VB reader John Rosenthal got in touch with us yesterday asking if we’d publish on VB a letter that he’d written to Cabinet member for Adult Social Care, Cllr Roger Mazillius.
He told us that Cllr Mazillius had confirmed receipt of the letter and would be preparing a reply.
In the meantime, John thought other VB readers concerned about proposed changes to Adult Social Care on the Island would be interested to see what he’d written.
Here is John’s un-edited letter …
Dear Cllr Mazillius
It appears that you are very good at manipulating figures and answers to gain an unfair advantage in your quest to close Westminster House.
The 50% occupancy rate that you quote is neither a true or real figure, I have it on good authority that it has been nearer 80% for at least the last 2 years. You obviously have not taken into account any valid reasons for it appearing to run at a lower level, there are occasions that W/H cannot run at capacity such as staff to user levels regarding the amount of care needed for certain users, also you have to bear in mind the need to keep some beds free for emergencies, this is a requirement as part of the current regulations relating to this type of establishment.
Why have you never consulted directly with the managers running W/H regarding occupancy levels?
Where did the figure of £130,000 for a lift installation come from, I was led to believe the original quote was somewhere in the region of £50,000, about the same sum you are proposing to spend at the Gouldings.
Why not take a leaf out of Hampshire Councils book, they believe that they cannot justify a reduction in spending on Adult Social Care and regard it as critical as the ‘ring fencing’ of education.
Why have these so called consultations taken so long to appear, I have in writing from the council that they were going to take place from as far back as February 2010? And those consultations would take place with ALL parties from ALL sides.
In your response to my question at the Council meeting 20th Oct 2010 it appears that you have never met or spent any time with the users of W/H, you stated that there are people with Learning Disabilities there who will be able to read, understand and answer the consultation papers. This represents a very small percentage of the users; most cannot read, write, in some cases speak let alone understand the questions posed.
You mention of using the Advocacy Trust to assist what will be the vast majority of users in completing this consultation, as I believe that the council contribute either directly or indirectly to the trust how can this be termed impartial, I suggest that a conflict of interest may exist.
How can you state that as far as the users of the Gouldings and the Adelaide are concerned they do not need to be consulted, it is quite obvious that their service will be affected just by mixing Learning Disabled and Elderly in the same area.
There is a statutory duty to consult with ALL users etc on any changes as to the provision of their care.
You state that the running cost of W/H does not compare favourably with rates for other sectors, as this is a unique specialised unit with what are you comparing it with?
In an earlier written statement the Council has also quoted that W/H does not operate ‘Over Budget’
What kind of service is going to be on offer when the users of Beaulieu House become adults?
I believe that they at present run at about 50% occupancy and have 1 to 1 and sometimes 2 to 1 staffing which must be a considerable cost.
In the Island Plan Core Strategy paper the Council states that the elderly population needing care is expected to grow by approx. 8% over the next 15 years, national estimates for this appear to be a lot higher.
The Council also states that it will protect existing specialised accommodation and will only permit the loss of Social Community infrastructures if it can prove that.
1/ The facility is no longer needed or is viable for other community use.
2/ An alternative facility will be provided with at least an equal level of accessibility for the community it is intended to serve.
Moving the Learning Disabled from Newport to Freshwater is hardly an equal level of accessibility.
The Council also quotes the need to reduce travel.
Most users and carers of W/H will have to travel from or through Newport to get to Freshwater.
The Council also encourages the upkeep or conversion and therefore use of existing buildings.
Obviously not the case for Westminster House.
As by shutting W/H and moving Learning Disabled to the Gouldings and the Adelaide you are in effect reducing the availability of spaces for the care of the elderly.
How do you react to the statement from the NHS Confederation that any reductions in council services will potentially lead to ‘bed blocking’ etc at the hospitals and how do you propose to deal with this situation when it arises.
In April this year the Council launched a Travel Training Course, could you please inform us of which group the 67 users with Learning Disabilities belonged to that received training as they were obviously not users of W/H. I think this was just a ‘points scoring’ exercise to gain some sort of accreditation to make the Councils figures look good.
As a suggestion that may help to verify keeping W/H open, would it not be an idea to open it daytime as a centre offering Day Services and possibly being used as a drop off point.
I await your reply.
Regards
John Rosenthal
Image: Perfecto Insecto under CC BY 2.0
