Email sent 05-Jan to Alex Davidson Project Manager Scottish Govt., and John Alexander – requests answers and invite to observe ‘Personalisation Board’ on 11-Jan.

Dear Alex & John.  Whilst we still await full details of the ‘Personalisation Board’, we understand that AD is a member, which we were not aware of from any of the DP discussions & meetings.  This concerns us in view of the obvious drive for ARC closures under the now evident secrecy and lack of transparency, slowly being exposed.  This is a repeat of the DP closure in 2006; moreover we are now being asked at a public meeting for retractions and apologies for referring to those 2006 events, because of the obvious parallels today with the ARC closures.  The 2006 events are on the public record, see the entries for June, July & August 2006 on this DGPPG www site at www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk where the correspondence is freely available.  It should be noted that much else was then on the DPPG www site and firmly in the public domain, unchallenged to this day as matters of fact.  This history is relevant, because it is repeating, and cannot now be denied. 

We understand the ‘Board’ is scheduled to convene again next Mon 11-Jan.  As a large ‘joint futures’ “Board” meeting of such significance presumably this is open to public attendance as observers?  If not, why not? 

If not please will the Chair and Board invite at least three representatives of the DGPPG to observe and safeguard the interests of the directly affected learning disabled.  For reasons already advanced on this site, such representation is NOT being achieved by Mr J Dowson or UCI.  Who selected them to attend and represent the learning disabled 

Please will AD put on record what exactly is his brief, role and position in this, including the ‘Board’ and the intended ARC closures.  Is AD representing the Scottish Parliament/Government, if so what is the overarching brief and intention or instructions AD is working to?  Please will AD advise who he is accountable and responsible to for the ‘Personalisation’ policy and undertake to inform them of the front line concerns in Dumfries & Galloway and ask them to look at the DGPPG www site and then respond to us directly.  Especially given that £1.2Million of public money is being spent at a time of cuts and is now subject to such virulent and seemingly justified criticism as a waste of public funds.  See the comment on the DGPPG www site dated 27-Dec in response to the Wigan Council posting:  

Because of those events we have little faith in the assurance of ‘academic research’ as a ‘pilot overview’.  Who is carrying out this research.  Who selected the academic institution/researchers?  Was it by open tender?  What is the brief and how much is being paid?  Is this direct or via a research council?  We wish to establish direct contact so please can we have all the necessary details of the academic(s) involved and the department etc. 

At the public meeting 16-Dec we were asked for “retractions” and “apologies”, see attached.  We will be further responding on the issue of “achievability & sustainability” of the ‘Alexander/Proctor’ ARC closure plan, which as far as we can assess was not imposed upon officers by any elected member, as suggested by JA at the 16-Dec meeting.  To write that plan and put it forward was we understand a matter of choice by officers, presumably agreed by the “Personalisation Board”, under the direction of the Scottish Parliament/Government through you as their representative?  Is that correct?  It appears that the notion that this particular idea and ‘plan’ was required or imposed by Members and that officers had no choice in the matter is disingenuous at best. 

We repeat that all the evidence carers have seen renders that plan wholly non achievable, and by definition therefore not sustainable, in the way it was written and put forward to Members and described in detail.  In the absence of any contrary evidence we stand behind the public criticism of both the ‘plan’ and the way it was created and therefore caused to be placed into the public domain with no concern for obviously foreseeable upset this would cause.  We cannot find which elected Members actually instructed that ARC closures be planned and so were responsible for this.  Hence to blame Members for this and say they were responsible, as clearly suggested on 16-Dec, does not appear to be correct.  Please can we be advised on the record which Members were responsible for requesting this particular idea and plan to close ARCs by 31-March 2010, without any prior warning or consultation? 

We look forward to hearing on these points and questions.  Thank you.  DGPPG

The following is the highly critical comment referred to above as posted by a carer to the “Wigan Council” report of 27-Dec.  It called for a response from D&G Council, (as well as Enable Scotland):

Reply to DGPPG at 16:25 on Dec 27th. In response to your email about Wigan Council and Personalisation and the total fiasco we witnessed at Easterbrook Hall, and the very misleading presentation given by Ms.Tomlinson.

The information now made available by DGPPG means I have totally lost all my faith in ENABLE and Dumfries and Galloway Council, it appears that we are all being thought of as soft targets for “Personalisation”,

How ENABLE could allow Ms. Tomlinson to address the meeting at Easterbrook Hall and hold up her situation as shining example of what could be achieved through Personalisation was nothing more than a total disgrace.

I am so sick and tired of all the deceit coming from Enable and Dumfries and Galloway Council. I think that all people from Wigtownshire, where the pilot scheme for personalisation is being trialled and who have people who go to the ARC or indeed are ARC users themselves, should refuse to take part in any pilot scheme until Dumfries and Galloway Council come clean and start PROPER and TRUTHFUL talks, and that ENABLE come clean and tell us, the very people they pretend to represent, just where they stand as regards ARC closures and personalisation, in other words, come clean ENABLE, or I for one, and I know many more just like me, will disown ENABLE as a complete sham.

ENABLE must remember they are a charity who are supposed to support people with learning difficulties. If they are willing to run with the hare and the hounds and favour the hounds then they are of no use to me.
An angry Wigtownshire carer

For the record perhaps both Enable Scotland and Dumfries & Galloway Council will now publish a statement in reply to this carer?

For the 24-Dec Galloway News verbatim press report of the meeting 16-Dec please use the link in the main article:

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