Nant Silyn
-
Posts
-
Having just read the Wrexham.com article on Ian Lucas’ view on the procedure followed at Scrutiny Committee yesterday, as regards the call in motion to close Nant Silyn, I wish to share the following facts in the interest of balanced coverage:
1. Members serving on the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee spent two hours discussing the three points raised by the call-in motion.
2. The Chair asked the signatories to nominate their spokesperson and for information to be relayed to the committee by that person.
3. The session was not about providing a platform for disaffected members to repeat their dissatisfaction but for the scrutiny members to listen to the additional evidence provided by the signatories of the motion, which questioned the soundness of the Executive Board’s decision to close Nant Silyn. Obviously this didn’t go down well with those members who turned up to put across their opinion but they had the opportunity to do so via their spokesperson.
4. The issue of an ageing population, supported by data, emphasised to me that the provision of care/emi accommodation in future years will need to be addressed by our Welsh Government, as they ultimately have control of the public purse.
5. Even if the WG were to write a blank cheque for WCBC to spend there is still an obligation to deliver value for money. For me there is no getting away from the fact that even if Nant Silyn could achieve an 85% occupancy rate the cost of operating the Centre would still exceed the cost of providing bed places in the private sector.
6. Ian Lucas must be aware of the cost comparison and as such ought to explain to the people of Wrexham why he believes it is defendable to spend limited public money on maintaining an expensive Council Care Centre. If this is his position then he needs to explain which services our Adult Social Services Dept need to to cut instead.
5. If Lesley Griffith AM and Ian Lucas MP are advocating the retention of Nant Silyn then maybe they ought to have the conviction to advocate the privatisation of all care homes in Wales. As they govern this country then other than the shear cost of doing so there is nothing stopping the Welsh Labour Party adopting this as part of their manifesto for the May 2016 Welsh Assembly election.
6. It was explained by Social Service Officers that no one entering the care system can be compelled to reside at Nant Silyn and as such there are no guarantees of securing an 85% occupancy rate.Moving forward it is crucial for the well-being of the nine residents that their relocation to an alternative Care Centre is handled sensitively. As for the future of Nant Silyn I would be happy to see the facility sold on to a private operator, thereby securing a Care Centre provision for the residents of Caia or for Betsi Cadwaladr to take on the the day to day running of the facility as a respite facility.
For the record WCBC is run by a coalition made up predominantly of Independent County Councillors with the support of the five Tory Councillors and not the other way round. Likewise when the Labour Party were the ruling WCBC group,a year or so ago, they did so with the support of Independent and Tory Councillors.
Cllr Phil Wynn
Sorry Phil but this is trying to justify your position of closing down our last council run care home.
You say that points could be put through one spokesperson and Councillor Dana Davies did a steering job.
But one spokesperson can not represent views of two or more democratically elected groups and there is a ” deficit ” in this made up ruling ,which is not in the council’s constitution.For ” disaffected” read any democratically elected councillor who does not swallow wholesale every policy of the ruling Tory-Independent group. On your final point on the council make up it is not a matter of the group numbers it is the thrust of the policies and my ex colleagues should be ” hanging their heads with shame.”
You say the call-in was an opportunity to listen to additional points provided by the signatories (plural.) Well self evidently that was not the case as I for one was denied the chance to do that, hence the ” shambolic ” nature of the meeting- Wrexham.com’s words not mine.
You seek value for money but have been a member of the council which saw the occupancy of Nant Silyn dwindle from 84% in September 2011 to <25% now. There is a huge cost in both social and financial terms in those figures.
You ask our local representatives to follow the Tory/Independent mantra of privatisation of care homes.
One of the points I was denied to emphasise was that this market is extremely fragile. UK Care Home Association reckon some providers could soon go out of businesses and Dr Sarah Wollaston ( a Tory MP!) is asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for extra help for this sector in the Autumn Statement. ( Good luck with that!)On a final point you say no-one can be compelled to go to Nant Silyn but it is a matter of record that once they or their relatives have chosen that home they could be denied it and I have spoken directly to relatives who’s relations were prevented from following their choice and stayed in hospital for 8-9 weeks ,although ready to move on and in my professional life I am all too aware of the pressure that puts on the individual and the wider care system
Phil and other Councillors who follow your mantra I would like to remind you of the Nolan Principles of Public Life on how you and fellow colleagues should carry out your duties. Unfortunately in the current climate in the Council there is little evidence that these are all being abided by.
The Seven Principles of Public Life
Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.Having experience of some of the private home caring agencies that took over from the WCBC a few years ago I would say, give me the Council services every time. Pay peanuts & you get monkeys. The important factor in care homes & home care should be the care of the elderly, not cost. Unnecessary bed blocking is disgraceful. I have also come across this.
From recent personal experience the lack of District Nurses lead to a member of my family being sent to a private home from the Maelor rather than being looked after from home.
That’s can only be addressed by our Health Service.
As for the private home I only have praise for the service they provided.Phil – I am sorry to hear about your problem with a relative – it sounds like this should have possibly been part of a step down process or intermediary care discharge both of which are part of your Councils responsibility. It would be worth discussing with your senior Older Peoples Manager (CW) or Head of Social Services (AF). I am sure that if this was a systems failure that you would not want any other family to experience the same problems.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
