ITV Border TV News – update re Care Commission and ARCs
Posted: March 1st, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: NewsComments: 7 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
This was an update to ITV Border News after the report run on 24th Feb. It was for the news desk plus ‘Pam & Ian because since then the Galloway News published a report on Thursday 24/2. Representatives at the FDP Trustees’ meeting on Thurs 18 Feb agreed entirely with those reports and had further discussions with the Care Commission in Dumfries, with emails confirming this. Any reader can request further details on the record by making an email request from this site or posting a comment.
It is now apparent the Care Commission has not been told the truth by Dumfries & Galloway Council over the past few years and certainly since 2006. The Care Commission realised this last Weds when the facts were fully explained and said in response, the wool has been pulled over our eyes. There were press reports of relevant matters in Q1 2008 and the history is all a matter of public record.
The Care Commission then advised of a recent ‘unannounced inspection’ of DPCH and that a full report of this should be published on the Care Commission www site around 11 March. Quite properly, until published no details or gradings can be released by them, but it is reliably expected that the previous findings in successive reports over several years will be repeated. This position is obviously not acceptable under any circumstances, especially as all Officers vehemently deny there is any intention or policy of closure by stealth, that is letting the buildings decay and presumably eventually fall down.
However note the parallel to the ARC buildings and the planned andintended closures, where a worryingly similar picture of neglected basic day to day maintenance is becoming apparent in Care Commission ARC reports. These can also be accessed and read on the Care Commission www site, also being copied with links on this site (see ARC Reports) where all this is on the public record.
In 2008 (and 2009) J Alexander gave unequivocal assurances that basic maintenance / repairs, painting & decorating & replacements of things like old furniture at DPCH would be done. The public can see the trouble FDP, residents and respite service users had in mid June about the dangerously loose main door glazing in June 2009, not getting such a simple job like that done for four months by mid October, despite what the Care Commission said in June at the inspection and later wrote. In June the Care Commission inspector then spoke about the “disgraceful” state of the door pointing out the danger. The local manager Barry Needham has a budget and should have fixed the glass there and then or the very next day in June, after it was pointed out so forcefully. But then we presume he operates, implicitly if not explicitly, under J Alexander instructions to delay all maintenance expenditure as a matter of Council policy, see below. So he waited until the FDP were forced to make it very public in mid October. But with publicity there was immediate action!
Hence the Galloway News headline on 24/2 of “Uncaring and Untrustworthy” is wholly accurate.
Note also in relation to the ARC saga that Director Alexander has reneged on what he promised publicly 16 Dec, which is also reported on this site . Please note the following:
- No January follow up meeting, indeed no meeting at all will be held.
- Alexander now refuses to talk to the DGPPG and will only consult with “established fora”, whatever that means!
- Alexander has not provided promised data and is failing under statutory FoI requests,
- Alexander refuses to release any relevant information about the £1.2Million pilot test site, in breach of FoI,
- Yet Alexander allows UCI, a ‘pseudo charity’, at least £50K funded with Council/NHS cash, to sit on the 22 person ‘Personalisation Board’. We & others asked to observe and didn’t even get the courtesy of a reply.
- John Dowson also sits on this board. Neither he nor UCI have consulted ARC users & carers, whilst Dowson is on record as saying he thinks the ARCs should close. See also final para below.
- No reply yet from Chris Raftery Scot Gov about the misuse of the £1.2Million as it’s now evident that 50% of this was to be diverted to ‘create’ the planned £660,000 saving in the ARC closure ‘option’ by “double funding” buildings based services. It’s ‘smoke and mirrors’, but we have worked out the intended trickery and John Alexander’s only reaction is to pretend we are not there!
- No reply to our request that Audit Scotland investigate this.
- No information as requested from Chris Raftery < chris.raftery@scotland.gsi.gov.uk > about the “Independent Evaluators” and other questions, see our email 16/2 sent at 16:26, but see later comment.
This is all posted publicly on this site because there is apparently no local democracy or accountability. Our senior elected Members seem to do nothing, despite their obligations, for which they are now paid very well indeed.
The £1.2 Million being spent by D&G Council on the ‘Wigtownshire test site pilot’ is a very serious story that needs investigating, alongside the parallel ARC and DPCH issues. The same managers are involved and it is firmly believed they are dissembling to both Elected Members, service users and carers, along with the general public. There is £1.2 Million of public cash that is being wasted at a time of austerity and cuts. That £1.2Million is being (mis)spent by J Alexander & J Proctor, who have failed to demonstrate competence, honesty and transparency. Using £660,000 of this budget was it appears the only way in which the Alexander/Proctor 12 October plan could be “achievable and sustainable” as J Alexander keeps repeatedly saying, whilst refusing to provide the necessary evidence. presumably because he cannot do so? If anbd when he does and meets with the DGPPG, as he promised to do in Janauary, these comments can be corrected accordingly. Until then they stand as true and fair public comment based on the evidence provided.
Who is asking the relevant questions about all this at a time when real valuable services are being cut to vulnerable and older people? £50-£70K is a significant cut, but we are considering £1.2Million, which is one third of the total budget saving D&G Council required. What is going on? The senior Elected Members are not asking these questions. Why not? Please will ITV Border News, because there is a failure of local democracy and public accountability surrounding the ARCs & DPCH.
This links directly to another big story in the recent news – the £80 million Dumfries & Galloway Council say is needed to bring council properties to the point they are ‘fit for purpose’. We understand there is a Scotland-wide audit with our Dumfries & Galloway Council at the bottom of the rankings on this issue – with approx. 63% of council properties in a neglected state. This is an old trick, one they have used in the past and tried in 2006 with DPCH and at Langlands school. They target a provision for closure, by stealth or otherwise, and stop spending any money to maintain it, just as described above as a specific example. Hey presto, pretty soon it’s no longer ‘fit for purpose’, hence the relevance of the Care Commission ARC reports already mentioned above, which have identified issues that need to be addressed. If checked under FoI no doubt they stopped maintaining them a few years back, unless it was for emergency repairs or forced by the Care Commission or for Health & Safety reasons. Although loose door glass is a clear H&S hazard! Also look at the story about Loreburn Hall – already questions are being asked ”did the council deliberately allow it to deteriorate to the point of no return?” It is a tried and true pattern, and one that has some relationship to the PPP projects that the council entered into several years back. After all why refurbish existing buildings when we can build shiny new ones for twice the cost? This ties in with the comments freely made by Mr Dowson (Coalition for the Disabled) concerning the Dumfries & Galloway Council intention to sell off the shut down ARC buildings very cheaply to already identified third parties. Rememember he sits on the 22 strong ‘Personalisation Board’ as a ‘representative’ of the disabled and so would indeed have inside knowledge of these matters. We of course are denied any access to the full papers or even to observe. These are big issues of public waste that need investigation. Who is interested and doing this investigation?
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Chris.Raftery@scotland.gsi.gov.uk on 1/3 at 14:09 wrote as follows concerning the waste of public funds and request for information about the test pilot, under FoI if necessary:
Thank you for your e-mail . I have already outlined that there is no relationship between the test sites and the ARC closures. As you will appreciate, responding to your e-mail is one of many priorities that I have to work on. For your information, our internal target is to respond to all correspondence within 20 working days. We always endeavour to respond as quickly as possible but a response within 20 working days will be met.
Whilst, I appreciate that this must be a difficult time for you, I can reassure you that you that you will receive an open and transparent response but it takes time to give this the careful attention that it deserves. Many thanks. Chris
Chris Raftery Scottish Government
Adult Care and Support
0131 244 5492
For those of us who are parents and relatives to people with learning disabilities in this area who don’t use either Dunmuir Park or the ARC services, it has to be said that you do us a huge disservice. Your frankly bonkers approach to trying to prevent these services closing in the face of a major public sector recession across the whole of the UK seem ill founded and completely outdated. If you care about your relatives that much you’d take a step back and look at how you’re behaving because it looks like you actually don’t care at all. Most of us who aren’t wholly self-obsessed just get on with the business of caring for our relations and trying to get the best for them. The thought of my relation spending the rest of her life hidden away in some ARC building makes me shudder. Much rather that she was getting out, seeing and being seen. And why the personal attacks on people who work for the council and NHS? They can hardly tell you what they think of you on the front of the Galloway News, can they???
Get with the programme, what century are you living in? The days of paternalism are over and we don’t have asylums any more.
Dear Galloway Lass. It is good to see the DGPPG www freely publishes all views in the wider interest of open debate. But as one of the very many “Bonkers” carers who, along with MPs, MSPs, & Councillors etc, all spontaneously protested against the planned closure of the ARCs, I am interested to read that we are all wrong and out of step, being: “frankly bonkers, completely outdated and self obsessed”, whilst the ARCs are “asylums”. I don’t know about Dunmuir Park, but understand from this site and the Care Commission reports that I can read it, like the ARCs, provides very good care for learning disabled adults, with excellent front line care staff, but in a tatty building that the council are deliberatley neglecting, like many others. I don’t recognise my local ARC as an “asylum” where my relative is “hidden away”, but it is also getting tatty with neglected maintenance. I believe I am living in the 21st century and would suggest to Galloway Lass that the council attitude, displayed by the ARC closure plan, is still very paternalistic. Those days are not over, because the ‘experts’ still arrogantly believe they know best. Please will Galloway Lass name the ARC she knows that is an “asylum” and why the Care Commission descriptions and reports of all the 6 ARCs are so different from that? There is room for all opinions and I respect Galloway Lass for her decision as to what’s best for her relative and do not seek seek to impose my views on her. But if she criticises so many in this way then she really does need to put forward the evidence for her claims. I look forward to reading these and better understand why I am “bonkers”.
In response to GallowayLass:
It’s interesting that you feel able to comment on what goes on in the ARCs when you really have no idea. Anyone who has some inkling of what really happens at these centres will quickly find out that they are a busy, bustling base where clients move in and out according to their needs and desires. Clients are often out in the community doing various activities, and are very much ’seen’. Your comments sound disturbingly familiar to others I have heard from people who are trying to paint them as ‘outdated’ and ‘Victorian’ (e.g. those who are trying to close them or have a vested interested in their closure). In the same way that mainstreaming in education is not right or appropriate for every young person with a severe developmental disability, neither is the ARC right or appropriate for every client. But make no mistake – it absolutely is a preferred option for many clients and is a huge part of their lives. You would take that away from them? I’m glad your relative is happy with their arrangement. However, I would suggest that open-mindedness is something that every person should bring to the debate.
Personalisation is all well and good, but there must be services to buy. If you close the ARCs, what will they be replaced with? That is the burning issue – and it has not been answered. We continue to wait for some concrete proposal as to what would be available and the fact is that nothing has been offered.
I would suggest that you try looking at all the issues next time so you can be more informed before you make your comment.
Dear Galloway Lass. Unlike yours, my comment is open and signed. Please will you identify yourself, or at least say in which area of Galloway you really live and which of the ARCs you are familiar with? Otherwise your contribution is much devalued. Could it be that you are actually outwith this area and describe experience from a big central belt city? I totally respect the right of real choice for all; your choice, your relative’s choice, other’s choice and my family choice. However, you seem intolerant and wish to remove such choice from me and my relative and many others. Why? How do you defend that when you want such freedom? Learning disability is a complex spectrum, where one size can never fit all, which is why real freedom of choice is essential. No one could be less “hidden” than my relative, despite being born in the early 1950s when the doctors told new parents to do just that. I was teased and bullied at school for having a disabled younger sibling that I and my parents were very proud to bring up at home and take out and be seen with. Can you imagine how shocked and deeply upset I was to find more than 50 years later that I was again being bullied and directly threatened by senior social work managers in Dumfries and Galloway Council for daring to want to exercise such choice? They are institutional bullies with great power, because they operate in secrecy. My parents were amongst those that helped form the hands on self help group of real carers that became Mencap and Enable, at a time when there was no support, but much prejudice. However, such prejudice still exists today, it is just better disguised, often with very hypocritical ‘motherhood and apple pie’ rhetoric. I despair how that Scottish national ‘charity’ has now strayed so far from its roots and founding ethos. So I would be the last person to ‘hide’ anyone or agree to their being hidden. Just like you and my parents, I continue the fight, with many others. And it is a constant fight for anything and everything against those who “know best”. Like you I want my relative to have the highest quality life possible with full choice and freedom to spend time in very fulfilling ARC based activities if that’s what is chosen. Because you elect not to use your local ARC for your relative, is one of your motives in wanting closure and cost cutting that your relative may then get more cash or resources, at the expense of others? Do you use respite services at all? If so take note that is also what Dunmuir Park provides along with extensive outreach support and ‘halfway houses’ helping the more able to move into the most independent arrangements possible for them. Over the last 30 years Dunmuir has helped more than 150 adults in this way. Is this what you believe should be closed to make a cost cut, along with the ARCs? If so you sound just like a D&G Council senior manager? Surely it is not really such selfishness that you are promoting? But if it is then be just honest and say so openly. We can all respect honesty. Please though don’t pretend it’s because you want a better life for everyone in this ‘Brave New World’ and tell me that I should, “get with the programme”, which sounds very Stalinist and dictatorial. Please will you explain what this “programme” is that I must “get with”? I certainly look forward to learning more from you and welcome your thought provoking contribution to the debate. Thank you. J Green. Stewartry.
My open comment to Galloway Lass. It’s a sad day when we stand up for our children, only to be shot down by some people who we hope should know better.
The ARCs are about caring, education, interaction, understanding, and so much more. Sadly Galloway Lass is not.
John Harrison – a real carer
Dear Galloway Lass, My daughter, aged 21, attends the ARC in Castle Douglas. She goes 5 days from 9.30-3pm. It is her job, she has a busy day, she also catches up with her workmates. I would be very happy to invite Galloway Lass to meet my daughter and myself at the ARC. Please just leave a day and time that would suit you. Isabel Millar