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