I WAS able to listen to Mr Steve Pullen at the Blackpool Forum meeting on January 5.

I was curious to hear his side of the argument as to why the rest homes in council control had to close and it transpired that it was considered, as there was a surplus of beds in the private sector, it would be better to move the residents out of the council-run homes.

There were two very pertinent questions asked at the meeting. The first was: "How many private rest homes had chosen to be examined for star status?" This is a voluntary examination and I had already read the star-rated recommendation book produced for any interested party to discover a suitable home for any future resident. It appears that less than a quarter joined the scheme but Mr Pullen hopes that more will join this year.

That leaves the vast majority not interested and therefore presumably with no details of their facilities available to the Council. I would consider that this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The second question was about the new recommendations which will become policy within the next few years and the reason why the council rest homes closed. The question was: "Are the private homes able to upgrade their premises to conform to the new legislation?", and the answer was in the majority of cases, NO. Mr Pullen expected those proprietors who had premises able to be adapted to borrow money to conform to the new standards, while others, unfortunately, as they were just ordinary houses before conversion and not able to upgrade, "the position would be very difficult."

It was obvious by his comments that these homes would have to close and so I ask Mr Pullen how is it that within the next few years, with an ever-rising elderly population and an expected great reduction in private homes, it is still likely that there will be a surplus of beds in the years to come?

I am aware that there is an emphasis on "care in the community" but having first hand knowledge of the utter shambles that this service is in and the high cost to the pensioner, I feel that Mr Pullen is more interested in saving money and fleecing the resident rather than having a social conscience and wishing to care for our aged. In the next few years I expect that many of our vulnerable elderly will be forced to seek accommodation out of the town as the elderly problem will no longer be the responsibility of the Social Services Department.

No doubt a substantial saving for the council but at a much greater cost to the pensioners who deserve to be able to look forward without the worry of what will happen to them when they are no longer able to help themselves. I am ashamed and disgusted at the callous disregard this council has shown to the weaker citizens of our town.

Beverley Moy, Blackpool First Alliance, North Shore.