I WROTE recently expressing my amazement at the possible closure of five old folks homes and several sheltered housing schemes at a time when a 65 per cent increase is forecast over the next 30 years as well as an increase in home care of 48 per cent.
In the last year 870 homes have been closed nationally with a loss of 10,000 beds, this at a time when old people are being labelled "bed-blockers". We should not be too hard on Bury Council, however.
The reason for this crazy situation lies in "Best Value", or that umbrella title for the Local Government Act 1999 Part 1 which demands reviews of all public services.
There is a very strict timetable attached to the social services review which, to my mind, has given a very sincere and dedicated team nowhere near enough time to carry out an adequate survey. Added to this, the wording of the Act imposes restrictions on their independence. Implicit in the Act is the constant pressure to privatise, with phrases such as: "It is unlikely that one provider can guarantee best value by itself".
The whole ethos is contained in the 4 Cs: Consult, Compare, Challenge and Compete. I have no quarrel with the first three except that they imply identical circumstances and needs throughout the country. The fourth "Compete", I would say has no place in the provision of public services. Competition suggests cost effectiveness, that is cost-cutting and outsourcing rather than adequate care. The proposal to reduce council home places by between 140 and 170 perfectly coincides with the conclusion of the nationwide survey which found that Bury had that many unfilled places in local authority homes and tended to have more residential places than was appropriate, given the average nationwide. The policy, apparently, was that these should be cared for in the community.
The logic of closing four homes or transferring them to the independent sector escapes me although this was another conclusion arrived at by the survey. The fact that homes in the independent sector are closing every day, and are at the mercy of market forces, seems not to matter.
Priorities for sheltered accommodation, apparently, suggest that that one scheme should be closed and three others "de-sheltered". Does this mean that elderly people previously considered in need of this kind of protection will no longer receive it, or is this what is meant by a revamped warden service? I wonder, have the powers-that-be any idea of the trauma and distress suffered by people faced with this disruption and insecurity at their time of life?
The references to "efficiency" savings of £450,000, and possibly as much as £1 million, would suggest that the whole exercise is cost-cutting, by outsourcing care in the community to the private sector in order to reduce public expenditure. But if it is based on the needs of the old people could they not have a real input into the consultation, a knowledge of exactly what these alternative services are going to be, and maybe even a chance to offer another option: that is to leave well enough alone.
JIM HOMEWOOD,
(Bury Pensioners' Association).
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article