists “three themes”

The first is “Investing to save:  this theme will seek to double fund buildings based care to enable remodelling of the facilities while encouraging service users to adopt other forms of social care in the community using self directed support”.   This seems to explain the ARC closure plan.  Is this the blueprint and root of the plan?  If so then it really does come from the Scottish Parliament, who are giving our taxes to D&G Council to shut our ARCs against all our wishes, including yours as our MSPs.

We have asked if D&G Council Members understand any of this, but more importantly do you as our MSPs?

Do you have access to all these plans and papers, because we have asked for them?   Where all this is being planned, noting there are other related groups like the “Personalisation Executive Group”, which agreed to “go live with personalisation on 1 Nov 09, the date for new referrals”.  No wonder this new jolly is soaking up £1.2Million with new managers and expanding bureaucracy etc.  But look at the virulent criticism of the “shambles” in Wigtownshire and the request to stop the waste, see the DGPPG www site.

We all look forward to hearing from you on a cross party basis to make some sense of all this, because if it is how it seems then it is a hideous waste also creating great and needless upset, when there are real problems to fix, like getting transition right.  Talk to SWIA about that.

Thank you once again for looking into this and getting some answers.  We would like the wasteful pilot stopped, but if that’s not possible then take the ARCs out of the planned equation entirely and create a new but realistic ‘vision’.    DGPPG

Action agreed 16-Dec. Further meeting Jan 2010 ARC future developments

At 11:53 DGPPG wrote the following note of key action agreed points to Dumfries and Galloway Council Social Work Director: Dear Mr Alexander & Ms Collington

Around 25 representatives, all very concerned about the present situation, met with you yesterday in Castle Douglas and we wish to repeat the thanks given to you by the chair, Yowann Byghan, for your time and attention to all that was said. Thanks also to Cllr Ian Blake who observed, saying afterwards that he had learned a lot and wished his colleagues could have seen and heard all this as well.

It was a meeting arranged at very short notice with carers travelling from far away in Stranraer and Kirkconnel, which presents real difficulties with little time to prepare. We were therefore all very pleased to agree that a follow up meeting will now be organised by you towards the end of January, thus enabling advance planning and help with attendance & transport etc. We look forward to a proposed date and convenient location for that meeting as soon as possible, hopefully before the holiday, since a lot of questions were left unanswered yesterday with other topics yet to be raised. Many still wish to speak and need more time to do so.

It was also agreed that the draft record of the meeting your note taker made yesterday shall be agreed by DGPPG and issued jointly in due course. But ahead of that we trust you agree certain key points are not in doubt and need action now.

We were all very pleased to hear your unequivocal commitment you will ensure that effective participation of the families will be restored at all levels, including the strategic, and will now reply to the 5-Nov proposal. This must be a topic for January and cannot be tokenistic. Including UCI, a body 50% funded by the Council, in meetings is not ‘effective participation’, as can be seen from these recent events. We are pleased to hear you say no changes will ever be imposed, but only taken forward by agreement after full and effective involvement and only if they represent a measurable improvement in the quality of care and outcomes from that existing. The best way to achieve such advances is for those directly affected to be part of the change process from the outset. That is starting at the strategic level and working forwards. We understand that is what you intend will happen from early 2010.

Linked to this you also heard the direct and very negative feedback about the ‘Wigtownshire Pilot’ and the Enable Scotland 30-Nov ‘shambles’, but we also do appreciate that you wholly disassociated D&G Council from that event clearly saying we must take up any complaints directly with Enable Scotland. Perhaps some will now do so.

Your attempt to explain the latest meaning of ‘personalisation’ was helpful, since you are now using this term a great deal. It seems clear that by personalisation you mean increased self directed support in terms of an individual budget or how care is paid for. It is not person centred planning, which you agreed already exists and is well implemented. Anything more you can do to clarify this for everyone, including Members, would be helpful as there is a lot of confusion because, unfortunately, the word ‘personalisation’ is jargon. We understand the definition you are using is for “Personalisation and Self Directed Support” and that mo doubt you would summarise this as follows:

“Personalisation describes a model of care that gives the person needing support the means to decide and purchase or secure it in a way that best meets the outcomes that they want for their lives. It is about the people that need support defining, to an extent, the support that they want and about them being given an amount of resource that enables them to procure it”.

We understand that this drive to give people their own cash to budget is for a much wider population than the learning disabled, but you did agree it is much easier for the able minded to manage their affairs in this way, and that it is not compulsory for all to do so. We understand the personalisation plan was ‘rolled out’ on 1-Nov for all new referrals, presumably including new ARC clients? Please will you confirm this and that it links directly with the ILF, including that savings option and direct payments?

You confirmed that such individual budgets could be used by service users for attendance at the ARCs “if that network continued to exist”. Of course, the big word here is “if”, which just adds to the ongoing uncertainty amongst the families. You did spend some time explaining the complexities and difficulties of administration, accounting, budgets and the operation of such payments, but stressed that was an internal matter of ‘admin’ and should not really be a concern to service users and families. However, we understand you suggested a “working budget” was “not a very secure way” of paying for ARCs, but we didn’t really understand this or why. This needs clarification.

We also heard you clearly say and repeat robustly that your ARC closure plan was definitely achievable and sustainable as stated by March 31^st 2010, but if approved may well not have been implemented in the way the option plan described. We did not have time to explore this yesterday but believe we may understand what the real and so far undisclosed implementation intention could be. We will address this more separately with a further request for information, supported by FoI. For when challenged with figures you stated that the spreadsheet sensitivity analysis provided on 29-Oct was wrong. Yet there has been no reply to this effect from any officer, despite repeated requests since then, although you thought that you had replied. We cannot trace this and during the meeting you could not detail how or why the analysis was wrong, but promised to detail this in writing immediately afterwards. As intimated, we shall write more about this.

You also agreed the ARCs did an “important job” but went on to repeat they “are not cost effective”. However, you could not explain to us how or why or what alternative would be more cost effective. You said the ARC budget was ~£ 2.4Million for 230 service users. We need more data and information about this, since the number of service users appears to have declined from the 244 cited as the official D&G figure in the ‘Same as You Annual Survey 2007’ yet you agree there is a waiting list and an upcoming pressure of the transition cohort of potential ARC service users. Why is the present number lower? We shall write separately requesting up to date and historical data and budgets. We used the 2007 data in the 29-Oct sensitivity analysis, but that difference is not material to the expected error bound.

You expressed great surprise when we also explained that the 14-Nov FoI request 9822 had not been fully answered in the statutory 20 days and referred to our reply 27-Nov (see attached for clarity) and the subsequent Alex Little internal request to your department 30-Nov, to which there is no response. Our original request of 14-Nov clearly asked for confirmation of inter alia:

• Any other reports or analysis etc relating to or concerning the ARC ‘redesign’ proposal that have been considered or approved by any other senior management group/committee within the Council and/or NHS, such as determining financial achievability and sustainability. This is to understand the full decision making process before such a report is published in the public domain without any prior warning to or consultation with those immediately and directly affected.

We appreciate your assurance this will be attended to immediately and that you suggest “FoI is not really necessary” because you will ensure all relevant documents from the past and in future will be copied to us by email as attachments in either pdf or Word format henceforth. That is much appreciated and will be very helpful. We need all this as soon as possible plus other material not previously requested. This concerns: “All Minutes and papers of the Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme” and “Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009” and to avoid any doubt we require disclosed anything else that relates or is at all relevant, including the obvious link to the intended ARC closures implicit in this programme. We did not have time to explore any of these very important issues for a plan running throughout 2009 at the meeting yesterday The latter plan discloses funds to D&G are: 2008/9 £170K this year? 2009/10 £510K also this year and £510K for 2010/11. We wish to know on the record how these funds have been used this year and how they are be budgeted to used next year? To ensure formality we will also confirm this under FoI and have copied this to Alex Little for his information.

Our impression of the meeting is that putting together what was both not said and what was confirmed there is a clear intention in your vision that ARCs will close because you will create something better, improved and more cost effective, but as yet you cannot share with us what that is or give examples. We accept your word that this will not be imposed “top down” and that you will engage with us in effective participation at all levels. We have been excluded since 2006, which is why the present situation has come about. As an immediate first step we request formal representation on the Personalisation Change Programme Board on behalf of Learning Disabled service users.

We note that John Dowson is a member, but we record openly on the WWW site his completely wrongheaded opinion publicly expressed that ARCs are “outdated, Victorian institutions that should be closed”. Mr Dowson may speak well for the physically disabled, for whom personalisation as you now define it is a very good thing, but he clearly does not adequately represent the Learning Disabled and their family and carers. We have copied him with this message. Also we note Morven Campbell of UCI is a member. As far as we are aware there has been no feedback of any of these plans to the ARC families and UCI is not effective participation for the interests of the families. Also as mentioned above UCI is 50% funded by the Council, a point made at the 30-Nov Enable Scotland shambles, where UCI had a ‘stall’.

As we suggest, if we put together what that you say the closure plan was achievable and sustainable, that ARCs are not cost effective and, if the ARC network continues, then we form a clear picture of the future vision and intention. That is why our representation is now essential, since we understand such redesign and closure is to be by agreement. Importantly this vision is implicit in the Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme and the Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009. We understand the latter not only discloses the funds detailed above but also lists “three themes”

The first is “Investing to save: this theme will seek to double fund buildings based care to enable remodelling of the facilities while encouraging service users to adopt other forms of social care in the community using self directed support”. This seems to explain the ARC closure plan and how you said it was achievable, but not in the way described in the plan. With an extra £510K next year D&G Council has the cash to ‘double up’ whilst shutting the ARCs, with 4 first next year and the other 2 later in 2011/12.

None of this has been made clear to any of us. Do the Members know of these plans and if so why are they not discussing this with those directly affected. In that “theme” seems to be the hitherto undisclosed key as to how & why the closure plan is achievable in cost terms, but not notice & consultation by 31^st March. Why is this extra income not disclosed to all the public as part of the budget planning and consultation process. You said nothing was being or would be ‘hatched up in the dark cupboard of Social Work’, but this all seems very opaque to us. All we want is transparency and honesty and all this can be fully explored at the next January meeting.

Meanwhile we expect all the relevant papers to be delivered by email as attached files, so we can be fully informed and prepared for that meeting, along with an invitation to the “Board(s)” where all this is being planned. Including other related groups like the “Personalisation Executive Group”, which agreed to “go live with personalisation on 1 Nov 09, the date for new referrals”. Also active and effective participation by families and carers at the ‘front line’ in the Wigtownshire Pilot as clearly requested at the meeting yesterday along with answers to the questions being raised, given that action is now “live”. The impression of the meeting is that planning and preparation on the ground is far from adequate at the present time. As was said at the meeting why try and fix something that is not broken and working very well, the ARCs, when you have big unresolved problems with transition and ‘personalisation’. Focus in terms of selectivity and concentration of effort is a well tested business maxim that seems to apply here.

We look forward to receiving and agreeing your draft detailed record of the meeting, but meanwhile trust the above non contentious and agreed points plus the new topics shall be actioned promptly as requested in preparation for more detailed discussions later in January.

We all look forward to working together in a spirit of openness and cooperation, for we are not and never have been opposed to positive change and improvements and will do all we can to bring that about for the benefit of the service users, their carers and families. Thank you once again. DGPPG

Action agreed 16-Dec. Further meeting Jan 2010 ARC future developments

At 11:53 DGPPG wrote the following note of key action agreed points to Dumfries and Galloway Council Social Work Director:    Dear Mr Alexander & Ms Collington

Around 25 representatives, all very concerned about the present situation, met with you yesterday in Castle Douglas and we wish to repeat the thanks given to you by the chair, Yowann Byghan, for your time and attention to all that was said.  Thanks also to Cllr Ian Blake who observed, saying afterwards that he had learned a lot and wished his colleagues could have seen and heard all this as well.

It was a meeting arranged at very short notice with carers travelling from far away in Stranraer and Kirkconnel, which presents real difficulties with little time to prepare.  We were therefore all very pleased to agree that a follow up meeting will now be organised by you towards the end of January, thus enabling advance planning and help with attendance & transport etc.  We look forward to a proposed date and convenient location for that meeting as soon as possible, hopefully before the holiday, since a lot of questions were left unanswered yesterday with other topics yet to be raised.  Many still wish to speak and need more time to do so.

It was also agreed that the draft record of the meeting your note taker made yesterday shall be agreed by DGPPG and issued jointly in due course.  But ahead of that we trust you agree certain key points are not in doubt and need action now.

We were all very pleased to hear your unequivocal commitment you will ensure that effective participation of the families will be restored at all levels, including the strategic, and will now reply to the 5-Nov proposal.  This must be a topic for January and cannot be tokenistic.  Including UCI, a body 50% funded by the Council, in meetings is not ‘effective participation’, as can be seen from these recent events.  We are pleased to hear you say no changes will ever be imposed, but only taken forward by agreement after full and effective involvement and only if they represent a measurable improvement in the quality of care and outcomes from that existing.  The best way to achieve such advances is for those directly affected to be part of the change process from the outset.  That is starting at the strategic level and working forwards.  We understand that is what you intend will happen from early 2010.

Linked to this you also heard the direct and very negative feedback about the ‘Wigtownshire Pilot’ and the Enable Scotland 30-Nov ‘shambles’, but we also do appreciate that you wholly disassociated D&G Council from that event clearly saying we must take up any complaints directly with Enable Scotland.  Perhaps some will now do so.

Your attempt to explain the latest meaning of ‘personalisation’ was helpful, since you are now using this term a great deal.  It seems clear that by personalisation you mean increased self directed support in terms of an individual budget or how care is paid for.  It is not person centred planning, which you agreed already exists and is well implemented.  Anything more you can do to clarify this for everyone, including Members, would be helpful as there is a lot of confusion because, unfortunately, the word  ‘personalisation’ is jargon.  We understand the definition you are using is for “Personalisation and Self Directed Support” and that no doubt you would summarise this as follows:

“Personalisation describes a model of care that gives the person needing support the means to decide and purchase or secure it in a way that best meets the outcomes that they want for their lives.  It is about the people that need support defining, to an extent, the support that they want and about them being given an amount of resource that enables them to procure it”.

We understand that this drive to give people their own cash to budget is for a much wider population than the learning disabled, but you did agree it is much easier for the able minded to manage their affairs in this way, and that it is not compulsory for all to do so.  We understand the personalisation plan was ‘rolled out’ on 1-Nov for all new referrals, presumably including new ARC clients?  Please will you confirm this and that it links directly with the ILF, including that savings option and direct payments?

You confirmed that such individual budgets could be used by service users for attendance at the ARCs “if that network continued to exist”.  Of course, the big word here is “if”, which just adds to the ongoing uncertainty amongst the families.   You did spend some time explaining the complexities and difficulties of administration, accounting, budgets and the operation of such payments, but stressed that was an internal matter of ‘admin’ and should not really be a concern to service users and families.  However, we understand you suggested a “working budget” was “not a very secure way” of paying for ARCs, but we didn’t really understand this or why.  This needs clarification.

We also heard you clearly say and repeat robustly that your ARC closure plan was definitely achievable and sustainable as stated by March 31^st 2010, but if approved may well not have been implemented in the way the option plan described.  We did not have time to explore this yesterday but believe we may understand what the real and so far undisclosed implementation intention could be.  We will address this more separately with a further request for information, supported by FoI.  For when challenged with figures you stated that the spreadsheet sensitivity analysis provided on 29-Oct was wrong.  Yet there has been no reply to this effect from any officer, despite repeated requests since then, although you thought that you had replied.  We cannot trace this and during the meeting you could not detail how or why the analysis was wrong, but promised to detail this in writing immediately afterwards.  As intimated, we shall write more about this.

You also agreed the ARCs did an “important job” but went on to repeat they “are not cost effective”.  However, you could not explain to us how or why or what alternative would be more cost effective.  You said the ARC budget was ~£ 2.4Million for 230 service users.  We need more data and information about this, since the number of service users appears to have declined from the 244 cited as the official D&G figure in the ‘Same as You Annual Survey 2007’ yet you agree there is a waiting list and an upcoming pressure of the transition cohort of potential ARC service users.  Why is the present number lower?  We shall write separately requesting up to date and historical data and budgets.  We used the 2007 data in the 29-Oct sensitivity analysis, but that difference is not material to the expected error bound.

You expressed great surprise when we also explained that the 14-Nov FoI request 9822 had not been fully answered in the statutory 20 days and referred to our reply 27-Nov (see attached for clarity) and the subsequent Alex Little internal request to your department 30-Nov, to which there is no response.  Our original request of 14-Nov clearly asked for confirmation of inter alia:

• Any other reports or analysis etc relating to or concerning the ARC ‘redesign’ proposal that have been considered or approved by any other senior management group/committee within the Council and/or NHS, such as determining financial achievability and sustainability.  This is to understand the full decision making process before such a report is published in the public domain without any prior warning to or consultation with those immediately and directly affected.

We appreciate your assurance this will be attended to immediately and that you suggest “FoI is not really necessary” because you will ensure all relevant documents from the past and in future will be copied to us by email as attachments in either pdf or Word format henceforth.  That is much appreciated and will be very helpful.  We need all this as soon as possible plus other material not previously requested.  This concerns: “All Minutes and papers of the Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme” and “Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009” and to avoid any doubt we require disclosed anything else that relates or is at all relevant, including the obvious link to the intended ARC closures implicit in this programme.  We did not have time to explore any of these very important issues for a plan running throughout 2009 at the meeting yesterday    The latter plan discloses funds to D&G are:  2008/9 £170K this year? 2009/10 £510K also this year and £510K for 2010/11.  We wish to know on the record how these funds have been used this year and how they are be budgeted to used next year?  To ensure formality we will also confirm this under FoI and have copied this to Alex Little for his information.

Our impression of the meeting is that putting together what was both not said and what was confirmed there is a clear intention in your vision that ARCs will close because you will create something better, improved and more cost effective, but as yet you cannot share with us what that is or give examples.  We accept your word that this will not be imposed “top down” and that you will engage with us in effective participation at all levels.  We have been excluded since 2006, which is why the present situation has come about.  As an immediate first step we request formal representation on the Personalisation Change Programme Board on behalf of Learning Disabled service users.

We note that John Dowson is a member, but we record openly on the WWW site his completely wrongheaded opinion publicly expressed that ARCs are “outdated, Victorian institutions that should be closed”.  Mr Dowson may speak well for the physically disabled, for whom personalisation as you now define it is a very good thing, but he clearly does not adequately represent the Learning Disabled and their family and carers.  We have copied him with this message.  Also we note Morven Campbell of UCI is a member.  As far as we are aware there has been no feedback of any of these plans to the ARC families and UCI is not effective participation for the interests of the families.  Also as mentioned above UCI is 50% funded by the Council, a point made at the 30-Nov Enable Scotland shambles, where UCI had a ‘stall’.

As we suggest, if we put together what that you say the closure plan was achievable and sustainable, that ARCs are not cost effective and, if the ARC network continues, then we form a clear picture of the future vision and intention.  That is why our representation is now essential, since we understand such redesign and closure is to be by agreement.  Importantly this vision is implicit in the Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme and the Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009.   We understand the latter not only discloses the funds detailed above but also lists “three themes”

The first is “Investing to save:  this theme will seek to double fund buildings based care to enable remodelling of the facilities while encouraging service users to adopt other forms of social care in the community using self directed support”.   This seems to explain the ARC closure plan and how you said it was achievable, but not in the way described in the plan.  With an extra £510K next year D&G Council has the cash to ‘double up’ whilst shutting the ARCs, with 4 first next year and the other 2 later in 2011/12.

None of this has been made clear to any of us.  Do the Members know of these plans and if so why are they not discussing this with those directly affected.  In that “theme” seems to be the hitherto undisclosed key as to how & why the closure plan is achievable in cost terms, but not notice & consultation by 31^st March.  Why is this extra income not disclosed to all the public as part of the budget planning and consultation process.  You said nothing was being or would be ‘hatched up in the dark cupboard of Social Work’, but this all seems very opaque to us.  All we want is transparency and honesty and all this can be fully explored at the next January meeting.

Meanwhile we expect all the relevant papers to be delivered by email as attached files, so we can be fully informed and prepared for that meeting, along with an invitation to the “Board(s)” where all this is being planned.  Including other related groups like the “Personalisation Executive Group”, which agreed to “go live with personalisation on 1 Nov 09, the date for new referrals”.  Also active and effective participation by families and carers at the ‘front line’ in the Wigtownshire Pilot as clearly requested at the meeting yesterday along with answers to the questions being raised, given that action is now “live”.  The impression of the meeting is that planning and preparation on the ground is far from adequate at the present time.  As was said at the meeting why try and fix something that is not broken and working very well, the ARCs, when you have big unresolved problems with transition and ‘personalisation’.  Focus in terms of selectivity and concentration of effort is a well tested business maxim that seems to apply here.

We look forward to receiving and agreeing your draft detailed record of the meeting, but meanwhile trust the above non contentious and agreed points plus the new topics shall be actioned promptly as requested in preparation for more detailed discussions later in January.

We all look forward to working together in a spirit of openness and cooperation, for we are not and never have been opposed to positive change and improvements and will do all we can to bring that about for the benefit of the service users, their carers and families.  Thank you once again.   DGPPG

Puzzled, angry and emotional. The human story of a ‘building’ by a mother, or what the ARCs actually do.

I am very puzzled and very angry and very emotional.  My daughter J is now 20.  She has very complex needs and until this year we looked after her at home.  Her transition started three years ago at 17 at Langlands, an excellent expert specialist school, which suited her well.  There were extensive meetings with all the professionals, teachers, social workers from both children’s and adult services plus ARC staff.  At feedback sessions with inspectors like SWIA many say how the change from children’s’ to adult services is like falling off a cliff.  The secure world of excellent support can vanish overnight at 18 and that’s very frightening.

Many are not only frightened but left abandoned, but at Langlands that didn’t happen.  Why?  Because of the ARC.  It’s much more than a building, it’s human.  The meetings were in depth, encouraging all parties to put forward ideas and ask questions.  J then started visiting the ARC on a Monday with a member of the school staff who she knew well.  Change had to be gradual and reassuring.  This was gradually increased to five days and took 6 months.  Everything was planned and done to the most minute detail to make this a comfortable and successful transition.

I was kept informed at all times of what was going on and encouraged to make contact at any time with suggestions or worries.  J’s timetable is reviewed regularly and allows for input from home.  J’s uncle raised a great deal of money for the ARC and some of this was used to bring in an external expert in autism.  This was of great benefit to both J and the staff.  It allowed everyone to understand how autism affects someone.  It was also of benefit to other clients as it gave staff training for now and the future.  That expert was so impressed by the transition programme that he reported it was a model of excellent best practice that he felt should be replicated across Scotland, if not the UK.  That was because of the excellence of ARC staff, but it also required a purpose designed building.

J cannot say “I am happy to go to work”, but we know she is because she goes with a smile on her face.  She is learning new skills at her level and has made friendships.  She now lives in a shared home with three others, where there is the same detailed input and imagination to her care.  I have just been involved with J’s six month review, which took nearly all day.  I could not believe how detailed and individualised it was with the care home staff, ARC staff and social worker.  How person centred it was, which is what I understand ‘personalisation’ to be.  Putting the person, J,  at the centre of the process and assessing and responding to her needs in the best way possible.  But it was only possible because of the ARC.  This is the centre, J’s sun, around which her life and ours now revolves.  Because if she is secure and happy so are we.  I am so impressed and wish to say so at the meeting on 16-Dec.

How I wish John Alexander could have seen it.  It’s why I have invited him to visit J and spend time with her at the ARC that has done so much for her.  To see what he and Ms Proctor propose to destroy for J and so many others, presumably out of their ideological ignorance, or desire to cut costs.  Like others, J needs the calm secure ARC ‘building’, not trailing around the town getting distressed, ‘in the community’.  What meaningless words.  That won’t cut costs, it will increase them just as surely as it will decrease the quality of her life and ours, so painstakingly created by dedicated staff at her ARC and care home.  For each J there are many others.  That’s why there is such an outcry and why ARC staff and managers are also in tears, like us.

So that’s why I am so very puzzled, angry and emotional.  I see personalisation in action and it requires dedicated expert motivated staff in a building, just like everyone else.  We all inhabit and work in ‘buildings’.  When I read their ‘plan’ I don’t recognise what they describe, just an ill founded experiment to destroy many lives and increase costs.  But they are experts and wrap up their ideas in a wonderful sounding language that appears very plausible to those who haven’t a clue about J’s reality and mine and many other families like us.  I am describing Castle Douglas, but it could equally be; Annan, Stranraer, Kirkconnel, Newton Stewart or Dumfries.  Instead of destruction let’s cherish and develop what we have created.  It works and is as cost effective as it can be.

So put away your ideological fantasies and get in the real world.  Come and stand in our shoes for a day or two.  Individual budgets, direct payments or any other bureaucratic nonsense is not what J requires.  There is a waiting list.  Perhaps the £1.2 Million ‘pilot’ would be better spent on doing more of what actually works and can be seen to work, to help more people like J.  But presumably it’s much more fun ‘modernising’ and playing ‘pilot’ games, even if they have to be run from someone’s dining room table, as we now learn.  It’s a good job the front line staff are really professional and expert in their jobs, but then you intended to sack 30 of them.  Please explain why I shouldn’t be puzzled, angry and emotional.

Open discussion – Weds 16-Dec 11am Castle Douglas Community Centre Cotton St.

Questions as the Agenda for the Open Discussion re ARCs with DGPPG  Weds 16-Dec Castle Douglas.  The following questions were submitted to Mr John Alexander as agreed.  The full text of the email sent 17:27 on 15-Dec is reproduced after the list.

1. First we request an unreserved and genuine, humble public apology to everyone, including elected Members, for all the upset and distress caused since 20-Oct and an unequivocal assurance this will never be repeated.
2. To rebuild confidence and trust and avoid such repetition, we ask that you immediately restore ‘effective participation’ of families / carers / service users in all future strategic planning, as used to exist pre 2006 SWIA.  We first asked for this on 5-Nov, (see www site) but as yet there is no response or answer.  Please will you now confirm this will happen at the start of next year in a format that is acceptable to us?
3. Whatever happens re ‘personalisation’, please confirm that all service users shall have the choice by right in future to use their individual budget, if they desire to work that way or it is imposed, to purchase their existing service at their ARC?
4. How do both authors explain their closure plan was not achievable and do they agree with the sensitivity analysis, which confirms the plan was either deliberately misleading to Members or based on a fundamental lie by claiming there were no cuts in the service to be provided?  Why was this not understood and analysed by the authors before it was published?
5. Why did you ignore Regulation 113 of the ‘Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act’, which requires a min 3 months notice of service closure / cancellation, the fullest consultation and that alternatives have to be identified and in place?  Surely to fail to advise Members of that basic regulatory requirement and not include it in the plan ‘Risk Assessment’, is recklessly incompetent at best, given that you confirmed the plan would start 31^st March 2010 and save £660K for a full year?
6. Why are you mixing up and conflating the rhetoric of ‘personalisation’ with individual budgets / direct payments and closures & cuts?  Will these now be clearly separated in future to avoid creating needless confusion?  Please confirm ‘personalisation’ is not in fact ‘new’ in terms of person centred planning and needs assessment, which exists now at all ARCs?
7. How can £1.2 Million pounds being spent over 3 years on the Wigtown ‘personalisation pilot’ be justified now, when front line services are being cut.  This is still public money, even if coming from the Scottish Parliament.  It is creating even more ‘managers’, yet you wanted to sack 30 carers on 31-March 2010 and it contradicts the ‘austerity’ presentation by Gavin Stevenson at the budget consultation meetings.
8. Why is there no local Wigtown representation of any families, carers & service users amongst the 21 people listed as ‘running’ this pilot?  It looks like an ‘ivory tower’ exercise of those distant from the front line, just like ‘the plan’.
9. When will we receive full disclosure under the Freedom of Information requests of 16-Nov, now well outside the statutory 20 day limit for disclosure?  What are you hiding and why?  What is the Social Work Scrutiny Process apparently responsible for the plan?  What 4 ARCs were intended to close, or is that what is being hidden?  Did the plan simply arise out of thin air because apparently there are no back up papers in existence?  We do not believe that is actually the case.  Is it?
10. Do the authors fully understand the detail of all the work that the ARCs carry out, for much of which a secure ‘building base’ is essential?  As just two examples consider strategic transition work required by SWIA and mental health nurse training.
11. On what basis and why is Ms Proctor now saying the Castle Douglas Print Shop & Newton Stewart Merrick Café will not close, because they are ‘not buildings’, but clearly implying the ARCs, some purpose built, will close?  We wish such statements to be withdrawn or the underlying logic fully explained.
12. How many service users or carers or families have signalled to you by whatever means that they are on favour of and agree with any ARCs closing?  Will you actual listen to and act upon real consultation like this, especially if a majority reject your interpretation of ‘personalisation’?  What is happening about the existing waiting list for ARC places and the upcoming transition cohort, which further increases demand?  What is your “vision” and where is the underlying strategic planning?

If not present then Ms Judith Proctor as joint Head of Strategic Planning with partner NHS D&G, is understood to be fully bound to the answers given by John Alexander at this meeting.

15-Dec at 17:27  DGPPG wrote:   Dear Mr Alexander.

Numbers:  Annan ARC are holding their first ‘families group’ meeting this afternoon, so allowing for some representatives for tomorrow we estimate numbers to be at least ~20 or so.  Obviously there would be many more but for the very short notice of only 2 days, which is insufficient time for many carers, plus the limitation of the selected room, which we understand you told the BBC has space for 25 or thereabouts.  The BBC has announced the meeting four times today on the local news and hopefully again in the morning.  So more may decide to turn up, because this is a crucial matter for so many, whilst feelings are wholly justifiably running very high, with all the ongoing uncertainty.  So you may wish to arrange a larger room as a contingency?

Questions:  To ensure the discussion is productive the DGPPG said a list of questions would be submitted in advance, as below.  We request these be taken in this order as a structure to the meeting, which will be conducted with mutual respect, as requested.  However the group’s questions are of necessity ‘hard hitting’ because they have to be, given the unreasonable situation you and Ms Proctor have put us all in for nearly two months.  The Enable Scotland 30-Nov shambles inevitably compounded that upset and distress, as we said it would.  So simple straightforward and positive answers, that display a real reflective understanding of what damage has been done to the families, could start to rebuild confidence, now that all trust has been destroyed.  Because of 30-Nov you know we have already requested that your co-author of ‘the plan’ also attend the meeting.  If she, as joint Head of Strategic Planning including the partner NHS D&G, is not doing so alongside you, then we wish to clearly understand that what you say binds her as well and ask that you confirm this.   Please will you print say 30 spare copies of this list and bring these to the meeting.

As these 12 questions are worked through there may be other issues to add, along with points of detail.  You may wish to prepare simple but substantive written answers for the meeting, and then expand on these.  That would be helpful.  Are there any topics you wish to add after these 12 headings have been dealt with?

We note there is a Council “note taker”, so we too require an accurate record and shall digitally record the proceedings.  We state that Chatham House rules expressly do not apply and everything discussed is deemed to be on the public record.  Thank you.

DGPPG   www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk

Supplementary questions fro Newton Stewart ARC families.  8 will attend at Castle Douglas.  We want Mr Alexander and Ms Proctor to answer all these pots as well:

Specific questions & detail from Newton Stewart ARC families, as part of DGPPG

These questions and details illustrate just how far out of touch the ‘Strategic Planners’ are from front line reality.  Yet they produce and propose ‘plans’ that Members are expected to accept and approve, blindly trusting the Officers to be ‘expert’.

When will the Members take the blinkers off and really question these Officers, or let us advise them how do it properly?  They might just find those Officers are not so ‘expert’ after all!

Why do you JA propose closing the ARCs? In October it seemed the reason was to save £660,000 from the budget in the biggest Social Work saving ‘option’.  That much was clear to everyone; it was purely on the grounds of saving money, with no cut in service.  But now and suddenly the reason is changing, rather like going to war.  Now it seems it’s to move away from “a building based” care system to fit in with “personalisation”, whatever that really means.  What does it mean?
On Sun 13-Dec at 17:42  Council Leader Ivor Hyslop told us that: “when this was first before me as a member I thought it was on the back of the Wigtownshire pilot. When I questioned this I found out that the pilot hadn’t started. I also said I would be keen to see how this pilot went as I had heard it was working in other areas, but, the other areas seem to be urban compared to our mainly rural. I would like to have the information from the pilot to help me make a decision. I would also confirm that when I asked Mr Alexander he does see personalisation as the way forward, how that translates on the ground is yet to be decided.  I hope this clarifies my views.  IH”

Cllr Hyslop clearly understands and confirms what John Alexander has intimated to others,  including we understand Russell  Brown MP.  That he, as Social Work Director, sees ‘personalisation’ as the way forward or his ‘vision’.  What exactly does all this mean and what has ‘personalisation’ got to do with closing buildings, other than to crudely save money?

Let’s examine the facts from the ‘front line’.  Do Mr Alexander & Ms Proctor in their insulated world not understand that all the food for the Merrick Café is totally prepared at Newton Stewart ARC?  The supervisory staff also come from Newton Stewart ARC.  So you don’t have to have a degree to understand that if the ARC goes then so does the Café and all it stands for after more than 5 years.   We don’t hear his department boasting about that ‘personalisation’ while revelling in the praise, which he gratefully held up as a shinning example of what can be achieved by ARC’s just a short time ago.  See the correctly very positive press reports and our Care Commission Inspection compliments.

Will JA therefore explain what alternative there will be to the ARC in Newton Stewart that is not “buildings based”? Because there is absolutely nothing here that the users, who are only capable of using a building based system, could use.

The human story of social or communal life.  Do JA or JP know that we have lost two of our ARC users in very tragic circumstances in the last few weeks?  Were either of them concerned enough to have been around the ARC to see just how that centre helped the members to come to terms with the tragic deaths of two of their close friends.  They should have been before publishing such nonsense!  So should elected Members, before they make life changing decisions.  This again proves just what ARCs are about, because without the help of the ARC staff we hate to think what torment those very vulnerable people would have had to endure on their own. To us who see it and live it everyday, this proves how vital the ARC is as a centre, it is THE BUILDING, where users can seek help and reassurance from caring staff who they know and trust.  In no other establishment would you find people with the time and sincere conviction of caring for their members.

£1.2 Million for a ‘pilot’.  Considering all the money and importance being placed by JA on ‘personalisation’, please will he explain to us all why his number one person – another new manager appointed for the implementation of ‘personalisation in the Wigtownshire  pilot, is working from her dining room table at home, she has no office.  How are we to take things seriously and believe in his “vision”, whatever that is, when things like this are happening.  We see it as just a joke and a farce.  But it’s good they are saving some of the £1.2 Million, whilst cutting front line services, like crucial buses that vulnerable people rely on.  It just shows the complete incompetency of the way they are running things such that we all seriously wonder if they are really on the same planet as us.  What is their response to all this?