If one man epitomised and represented the massively influential counter-culture of 1960s America, David Crosby was that man. He had dropped out of education and headed for Greenwich Village in the early years of the 1960s. He was an early contemporary of Bob Dylan, the man whose musical direction had such a profound impression on his own. The early folk music of Greenwich Village which spawned the hippy movement has stayed integral to Crosby's raison d'etre. That David Crosby will be 75 on August 12th is a miracle in itself. By the age of 30, he had already achieved far more than most do in a lifetime.
After joining the Byrds in 1964, Crosby participated in the definitive sound of folk rock whose influence is still felt widely today. While Roger McGuinn played the distinctive twelve string guitar on "Mr. Tambourine Man", it was Crosby who lent the trademark harmonies. The end result was an iconic sound which sounds just as fresh today as when it was first released in 1965. It was Crosby who wrote the legendary "Eight Miles High". In short, the Byrds were the American equivalent of the Beatles. It is impossible to fully gauge their influence. Although the classic line up of McGuinn, Clark, Crosby, Hillman and Clarke was relatively short-lived (1965-1967), their output still stands the test of time. They were justifiably inducted in to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1991 having pioneered the "Folk Rock" genre. Comparisons with the British Small Faces are compelling. The latter were active from 1965 until 1968 and have left an equally impressive legacy albeit in a rather different genre.
Crosby is not an easy man to accomodate in any group but that is often the way with creative artists. As his back catalogue shows, here is a man always prepared to try something new. His songs have the common thread of social conscience flowing through them. Between leaving the Byrds and establishing the harmony trio Crosby, Stills and Nash, he was also responsible for discovering and producing the first album of a hitherto unknown musician from Canada; Joni Mitchell. He was famed for always having access to the most potent marijuana and was at the epicentre of the Laurel Canyon scene of the 1960s. It's denizens read like a Who's Who of classic rock music. The Doors, Mama Cass, Eric Burdon, Frank Zappa, Mickey Dolenz, Neil Young and various other members of Buffalo Springfield. With so much talent all living within such close proximity, it is easy to understand how such an incredible output of influential music was born.
Stories of how Crosby, Stills and Nash came to be vary considerably but the end result is in no doubt. With perhaps the exception of Art Garfunkel, Graham Nash was about the top harmony voice around. In Stephen Stills, they had a musician of prodigious talent. Crosby was the harmony that held it all together and gave us "Our House", "Teach your Children", "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes", "Almost cut my hair", "Guinnevere" and so many more. Until their zenith in 1974 when their stadium tour broke all records, Crosby, Stills and Nash were the dominant force. Such was their influence, even the mighty Led Zepellin fashioned their third album on their pure folk sound with songs such as "Going to California". By 1974 though, marijuana had long since given way to cocaine as the Woodstock generation woke up to the harsh realities of of their brave new world.
In those heady years, the various personnel of Crosby, Stills and Nash had all embarked on side projects. Crosby has been a part of the initial Jefferson Starship project: Planet Earth Rock and Roll Orchestra. It featured among others Jerry Garcia (Grateful Dead), Grace Slick, Paul Kantner and Jack Cassady (Jefferson Airplane), Carlos Santana and Graham Nash. Drugs had become an ever more dominat part of Crosby's existence and the future of Crosby, Stills and Nash was in the balance for a long time. It culminated in his arrest and imprisonment in 1982 for possession of class A drugs and firearms. A nine months prison sentence was followed in 1985 by another arrest this time for drunk driving. By 1994, the hard living had caught up with him and a liver transplant ensued. In 2000, it emerged that David Crosby had been the sperm donor for Melissa Etheridge and her partner Julie Cypher.
At 75, David Crosby shows few signs of slowing down having recently released the widely acclaimed solo album, Croz. It was a far cry from his first effort "If I could only remember my name" in 1971. He still advocated freedom, peace and equality. He has regularly demonstrated outside Wall Street and the capitalism which his generation tried so hard to break down through their music. Mere mortals would have long since deceased with a fraction of the self imposed physical abuse of David Crosby. As his unlikely 75th birthday beckons, he has proved a great many people wrong and let his music do the talking. An entire generation grew up with the hope which he and his fellow troubadours expressed so eloquently.
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
Monday, 4 July 2016
David Kelly: The man who knew too much?
As we brace ourselves for another Prime Minister, it is a good time to remind ourselves of how Her Majesty's Government has operated in the past. This week will see the release of the long awaited Chilcot Report in to Britain's involvement in the Iraq war of 2003 which ultimately led to the downfall of Saddam Hussain and the commensurate rise of ISIS. The evidence upon which our then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, convinced MPs in the House of Commons has since found to be non-existent.
The Chilcot Report has cost a staggering £2.3 million and has taken a frankly amazing 7 years to be published. Already we have seen national newspapers reporting that instead of bringing Tony Blair to account, the report will instead be focusing on the potential human rights abuses of army personnel in Iraq. While the latter is quite proper if identified, it is extraordinary that a Prime Minister can effectively be exempted from making such a catastrophic decision based on a false claim.
On July 17th 2003, David Kelly, a government advisor on weapons of mass destruction was found dead in woodland and the Coroner's Report on the cause of death has been hotly disputed ever since. Kelly was quoted as saying to a colleague just days before that he would "probably be found dead in woodland". For the record, Kelly always denied the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Blair used weapons of mass destruction as the raison d'etre for a US/UK invasion. At the time of writing, there remains no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The legacy of that decision is here with us daily. ISIS sprang up on a wave of predictable extremism in response to the West going gung-ho in to Iraq. If that wasn't bad enough, Tony Blair was subsequently employed as a Peace Advisor in the region after leaving Gordon Brown to face the economic downturn in the UK.
We are about to witness one of the greatest cover-ups in British history and it is useful to remind ourselves of Tony Blair's response when asked if he had blood on his hands after the death of David Kelly. He gave no response.
Last week, Tony Blair entered the debate on Jeremy Corbyn's continued leadership of the Labour Party. The irony was not lost on me and I am in speechless at the temerity of the man. My then MP Chris Ruane voted in favour of the war in Iraq swayed no doubt by the persuasive argument of his then leader, Tony Blair. Having met Chris more than once, I very much doubt if he would have done so had he known the truth. Let this be a salutory lesson of what happens when elected representatives are not fully scrutinised. We all have a role to play in that both nationally and locally. The history books will not be kind to Tony Blair and neither will they forget David Kelly - irrespective of what the Chilcot Report finds.
The Chilcot Report has cost a staggering £2.3 million and has taken a frankly amazing 7 years to be published. Already we have seen national newspapers reporting that instead of bringing Tony Blair to account, the report will instead be focusing on the potential human rights abuses of army personnel in Iraq. While the latter is quite proper if identified, it is extraordinary that a Prime Minister can effectively be exempted from making such a catastrophic decision based on a false claim.
On July 17th 2003, David Kelly, a government advisor on weapons of mass destruction was found dead in woodland and the Coroner's Report on the cause of death has been hotly disputed ever since. Kelly was quoted as saying to a colleague just days before that he would "probably be found dead in woodland". For the record, Kelly always denied the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Blair used weapons of mass destruction as the raison d'etre for a US/UK invasion. At the time of writing, there remains no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The legacy of that decision is here with us daily. ISIS sprang up on a wave of predictable extremism in response to the West going gung-ho in to Iraq. If that wasn't bad enough, Tony Blair was subsequently employed as a Peace Advisor in the region after leaving Gordon Brown to face the economic downturn in the UK.
We are about to witness one of the greatest cover-ups in British history and it is useful to remind ourselves of Tony Blair's response when asked if he had blood on his hands after the death of David Kelly. He gave no response.
Last week, Tony Blair entered the debate on Jeremy Corbyn's continued leadership of the Labour Party. The irony was not lost on me and I am in speechless at the temerity of the man. My then MP Chris Ruane voted in favour of the war in Iraq swayed no doubt by the persuasive argument of his then leader, Tony Blair. Having met Chris more than once, I very much doubt if he would have done so had he known the truth. Let this be a salutory lesson of what happens when elected representatives are not fully scrutinised. We all have a role to play in that both nationally and locally. The history books will not be kind to Tony Blair and neither will they forget David Kelly - irrespective of what the Chilcot Report finds.
Tuesday, 31 May 2016
1956: Jim Laker's Year
For cricket buffs like myself, the names of certain players immediately invoke feelings of awe. Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Fry, the list goes on. After the Second World War, enmity on the battlefield was replaced with established enmity on the cricket pitch and there remains no enmity stronger than the one between England and her antipodean cousins in Australia. In 1948, the great Bradman and Hammond had bowed out taking with them a mountain of memories which had left the statisticians breathless and the journalists grasping for newer superlatives.
The 1950 winter tour to Australia saw a much weakened England team destroyed by an Australian side ably captained by the stylish Lindsay Hassett and featuring many members of the legendary 1948 team. Of the England players on that tour, only Hutton and the ageing Alec Bedser were true test class and England were lambs to the slaughter as they had been at home in 1948. The Albion returned home and looked ahead to the home series in 1953 with justifiable trepidation.
Against all odds, England drew the first four tests with Denis Compton famously hitting the winning runs at the Oval to reclaim the urn which had been in Australian hands since 1934. Alec Bedser claimed an astonishing 39 wickets at a miserly 17 runs each with Len Hutton once more dominating the batting honours with 443 runs averaging 55. In that series, a number of different spin bowlers were employed and one of them was the Yorkshire born Surrey off-spinner Jim Laker. He took 9 wickets in 3 tests at 23 runs each. Hardly the sort of figures to put the Aussies in a sweat. But by the end of 1956, the Aussies were sick of the sight of him.
The 1956 series saw England regain the Ashes and although one man never wins a series in a team game like cricket, Laker came about as close as you can get. They could have seen it coming when the Australians played a tour match against Laker's Surrey in May. Electing to bat, Australia struggled to 259 with Laker taking 10 for 88 off a staggering 46 overs! That was a warning shot but the best was yet to come. In the first three Ashes Tests of 1956 he took 3, 6 and 11 wickets respectively and then came Old Trafford. He took 9 wickets for 37 in their first innings and a jaw dropping 10 for 53 in their second. It is one of those records which will stand time immemorial. 19 wickets for 90 runs with poor Tony Lock bowling from the other end claiming a sole consolation wicket.
For the really astute followers of the game, Laker also took eight wickets for just 2 runs in a Test trial on this day in 1950. England's best ever off-spin bowler? Undoubtedly.
That year, Jim Laker received the Sports Personality of the Year Award. If there has been a more deserving recipient, I remain to be convinced.
The 1950 winter tour to Australia saw a much weakened England team destroyed by an Australian side ably captained by the stylish Lindsay Hassett and featuring many members of the legendary 1948 team. Of the England players on that tour, only Hutton and the ageing Alec Bedser were true test class and England were lambs to the slaughter as they had been at home in 1948. The Albion returned home and looked ahead to the home series in 1953 with justifiable trepidation.
Against all odds, England drew the first four tests with Denis Compton famously hitting the winning runs at the Oval to reclaim the urn which had been in Australian hands since 1934. Alec Bedser claimed an astonishing 39 wickets at a miserly 17 runs each with Len Hutton once more dominating the batting honours with 443 runs averaging 55. In that series, a number of different spin bowlers were employed and one of them was the Yorkshire born Surrey off-spinner Jim Laker. He took 9 wickets in 3 tests at 23 runs each. Hardly the sort of figures to put the Aussies in a sweat. But by the end of 1956, the Aussies were sick of the sight of him.
The 1956 series saw England regain the Ashes and although one man never wins a series in a team game like cricket, Laker came about as close as you can get. They could have seen it coming when the Australians played a tour match against Laker's Surrey in May. Electing to bat, Australia struggled to 259 with Laker taking 10 for 88 off a staggering 46 overs! That was a warning shot but the best was yet to come. In the first three Ashes Tests of 1956 he took 3, 6 and 11 wickets respectively and then came Old Trafford. He took 9 wickets for 37 in their first innings and a jaw dropping 10 for 53 in their second. It is one of those records which will stand time immemorial. 19 wickets for 90 runs with poor Tony Lock bowling from the other end claiming a sole consolation wicket.
For the really astute followers of the game, Laker also took eight wickets for just 2 runs in a Test trial on this day in 1950. England's best ever off-spin bowler? Undoubtedly.
That year, Jim Laker received the Sports Personality of the Year Award. If there has been a more deserving recipient, I remain to be convinced.
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
Dolwen on the brink
I recently attended a public meeting organised by Denbighshire County Council (DCC) in respect of the proposed plans for our council-run care home in Dolwen. The meeting was reasonably well attended and the independent chairman was formerly the director of social services.
A brief presentation was given by Phil Gilroy, the lead officer for social services. He reiterated the content of the existing DCC documents, "Modernising the Provision of Care - The Case for Change" and "Consultation on the future of DCC's in-house care services". The latter document states that DCC has been looking at the future of in-house care services since March 2014. At that time, the Performance Scrutiny Committee requested that a Task and Finish group was established to "examine value for money options for delivering high quality social care services in the County". DCC goes on to justify the need for this because:-
1. DCC needs to respond to the changing expectations of Welsh Government and the wider population about what modern social services should look like.
2. DCC needs to focus its limited resources towards the areas of highest demand, because of the ongoing requirement to deliver financial savings.
Following the "listening and engagement phase" with individual service users and their families last year, the following conclusions were drawn:-
1. The services and support provided at all our council-run residential care homes and day centres are greatly valued.
2. The bilingual staff teams and the accessibility of the residential care homes, particularly to those without transport, are particularly important. It became apparent that many residents would be adversely affected if they were asked to leave their homes now.
3. Cabinet then agreed that "whatever decisions are made about any future changes, no individual service user will be asked to move from their current home unless a suitable alternative is identified where their needs can be met".
4. "It is evident from the pre-consultation exercise that location is critical for many people, and that many families and friends would find it difficult to visit residents who live far from their current homes".
DCC goes on to refer to the "reducing numbers of people needing to be supported in residential care homes" and "the waiting lists for Extra Care Housing (ECH)". DCC explains that "this is why we...aim to provide more ECH and fewer residential care beds in the future. ECH provides care and support to tenants. DCC also states that "we believe that there should be no need for anyone to live in a standard residential care home in the future". They go on to claim that the numbers being supported by DCC in residential care has decreased from 579 in 2012 to 499 in 2015.
In the meeting last night, it was divulged that there are plans to provide 60 more ECH places at the site of the former Middle Lane School within the next 2 years. For me as a local resident, this was a bolt from the blue. Last night, one member of the audience asked Phil Gilroy how DCC measured the need for residential care. He answered that this was measured retrospectively based on existing trend data. The Chairman stated that the information wasn't local and that the local need wasn't tracked by DCC. It was instead taken from a general, national research. This means that there is no tracking (evidence) by DCC of the local need for residential care services. Thus, there is no information available for future planning. The implication of not having insight in to a future need means that DCC are completely unprepared. Although we know that more people are getting older, DCC has a disproportionately high percentage of elderly citizens. In simple terms, Denbighshire has more elderly people in need of residential care.
So let us recap some of that. DCC refer to a reducing number of people needing residential care but by the same token admit that they have no system in place to track the existing local need for such care. The research being used is national and retrospective as opposed to local and current. How can DCC possibly expect a good outcome if this is the road they intend to go down?
But what are the options being presented to the Denbighshire public regarding Dolwen? Let me share them with you to remove any doubt:-
1. Enter in to a partnership with an external organisation and transfer the whole service to them, while registering for EMH care.
At last night's meeting, a member of the public asked what the cost would be to register for EMH care. Phil Gilroy did not have a figure available so we don't know what that would cost although he suggested a ball park figure of c.£250k.
i. Ensures individuals living there now can continue to do so supported by the same staff and accessing the local community as much as they do now.
Although Phil Gilroy publicly stated that "We're not taking to any external agencies", it is hard to believe that no preliminary discussions have already taken place given the content of the existing consultation documents and various points made last night.
ii. There would be a revenue saving of £92k on the cost of care for the existing 22 individuals and £75k on maintenance costs as the new provider would be commissioned using standard rates (currently £465.90 per resident per week).
This point is particularly worrying. Where has this figure of £92k emerged from? Based on DCC's own figures, the gross total cost of care for Dolwen for 2015/16 is £747,374 based on an occupancy of 27 residents (so quite where the figure of 22 residents has come from remains uncertain). The current 27 residents cost £532.32 each per week and this figure would be £479.09 if it was being run at full occupancy. But it is still unclear where this saving of £92k comes from. Also, if DCC has to spend £75k per annum on maintenance, the same will presumably apply to the new provider while at the same time paying them less money per resident. It is really hard to see how the current excellent standards of care can be maintained on such an obviously decreased budget. We have a duty of care to elderly residents who have paid their dues in taxes in good faith over many years.
iii. It is unlikely that there would be a capital receipt (DCC would effectively give the facility to the new external provider) as the new provider would need to spend a lot of money to ensure the building meets minimum standards.
Exactly how much money would a potential new provider have to spend to ensure the building meets minimum standards? Presumably, there must be a figure otherwise it is hard to see what exactly "a lot of money" actually equates to. This is clearly important information which is missing in the context of potentially giving away a publicly owned asset to the private sector. This is public money.
iv. It would also develop a level of EMH (elderly mental health) provision in the area, a growing area of demand. Plans for the development of ECH within Denbigh (Middle Lane School site) will continue.
The growth in demand for EMH care is acknowledged although DCC have yet again failed to quantify this. As with the existing lack of procedure for tracking the current local need for residential care, this is another area where DCC have failed to provide sufficient information.
2. Another solution is to lease or sell Dolwen for another purpose. The home would close and the service users and their families be supported to find suitable alternative provision.
This option was not discussed in any detail at last night's meeting.
i. DCC claim that this would reduce the overall cost of providing residential care and contribute to the necessary savings in the service to address the current council savings targets. There would again be a revenue saving of £92k on the cost of care for the existing 22 individuals and £75k on maintenance costs.
Frankly, this is absurd. How can getting rid of the available beds in Dolwen (for which the need is obvious!) possible save money? Putting aside the lack of detail on the £75k and the discrepancy in the number of current occupants, this would clearly cost the council far more than it would save them although once again, the figures arrived at have not been explained.
ii. The cost of current vacancies within residential care centres means that current resources are not being used as effectively as possible. This would resolve this problem.
This point clearly underlines that Extra Care is cheaper than residential care and the quoted figures appear to confirm this (£276 per week for Extra Care versus £479.09 for Dolwen if it was being run at full occupancy). DCC states that in each instance, the average amount of care time is 17 hours per week. Be that as it may, there remains a cohort of patients for whom residential care is the preferred and most appropriate care. I repeat that DCC have failed to produce a current, local measure of the desire and need for residential care. Until they do this, such arguments remain lacking in key information upon which robust decision making can be based.
iii. The council accepts that this change would mean disruption for the residents and their families if this proposal was to be adopted. DCC would carry out further individual assessments of every service user and find alternative provision in a sensitive and timely manner with the involvement of service users and families where possible. DCC would ensure that it complies with all its legal duties to its service users. Views of attendees would be sought and they would be helped to find suitable alternative provision that meets their needs.
Given that the pre-consultation exercise established that many residents would be adversely affected if they were asked to leave their homes now, this proposal beggars belief. Putting aside the fact that Welsh language provision hasn't even been mentioned (despite this being cited as a very important issue in the pre-consultation exercise), the uncertainty of location would loom large for many residents not to mention their loved ones who might find subsequent visiting more difficult. While DCC acknowledges the effect of disruption, this would be of little or no consolation to those residents and families involved. While DCC allude to suitable alternative provision, they fail to detail how much alternative provision currently exists within the county. At the very least, DCC needs to do this if only to quantify the amount of existing provision in Denbighshire - even if the location, bilingualism and emotional effect on current residents would have a devastating impact. In short, this second option is quite unacceptable and would probably remain unacceptable even if the missing information was provided.
3. Any other option or Alternative.
i. No final decision has been made. DCC is open to consider any other alternative or option you wish to put forward that meets the demand for residential and any care places within the available resources. All alternative submissions will be evaluated for their viability before being considered with the options we have put forward.
This option was raised at the Eirianfa meeting last night. The Chair and Phil Gilroy were asked to confirm whether the status quo could continue with DCC continuing to provide excellent care at the existing locations. Their responses were unclear so we still don't know if we could request that DCC continue to run Dolwen as they do now with cost savings being found elsewhere. But it was resolved on the night that there was sufficient appetite in the room to take this request further.
It was pointed out that DCC had not even considered the status quo as an option under point 3 (above). It is still unclear why that is the case. There is no doubt that from the mood of the room (as pointed out by the Chair), the mood of the recent meeting at the Plas Pigot (attended by 120 people), a facebook group with over 500 members and a petition with over 120 signatures that option 3 is quite clearly the preferred option.
Early on in the evening, Raymond Bartley (County Councillor for Lower Denbigh, Leader of Denbigh Town Council and Mayor of Denbigh) objected to personal criticisms levelled against him by unnamed individuals and cited his long association with and comittment to Dolwen. He was subsequently asked about the content of recent Denbigh Town Council minutes which stated that, "Councillor Raymond Bartley reported that Dolwen would become an EMI/EMH home run by a private company retaining the current staff. The staff and unions were happy". He accused the questioner of lying but the minutes still stand in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Councillor Raymond Bartley remains a member of the five person Task and Finish Group previously alluded to and will therefore play an instrumental role in the future of Dolwen despite having prejudiced the outcome of the entire consultation process.
Another member of the public asked for a show of hands to reflect how many of those present wanted Dolwen to stay as it is. Although the Chair said that this was not in his brief, a show of hands was duly made and the vast majority were in favour of Dolwen staying as it is. It is interesting to note that the latter was a gentleman of wide renown in Denbigh. The most senior man in the room, he captured the essence of the meeting. On the one hand, the local council was arguing tooth and nail in favour of privatisation and changing the focus of care to extra care in favour of the existing residential care. On the other side of the fence, local people had turned out yet again to shout their support for an institution which represents something beyond the bottom line of an accountants worksheet. The former argued for cost. The latter argued for care. In a nut-shell, this is what the consultation is all about. Whether the chosen few of eight people on the Cabinet of Denbighshire County Council have their way in spite of so many public protestations to the contrary remains to be seen. But the portents do not bode well. That is the sad reality.
Summary
1. DCC admit that they have no process in place for monitoring the existing needs of the elderly infirm in the county who require residential care rather than extra care (they have instead used national figures from 5 years ago).
2. The task and finish group will include Raymond Bartley who, as leader of Denbigh Town Council, is minuted as saying that Dolwen would become an EMI/EMH home run by a private company retaining the current staff and that the staff and unions were happy.
3.The task and finish group was established to examine value for money. They will advise Cabinet.
4. If running at capacity, the cost per week per resident in Dolwen would be £479.09.
5. The current figure paid by DCC per resident per week in private homes is £465.90.
6. The latest CSSIW report for Dolwen is excellent. The corresponding reports for private homes in the locality make many recommendations for improvement.
7. Any future site of Dolwen is not detailed. As such, residents and their families will be compromised by dubious public transport reliability and no guarantees on Welsh language provision.
8. Extra care will inevitably lead to greater levels of loneliness compared to places like Dolwen, Awelon and Cysgod y Gaer.
9. Keeping Dolwen as it is was not even presented as an option in this consultation so it is hard to see how this can be seen as a proper consultation.
10. DCC's own pre-consultation exercise established that residents and their families were most concerned about bilingual language provision and potential transport challenges for visiting.
11. DCC allude to alternative provision but give no details on where that might be, how many places are available or whether that provision will stay in Denbigh like Dolwen always has been.
12. The consultation has failed to reflect the future need so can not plan for future provision.
13. One of the options is to effectively give the Dolwen site to a private provider so that they can save a purported £75k per annum on maintenance costs. No details have been given in relation to this figure and another county asset will be lost to the public purse.
14. Public opposition to DCC plans is well established with 120 people recently attending an open public meeting, a facebook group with over 550 members (for Dolwen alone), a petition with over 120 signatures (handed in), over 200 consultation forms completed and handed in (that we know of).
15. Many local people approached groups like Denbighshire Voice Llais Sir Ddinbych for help in completing the forms for a variety of reasons. Some couldn't access the form in their preferred language. Some couldn't access the supporting documents upon which the questions are based. Some just needed help trying to unravel the corporate language. We are quite sure that many more would have engaged with this had the forms been more widely and freely accessible.
16. In short, there is no public appetite for these proposals. Dolwen remains a highly prized community asset which local people would rather remain under local authority control.
A brief presentation was given by Phil Gilroy, the lead officer for social services. He reiterated the content of the existing DCC documents, "Modernising the Provision of Care - The Case for Change" and "Consultation on the future of DCC's in-house care services". The latter document states that DCC has been looking at the future of in-house care services since March 2014. At that time, the Performance Scrutiny Committee requested that a Task and Finish group was established to "examine value for money options for delivering high quality social care services in the County". DCC goes on to justify the need for this because:-
1. DCC needs to respond to the changing expectations of Welsh Government and the wider population about what modern social services should look like.
2. DCC needs to focus its limited resources towards the areas of highest demand, because of the ongoing requirement to deliver financial savings.
Following the "listening and engagement phase" with individual service users and their families last year, the following conclusions were drawn:-
1. The services and support provided at all our council-run residential care homes and day centres are greatly valued.
2. The bilingual staff teams and the accessibility of the residential care homes, particularly to those without transport, are particularly important. It became apparent that many residents would be adversely affected if they were asked to leave their homes now.
3. Cabinet then agreed that "whatever decisions are made about any future changes, no individual service user will be asked to move from their current home unless a suitable alternative is identified where their needs can be met".
4. "It is evident from the pre-consultation exercise that location is critical for many people, and that many families and friends would find it difficult to visit residents who live far from their current homes".
DCC goes on to refer to the "reducing numbers of people needing to be supported in residential care homes" and "the waiting lists for Extra Care Housing (ECH)". DCC explains that "this is why we...aim to provide more ECH and fewer residential care beds in the future. ECH provides care and support to tenants. DCC also states that "we believe that there should be no need for anyone to live in a standard residential care home in the future". They go on to claim that the numbers being supported by DCC in residential care has decreased from 579 in 2012 to 499 in 2015.
In the meeting last night, it was divulged that there are plans to provide 60 more ECH places at the site of the former Middle Lane School within the next 2 years. For me as a local resident, this was a bolt from the blue. Last night, one member of the audience asked Phil Gilroy how DCC measured the need for residential care. He answered that this was measured retrospectively based on existing trend data. The Chairman stated that the information wasn't local and that the local need wasn't tracked by DCC. It was instead taken from a general, national research. This means that there is no tracking (evidence) by DCC of the local need for residential care services. Thus, there is no information available for future planning. The implication of not having insight in to a future need means that DCC are completely unprepared. Although we know that more people are getting older, DCC has a disproportionately high percentage of elderly citizens. In simple terms, Denbighshire has more elderly people in need of residential care.
So let us recap some of that. DCC refer to a reducing number of people needing residential care but by the same token admit that they have no system in place to track the existing local need for such care. The research being used is national and retrospective as opposed to local and current. How can DCC possibly expect a good outcome if this is the road they intend to go down?
But what are the options being presented to the Denbighshire public regarding Dolwen? Let me share them with you to remove any doubt:-
1. Enter in to a partnership with an external organisation and transfer the whole service to them, while registering for EMH care.
At last night's meeting, a member of the public asked what the cost would be to register for EMH care. Phil Gilroy did not have a figure available so we don't know what that would cost although he suggested a ball park figure of c.£250k.
i. Ensures individuals living there now can continue to do so supported by the same staff and accessing the local community as much as they do now.
Although Phil Gilroy publicly stated that "We're not taking to any external agencies", it is hard to believe that no preliminary discussions have already taken place given the content of the existing consultation documents and various points made last night.
ii. There would be a revenue saving of £92k on the cost of care for the existing 22 individuals and £75k on maintenance costs as the new provider would be commissioned using standard rates (currently £465.90 per resident per week).
This point is particularly worrying. Where has this figure of £92k emerged from? Based on DCC's own figures, the gross total cost of care for Dolwen for 2015/16 is £747,374 based on an occupancy of 27 residents (so quite where the figure of 22 residents has come from remains uncertain). The current 27 residents cost £532.32 each per week and this figure would be £479.09 if it was being run at full occupancy. But it is still unclear where this saving of £92k comes from. Also, if DCC has to spend £75k per annum on maintenance, the same will presumably apply to the new provider while at the same time paying them less money per resident. It is really hard to see how the current excellent standards of care can be maintained on such an obviously decreased budget. We have a duty of care to elderly residents who have paid their dues in taxes in good faith over many years.
iii. It is unlikely that there would be a capital receipt (DCC would effectively give the facility to the new external provider) as the new provider would need to spend a lot of money to ensure the building meets minimum standards.
Exactly how much money would a potential new provider have to spend to ensure the building meets minimum standards? Presumably, there must be a figure otherwise it is hard to see what exactly "a lot of money" actually equates to. This is clearly important information which is missing in the context of potentially giving away a publicly owned asset to the private sector. This is public money.
iv. It would also develop a level of EMH (elderly mental health) provision in the area, a growing area of demand. Plans for the development of ECH within Denbigh (Middle Lane School site) will continue.
The growth in demand for EMH care is acknowledged although DCC have yet again failed to quantify this. As with the existing lack of procedure for tracking the current local need for residential care, this is another area where DCC have failed to provide sufficient information.
2. Another solution is to lease or sell Dolwen for another purpose. The home would close and the service users and their families be supported to find suitable alternative provision.
This option was not discussed in any detail at last night's meeting.
i. DCC claim that this would reduce the overall cost of providing residential care and contribute to the necessary savings in the service to address the current council savings targets. There would again be a revenue saving of £92k on the cost of care for the existing 22 individuals and £75k on maintenance costs.
Frankly, this is absurd. How can getting rid of the available beds in Dolwen (for which the need is obvious!) possible save money? Putting aside the lack of detail on the £75k and the discrepancy in the number of current occupants, this would clearly cost the council far more than it would save them although once again, the figures arrived at have not been explained.
ii. The cost of current vacancies within residential care centres means that current resources are not being used as effectively as possible. This would resolve this problem.
This point clearly underlines that Extra Care is cheaper than residential care and the quoted figures appear to confirm this (£276 per week for Extra Care versus £479.09 for Dolwen if it was being run at full occupancy). DCC states that in each instance, the average amount of care time is 17 hours per week. Be that as it may, there remains a cohort of patients for whom residential care is the preferred and most appropriate care. I repeat that DCC have failed to produce a current, local measure of the desire and need for residential care. Until they do this, such arguments remain lacking in key information upon which robust decision making can be based.
iii. The council accepts that this change would mean disruption for the residents and their families if this proposal was to be adopted. DCC would carry out further individual assessments of every service user and find alternative provision in a sensitive and timely manner with the involvement of service users and families where possible. DCC would ensure that it complies with all its legal duties to its service users. Views of attendees would be sought and they would be helped to find suitable alternative provision that meets their needs.
Given that the pre-consultation exercise established that many residents would be adversely affected if they were asked to leave their homes now, this proposal beggars belief. Putting aside the fact that Welsh language provision hasn't even been mentioned (despite this being cited as a very important issue in the pre-consultation exercise), the uncertainty of location would loom large for many residents not to mention their loved ones who might find subsequent visiting more difficult. While DCC acknowledges the effect of disruption, this would be of little or no consolation to those residents and families involved. While DCC allude to suitable alternative provision, they fail to detail how much alternative provision currently exists within the county. At the very least, DCC needs to do this if only to quantify the amount of existing provision in Denbighshire - even if the location, bilingualism and emotional effect on current residents would have a devastating impact. In short, this second option is quite unacceptable and would probably remain unacceptable even if the missing information was provided.
3. Any other option or Alternative.
i. No final decision has been made. DCC is open to consider any other alternative or option you wish to put forward that meets the demand for residential and any care places within the available resources. All alternative submissions will be evaluated for their viability before being considered with the options we have put forward.
This option was raised at the Eirianfa meeting last night. The Chair and Phil Gilroy were asked to confirm whether the status quo could continue with DCC continuing to provide excellent care at the existing locations. Their responses were unclear so we still don't know if we could request that DCC continue to run Dolwen as they do now with cost savings being found elsewhere. But it was resolved on the night that there was sufficient appetite in the room to take this request further.
It was pointed out that DCC had not even considered the status quo as an option under point 3 (above). It is still unclear why that is the case. There is no doubt that from the mood of the room (as pointed out by the Chair), the mood of the recent meeting at the Plas Pigot (attended by 120 people), a facebook group with over 500 members and a petition with over 120 signatures that option 3 is quite clearly the preferred option.
Early on in the evening, Raymond Bartley (County Councillor for Lower Denbigh, Leader of Denbigh Town Council and Mayor of Denbigh) objected to personal criticisms levelled against him by unnamed individuals and cited his long association with and comittment to Dolwen. He was subsequently asked about the content of recent Denbigh Town Council minutes which stated that, "Councillor Raymond Bartley reported that Dolwen would become an EMI/EMH home run by a private company retaining the current staff. The staff and unions were happy". He accused the questioner of lying but the minutes still stand in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Councillor Raymond Bartley remains a member of the five person Task and Finish Group previously alluded to and will therefore play an instrumental role in the future of Dolwen despite having prejudiced the outcome of the entire consultation process.
Another member of the public asked for a show of hands to reflect how many of those present wanted Dolwen to stay as it is. Although the Chair said that this was not in his brief, a show of hands was duly made and the vast majority were in favour of Dolwen staying as it is. It is interesting to note that the latter was a gentleman of wide renown in Denbigh. The most senior man in the room, he captured the essence of the meeting. On the one hand, the local council was arguing tooth and nail in favour of privatisation and changing the focus of care to extra care in favour of the existing residential care. On the other side of the fence, local people had turned out yet again to shout their support for an institution which represents something beyond the bottom line of an accountants worksheet. The former argued for cost. The latter argued for care. In a nut-shell, this is what the consultation is all about. Whether the chosen few of eight people on the Cabinet of Denbighshire County Council have their way in spite of so many public protestations to the contrary remains to be seen. But the portents do not bode well. That is the sad reality.
Summary
1. DCC admit that they have no process in place for monitoring the existing needs of the elderly infirm in the county who require residential care rather than extra care (they have instead used national figures from 5 years ago).
2. The task and finish group will include Raymond Bartley who, as leader of Denbigh Town Council, is minuted as saying that Dolwen would become an EMI/EMH home run by a private company retaining the current staff and that the staff and unions were happy.
3.The task and finish group was established to examine value for money. They will advise Cabinet.
4. If running at capacity, the cost per week per resident in Dolwen would be £479.09.
5. The current figure paid by DCC per resident per week in private homes is £465.90.
6. The latest CSSIW report for Dolwen is excellent. The corresponding reports for private homes in the locality make many recommendations for improvement.
7. Any future site of Dolwen is not detailed. As such, residents and their families will be compromised by dubious public transport reliability and no guarantees on Welsh language provision.
8. Extra care will inevitably lead to greater levels of loneliness compared to places like Dolwen, Awelon and Cysgod y Gaer.
9. Keeping Dolwen as it is was not even presented as an option in this consultation so it is hard to see how this can be seen as a proper consultation.
10. DCC's own pre-consultation exercise established that residents and their families were most concerned about bilingual language provision and potential transport challenges for visiting.
11. DCC allude to alternative provision but give no details on where that might be, how many places are available or whether that provision will stay in Denbigh like Dolwen always has been.
12. The consultation has failed to reflect the future need so can not plan for future provision.
13. One of the options is to effectively give the Dolwen site to a private provider so that they can save a purported £75k per annum on maintenance costs. No details have been given in relation to this figure and another county asset will be lost to the public purse.
14. Public opposition to DCC plans is well established with 120 people recently attending an open public meeting, a facebook group with over 550 members (for Dolwen alone), a petition with over 120 signatures (handed in), over 200 consultation forms completed and handed in (that we know of).
15. Many local people approached groups like Denbighshire Voice Llais Sir Ddinbych for help in completing the forms for a variety of reasons. Some couldn't access the form in their preferred language. Some couldn't access the supporting documents upon which the questions are based. Some just needed help trying to unravel the corporate language. We are quite sure that many more would have engaged with this had the forms been more widely and freely accessible.
16. In short, there is no public appetite for these proposals. Dolwen remains a highly prized community asset which local people would rather remain under local authority control.
Wednesday, 6 January 2016
Will the Junior Doctors strike?
Having successfully averted a strike by junior doctors before Christmas, the Health Secretary arguably won the battle but not the war. It is evident that the BMA is doing all it can to stir up discord among the new recruits and this spells bad news for everyone. A junior doctor with a penchant for industrial action will go on to become even more militant as they sail through their subsequent careers.
But what exactly is driving this militant tendency? Is it really all to do with money? Well, from my own experience, I would say a resounding "yes". I can never forget the experience from my first week at Medical School in 2008. A First Aid trainer asked first year medical students off the record to give the main reason for choosing to pursue a career in medicine. To my utter shock and horror, the majority cited money as their principle motivator. Am I the only one to be horrified by that? I naively assumed that people were choosing a career in medicine principally to make a difference to people. Evidently, I was mistaken.
It is instructive to examine just how poorly paid a junior doctor really is. A basic salary of about £22,000 does sound pretty meagre on the face of it. With banded rotations in which they are expected to work the long hours of on-calls, week-ends and nights, that figure often increases to about £30,000. And the hours are very long with lots of stress and pressure having to work in sparsely staffed environments in which patient care is all too often compromised.
As far as I understand, the Health Secretary is proposing to address this by alleviating the strain on junior doctors. Given their obvious inexperience at this stage in their fledgling careers, one might expect them to be cock-a-hoop about such a suggestion. It is evident that too many have entered the profession first and foremost to earn with care coming a little while after that. As much as I have come to loathe the Machiaevellian approaches of the Tory Party, this is one area where they seem to have got things right. My advice to the junior doctors would be this: Careful what you wish for. If they go ahead with their threat to strike, they will ultimately alienate a public whose primary aim has changed very little over the years - to be cared for in their hour of need.
The junior doctors of today will soon enough become the surgeons, consultants and general practitioners of tomorrow with salaries beyond the comprehension of the many. Maybe the time has come to reappraise selection for medical school?
But what exactly is driving this militant tendency? Is it really all to do with money? Well, from my own experience, I would say a resounding "yes". I can never forget the experience from my first week at Medical School in 2008. A First Aid trainer asked first year medical students off the record to give the main reason for choosing to pursue a career in medicine. To my utter shock and horror, the majority cited money as their principle motivator. Am I the only one to be horrified by that? I naively assumed that people were choosing a career in medicine principally to make a difference to people. Evidently, I was mistaken.
It is instructive to examine just how poorly paid a junior doctor really is. A basic salary of about £22,000 does sound pretty meagre on the face of it. With banded rotations in which they are expected to work the long hours of on-calls, week-ends and nights, that figure often increases to about £30,000. And the hours are very long with lots of stress and pressure having to work in sparsely staffed environments in which patient care is all too often compromised.
As far as I understand, the Health Secretary is proposing to address this by alleviating the strain on junior doctors. Given their obvious inexperience at this stage in their fledgling careers, one might expect them to be cock-a-hoop about such a suggestion. It is evident that too many have entered the profession first and foremost to earn with care coming a little while after that. As much as I have come to loathe the Machiaevellian approaches of the Tory Party, this is one area where they seem to have got things right. My advice to the junior doctors would be this: Careful what you wish for. If they go ahead with their threat to strike, they will ultimately alienate a public whose primary aim has changed very little over the years - to be cared for in their hour of need.
The junior doctors of today will soon enough become the surgeons, consultants and general practitioners of tomorrow with salaries beyond the comprehension of the many. Maybe the time has come to reappraise selection for medical school?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)