Mid-term blues hit early

With open hostility in the ruling group surrounding positions and the number of officer departures I suspect the hand-quivering clustershambolic leadership of Chambers and Jarrett must be on the close.

All eyes for this week will be on Full Council on Thursday night where we will finally get a confirmation on the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and on the discussion around member allowances. 

Medway Labour of course had a consistent policy on both these issues last year which we believed reflected the public interest; namely a return to the fair points-based system around mayoralty selection, which takes the pathetic partisanship (observed in the Conservative Group this year) out of the Queen's appointed representative for Medway; and a cut of the Conservative party chairman & deputy chairman perks who we believe are 'lapping the cream' of public money whilst the majority of Medway taxpayers continue to pay huge sums of Council tax for poor political leadership.

It is of course good to note that members will be taking a pay cut this year, as per the recommendations of the independent panel, but this does not go far enough in my mind and what we need is specific focus on those mid-level takers of public money.

We do not need so many Tories on the payroll at Gun Wharf. 

The other points to note from the meeting come from the public and member questions for the evening. A number of noticeable themes emerge

The first is that the Tory attempt to introduce a 'fake' Freedom Pass, as promised in their local manifesto in 2011, has clearly backfired badly. The Tories have a terrible record on the Freedom Pass having spent most of 2010 opposing any form of public subsidy for bus travel for young people because of cost, seemingly taken out of a hat, and pubicly lambasting the opposition Labour Party for proposing the idea. In 2011, the Tories took the Freedom Pass and audaciously added it to their local manifesto and claimed Labour were opposed; but the budget in 2011/12 only allocated a pathetic sum to the scheme, and so Labour called the Tory rat out. 

Rightly so, as we now have a scheme which to huge numbers of parents is woefully substandard; and I expect many more will continue to articulate not only the rank Conservative hypocrisy but also why we continue to suffer a worse deal then our neighbours in Gravesham, Sittingbourne and Maidstone who have a Conservative-controlled County Council.

Roads and re-surfacing also make an appearance with the announced overspend of £1.2m on the Stoke Crossing, dubbed the 'Bridge to Nowhere' by the press. With Tory-leaning Parish Chairman and Councillor's citing the money could have been better spent elsewhere, and the public outraged at the scale of spend whilst residential road budgets are seemingly 'gerrymandered' into Tory wards with a number of roads slipping budget cycles, this will prove controvertial.  We all know the Tories have spent millions on road schemes in Chatham no one voted for or wanted, and that have gone millions overbudget; taking money from what could have been spent on residential roads. 

Tories will no doubt spread the blame; who will it be this month... I cant wait. 

A number of other questions relate to the botched care home closures and privatisations which have been totally mishandled by the administration, and which descended into a farce, when the Council refused to extend the consultation on a proposal from Medway Health to take on the closing Balfour Centre. The Tories also ignored local campaigns calling for a limited partnership and stakeholder co-operative model of management favouring overt privatisation. We now go into the future with no public care home provision as a number of privately-owned homes continue to fail CQC reviews. 

The way in which the cabinet managed the Balfour process was nothing short of incompetent; as standard from Medway Tories. 

Marlowe Park and the campaign by Cllr Igwe to safeguard this facility is also on the table; Cllr Igwe led the campaign and called-in the manner in which the Medway PCT communicated and acted. 

Lastly the Community Safety Plan is due to be discussed; now that Cllr OBrien has returned from his 'fact-finding' tour of Kent it is interesting to note the precious little change in the document that all these visits were apparently tasked. Given Medway has seen a massive reduction in crime from 1997-2010 there will surely be commentary around the cuts to PCSOs, cuts to Police numbers and the real concern that opportunistic theft and crime is increasing across our towns. We may also get an announcement on whether our multitiled Cllr Mike will be standing for Police Commissioner on the back of his record as Medway CSP Chair. Then again; we may not.

A busy night ahead. 

Grubby Tories renege on Balfour

It seems that not only are grubby Tories happy to feed out of the same trough as millionaires in the working office for the head of state; but locally whilst the spotlight is on the national party quietly happy to let formerly secured agreements slip by without public notice.

Same old Tories

At last night Health O&S Labour Councillors, led by Cllr Teresa Murray, challenged the Tories on an update on the Balfour centre and were met with a tangibly poor response of “exploration of the synergies and possibility of shared services with another MCH service, the Walter Bryce centre."

Labour had received assurances that the consultation was to remain open until all options were explored but this appears not to have been the position; instead it appears that the consultation is now closed which is a direct contradiction of the cabinet minutes calling for a consultation (14/02/2012)

The Tory Council is playing with words; it was clearly clearly billed that the new bid was to lead to an extension of the consultation. Even the MP wrote a press release on the matter

Labour formally proposed that consultation was extended to give time for the MCH bid to properly considered. The Tories voted this down.

This is a betrayal to the residents, vulnerable adults, press and people of Medway; to wait until bad news nationally is all over the headlines and then behind closed doors mislead the public and our most vulnerable people.

Was this an extended consultation or not?

The simplest solution for all concerned would to have been to extend the consultation for this bid to be considered seriously.

Primett's Perspective

A very salient read and hat tip to Jon Primett from the blog Primett's Perspective on his experience of the Overview & Scrutiny Process on Thursday night.

To remind readers; Labour called in the privatisation of the three care homes Platters Farm, Nelson Court and Robert Bean Lodge because we had secured committment from workers on a proposal for a Workers Co-Operative or Social Partnership model of management.

I addressed the committee as a substitute speaker with my consistent position that instead of rushing to privatise our final few care homes that the Council pause to consider alternate models of management.

We know the Tories have done that very same thing with the Balfour Centre so surely not beyond the wit of man for them to consider a Co-Operative style of management. Many Tories even endorse Co-Operatives...

Not only did most the Conservative Committee members not quite get it, intellectually, or conceptually, but they casually sneered at any proposal which would seek to retain Council homes in any form of limited partnership model. They even brazenly attacked Conservative Controlled Essex Council for doing the very same.

That was not the worst of it; the manner in which they acted, in full public view, was appalling. It sends a very poor message of casual disregard and distain for the public that characterises the Tory benches at the top; which is why they need a culture shift.

We were asking the Council to postpone the decision so that this model of management could be fully explored. It was rejected out of hand.

The post below shows how the Medway Conservative Party treated this proposal; again reminding me of why these events are not filmed:

I have just returned to the comfort of my computer chair from an Overview & Scrutiny meeting at The St Georges Centre; regarding Medway Labour's calling-in of the cabinet decision to privatise 3 care-homes in Medway.

I am a firm believer in democracy and am a champion of peoples right to free-speech, so I was genuinely appalled by the Conservative decision to universally vote against the allowance of such a basic democratic process at this meeting, where not only were members of the public denied the right to speak, but indeed elected councillors were also silenced, something which was met with discontent from all but Tory quarters.

To me this has a deeper resonance regarding the current administration as people often say that they simply do not listen, ignore what is said, and go-ahead with whatever plans they hatch in their own bloody-minded way regardless of public concern and opinion.Ignoring peoples opinion is one thing, but for me, when you actually remove the opportunity for people to express that opinion in the first place, you are spitting in the face of democracy and edging towards a totalitarian approach to politics.Now for professional standards.............

I found it rude, insulting, and downright unprofessional that Conservative councillors sat passing notes like school-children, and scoffing a box of chocolates during such an important meeting.To me this devalues the process.

It is basically showing those who oppose their proposals that they are going through the motions, and see the process as a pantomine that does not require them to act in a professional and business-like manner.

This is an issue which people are losing sleep over, families are petrified for the welfare of their relatives, whilst the Tories on the committee sit there giving such a casual and unprofessional impression. This comes across as incredibly arrogant, and to me, shows an absolute disregard for the people affected by the proposals.

The 1st prize for rudeness and unprofessional behaviour though must go to the Conservative councillor who was called-upon to speak, but was enjoying his toffee so much his poorly-delivered drivel was being drowned-out by chewing and slurping, so much so that the public gallery united in disapproval and the chair of the meeting had to gently encourage his party colleague to stop speaking, and finish his sweet before resuming.

At a time when the Conservative administration is attracting incoming fire from many positions, actions such as this only serve to undermine their position and indeed any flames of discontent within Conservative ranks will only grow as their members and back-benchers slowly lose confidence in their senior colleagues.

Personally, I think it is a disgrace that members of the ruling administration can behave in this way - the people of Medway deserve much more than this.

Tory spin hides real story

Whenever the Tories whip up a head of steam on a non-issue you know they are trying to conceal a real story or when something going on behind the scenes.

The fact we got so much of it today suggests both. A concealment of the real story and something behind the scenes.

The suggestion that anyone wants to flog off Rochester Airport or a random golf club on the Peninsula is absolute rubbish. The point made today was clear; instead of focusing on non-issues the Council should be focused on the matter at hand; the care homes closures.

The fact the Tories tried to spin a story on safeguarding Council assets on the same day as they privatised three cares homes is about as brazen as you get.

This is three publicly owned care homes, which care for hundreds of residents, privatised after a consultation which was quite frankly an utter shambles. And the Tories then complain about a sell-off of private land that happened when I was a mere teenager, from 1997-2002.

Clutching at the proverbial straw

Instead today we witnessed the shameful positioning of Tories trying to change the story.

The story today is simple; the Tories agreed after 8,000 signatures and significant public anger across the entire towns to privatise our last remaining care homes.

The consultation behind these closures was a sham; pre-budgeted in outcome and without considering all the options on partnership models it was all but decided before it even started. The fact it was in the budget for this year says everything about the intent of the Tories.

The big question I posed in the winter was why the Council had not considered social partnerships like the Norse Group. Social partnerships which are owned by and established limited companies in the ownership of the public sector. I was given short shrift but the question remained on my mind.

It is now interesting that Medway Community Healthcare - a NHS sponsered social partnership - is now putting an interested enquiry into the Balfour Centre.

My question then and it is now; why has it taken this long for a social-partnership to be looked at as a viable alternative to pure privatisation? Why was this not considered from the outset?

In addition, have significant questions about the timing of this bid. Why has it taken so long - indeed an 11th hour intervention - for MCH to submit a bid?

The timing is very interesting; whether any Council officers had previous conversations on an MCH bid prior to a formal application would be of public interest. It is very likely that conversations must have been had for them to make a business case for the service.

The Tories today have been remarkably loud; they are only ever thus when there is internal instability. I suspect that the decision to privatise homes must have weighed heavily on the more decent of back-benchers.

Whether there was a wobble in the ranks remains a mystery, but them jumping at Cllr Maple today suggests to me there was and whats more it was serious.

A reshuffle of Cllr Brake may be on the cards...

There remain significant questions about the timing and nature of the new bid for the Balfour Centre but let us not distracted; the last of our public care homes were sold off to the highest bidder today

Danger of Care Home Privitisation

Letter sent to press below by Cllr Teresa Murray

Dear Sir,

The concerns raised in the Messenger article about Friston House and Winchester house care homes provide us with a timely reminder about the dangers posed by the Medway Council Cabinet's proposals, currently out for public consultation, to privatise Robert Bean Lodge, Nelson Court and Platters Farm. These popular and high quality homes are owned by the council and while this is the case it's much easier for the standards of care they provide to be monitored.

As your article shows even though private homes are subject to inspection by the Care Standards Commision, many more of them fall below acceptable practice when compared to those in the public sector. This is because the only other monitoring private homes have is that by relatives of users and annual visits from the Council who fund places in the private sector too. As accountability in the private sector is less regulated many private homes refuse potential clients and their families the right to drop in unplanned when trying to choose a home.

In the course of the consultaion I have heard relatives say that that they were even refused visits to see their loved ones already in private homes, if they didn't call first to say they were coming. Those who work at private homes are just as kind and caring as those who work in our council homes but they are paid less and there are fewer of them, reducing the time they can spend with those they look after. This results in higher hospital admissions where the neglect resulting from lack of time causes more presssure sores and infections. The consultation meetings have been well attended and I have now lost count of the numbers of people at the meetings or who have contacted me separately ,who tell frightening and moving stories about the way their loved ones ,now comfortable in our council homes, have been treated in the private sector.

Their stories include poor hygeine,the eviction of patients whose condition worsens, bad food and lack of feeding, regimes with few meaningful activities for residents and constant staff turnover. Privatising these much loved homes in Medway will leave the council prey to the private sector, vulnerable to uncontrolled pricing of care and weakened in terms of being able to uphold a gold standard or secure a safe place when things in the private sector go wrong.

Even the Parliamentary Public Accounts committee has recently issued a report saying that it's hard for councils to control standards of care in the private sector and intend to issue guidelines for tightening things up. I hope that the Conservative Cabinet of Medway council will listen carefully on February 14th to what the consultation has told us all and keep the homes in public ownership. Why let a good thing go when we could build on our success?

Privatising the homes is short sighted and the savings resulting from doing so are anyway very unclear, our older people have worked for all of us, they deserve the very best we can provide.

Cllr Teresa Murray

Labour spokesperson on Medway council, Health and Social care.

Vox-Pop on Care Homes

MPs back Care Home cuts

Well it is not as if this blog has not given enough time for our local MPs to make it clear where they stand on the privitisation of Nelson Court, Platters Farm or Robert Bean and the closure of the Balfour Centre.

Our MPs have failed to make any public statement that I can find online about whether they back the cuts to Care Homes or not.

Now it has been revealed of sorts. Mark Reckless, Tracey Crouch and Rehman Chisthi back the closure and privitisation of these homes not because they are right, but because they are being led by Conservatives.

It is clear that the Conservative Council has pre-budgeted the closures and privatisation and it is also clear they have not, or at least publicly, considered the not-for-profit limited company or partnership model which is followed elsewhere in the country. Lastly, it is disengenuous to claim closures on the back of statistics which they themselves have manipulated on thresholds which have been changed to reduce numbers.

I can therefore cut and paste the comment from the Nelson Court Facebook page from Maureen Ruparel who has been organising the anti-closure campaign after I put in a request to find out the MPs position on the closure.

Tracey Crouch MP definately backs the closures

Some people cant understand why I have been quite so tenacious (or rude) in pushing for a response. A recent debate with local blogger Chris Sams, explained the logic of why I made a request, a quite assertive one, that they make a public statement on their position.

Members' of Parliament are in the end there to represent the people they serve and are beholden to them to make representations to government agencies, including the Council.

I requested that they make clear in public, to stop any confusion and allow their constituents to see a clear position, how they would react and respond to the consultation by the Conservatives on the Council to cut care services for the most vulnerable.

It is totally reasonable request to make; most MPs would have said that they were backing or not backing it and a link to a reason why. Given the media and press coverage, and ongoing debate and consultation, you would think that not only would a public position be sensible, but actually there would be an expectation of MPs to respond

I got a swift slap down for my enquiries.

The public really do deserve a better.

It is particularly eye-brow raising because meanwhile some of our MPs have rightly supported a cross-party Parliamentary Group to discuss care in the future; and yet in the same breath Tory Councillors ignore local Labour Party suggestions for a limited partnership under local authority control. Listening but only when told. Saying one thing and doing another.

Public and the residents deserve to know where our representatives stand so make it clear when requested.

Dementia Statistics

Demographic changes to dementia

Very interested to note a number of press reports on Dementia over the last couple of days.

The Conservatives in Medway are claiming that demographic pressures are downward and that a reduction in numbers are causing services to be un-used.

Of course this is not accurate with an increasing requirement in future years which is why closing and privatising centres on the back of downward pressures on 'Council' statistics is baseless and actually concerning.

Incidentally we saw the same Tory-trick on statistics to close Primary Schools which led the School's Adjudicator over-turning the administrations judgement.

We all know the Medway Conservatives changed the eligibility criteria in 2008 making those previously eligible to use Nelson Court, Robert Bean, Platters Farm and Balfour inelgibile. We all know that they have already budgeted for care home closures before the consultation had even started in an arrogant act of subverting the consultation exercise itself.

Councillor Jarrett is now taking the lead after the Portfolio holder, David Brake, made quite inaccurate remarks to Cabinet on redundancies only a few weeks ago.

In his piece to the Messenger:

"The Balfour Centre provides day care, but since the introduction of personalized budgets by the last Labour government there is more choice available. Now increasing numbers of people are taking the payments to which they are entitled and using to buy a host of different services"

No one opposes the move towards 'personalised budgets' for those who are capable of managing their own budgets. However, in cases of hightened dementia individuals are unable to manage personal budgets and therefore the Council does take responsibility.

In addition, Councillor Jarrett has deliberely ignored the fact his administration fiddled the eligibility criteria in 2008. Once again paiting a woefully inaccurate position of the reasons why numbers are being reduced. Incidentally the centre being proposed for closure is at 70-80% of capacity which favours well with other private-sector providers; so that argument is also utterly without logic.

"All provide a good standard of care, but at more than twice the cost to be found in other parts of the care homes market in Medway they no longer represent good value for money"

Taking into account that Jarrett has mis-spent on countless capital programmes and on revenue budgets to the tune of £7.9m; the man has lost grip of the Council spending talking about value for money has to make you cry.

This is a false argument because the centres being closed & privatised deal with very specialist cases and can not be 'averaged' out across other care homes who may have individuals with little help or need. In addition, the option to create a social partnership with other local authorities could reduce costs by creating back office synergies - this option has been totally ignored by the Conservatives who favour a wholly private sector option - which indicently for high-need dementia care could be as expensive in some cases.

"Medway will not be closing any of the three homes"

The fact is he can not guarantee that once these homes transfer to private ownership that they will not close; as we saw with Shaw's Wood in Strood, the Tories make grand statements only to be found inaccurate twelve months later.

Time and time again the Tories paint a dishonest picture of the truth.

Financial times are tight but as a Society is simply a case of basic moral right that we care for our most vulnerable in the best way possible.

If we cut the stupid expenditures on Tory pet-programmes we would not be in such a difficult spot and that is the fault of the Cameron Conservatives; who are self-evidently not compassionate

Care Home Campaign

Despite all the national news about Europe my focus for the last week has been closer to home; namely the campaign to safeguard our Care Home Services in Medway from an overt Tory privatisation exercise.

This issue matters to me. Firstly, It does strike personally to me as my grandma had to be looked after in the Care Home system and I can remember at the time the spectrum of quality of care. Without exception the quality of care in the public sector was better; though that of course from my second-hand experience.

Secondly, one of the homes being propsed for closure, Nelson Court sits within Luton & Wayfield. I can not express how much I respect the staff of Nelson Court and the work that they do with some of the most vulnerable adults. If the same is translated across Platters Farm, Robert Bean and Balfour then we truly have some tremendous staff.

Which is the reason I am angry that our Members of Parliament have shown no respect on this issue to the families, residents or service users.

I asked both Tracey Crouch MP and Mark Reckless MP a very simple question online; whether they support the Medway Conservative move to close and privatise these services.

Instead of giving me, and the general public a straight answer, we have been met with the proverbial cold-shoulder. Apparently, it isnt appropriate to ask MPs these type of questions on twitter!

Fine; if there is a more nuanced answer; a more complicated answer, then state it online.

Simply fobbing off a legitimate question like this is really unusual behaviour from public representatives.

Moving onto the Health and Adult Social Care meeting last week.

Medway Labour called in the decision by the Conservatives last week and has been working with partners to oppose the cuts to these care homes. Labour organized an emergency public at the Corn Exchange in Rochester with over 60 attendees and called-in the Conservative decision on Thursday 8th December for scrutiny at a meeting with over 100 residents.

Labour raised several concerns about the proposals and the justification for the cuts including why:

• The Conservatives had already budgeted for the privatization and closure of these homes as indicated in the budget appendix, and Q2 quarterly budget monitoring statement. Given this appears in the budget, we believe the Conservatives have already come to a conclusion before the consultation has even begun.

• The Conservatives have deliberately ignored more suitable proposals; including the establishment of a Council controlled limited company which would allow those with personalized budgets access to publicly owned services.

I specifically raised this point after Cllr Vaughan Hewett misunderstood (I dont think it was deliberate, more lack of research) that personalised care budgets could be spent in the public sector if it was within a company owned by the Council.

Some specific examples include the Norse Group which is owned by Norfolk County Council and manages several carehomes under the umbrella Norse Care.

• The Conservatives have not been honest about the numbers using the care home facilities, by not citing the cumulative numbers that attend in some publications.
• In addition, they cite the reduction in numbers as a justifier for reductions but have ignored a probable cause which is the change by Medway Conservatives to eligibility thresholds in 2008 which caused a reduction in accessibility to facilities

It is essential that there is a fair and transparent process for deciding who in a local area should receive social care support funded by central and local government. Until the care and support system is reformed, Councils have been using Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) guidance SCIE has produced Facts about FACS 2010: A guide to Fair Access to Care Services

Medway Conservatives changed the criteria in 2008 removing those with 'moderate' requirement from funding (there are five levels). This has led to a reduction in those eligible for services via Council funding.

It is worth noting that several other Councils; including Kent County Council accept those in care on moderate requirement.

• The Conservatives have totally mismanaged the communications process with reports of gagging staff and communication via the television media unacceptable to service users. In addition they have removed the cost savings of the proposal from any external communication given to stakeholders at these centres

Several speakers from the floor last week lambasted the Conservative authority for how it managed the process. I myself have seen several documents which show that service-users were given less information then 'staff'.

Facts in my mind were deliberately ignored by the Conservatives including the budgetary rationale for the cuts. In a consultation exercise, the facts provided to the public to respond is very important; Tories should not be able to manipulate the facts to come to a pre-planned conclusion.

Despite the waffle and spin from the opposite side; this is not about Labour opposing the move towards personalised care budgets. In many cases we accept that these have been a positive move for many residents.

The issue is about whether all the options have been explored and the manner in which this has been woefully mismanaged by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have badly managed this process and have not considered all the options. The consultation premise is therefore utterly unacceptable.

We believe the Conservatives are cutting essential care homes and front-line services not to improve services but as a direct result of Tory fiscal incompetence. The Tories are predicted to overspend by £7.9m on capital and revenue budgets this year alone.

It is not surprising that the Tories will save £1m per annum by outsouring residential care to the cheapest provider In addition to this the closure of the Balfour Centre will save a further £200,000 per annum

Perhaps our MPs are shamed by the Conservatives on the Council. I suspect they are instead trying to distance themselves from the actions of their Councillors.

It is time for them to tell us where they stand.

Tory budget folly driving care cuts

This week will see the call-in for the Care Home closures that the Conservatives have pushed onto residents at Christmas.

The timing of the planned closures and privatisation stinks and warrants further questionning on Thursday this week about the timing and purpose for the cuts.

This blog would contend that the Tories are cutting these services because they are desperate to find savings in the revenue budget which is now £5.1m over budget.

I asked several questions at last weeks Business Support Overview & Scrutiny about the Conservative maladministration over the budget. The Tories are now £5.1m overspent on revenue (departmental) budgets and have overspent by £2.8m on the capital projects (Bus station / Stoke Crossing / Chatham one-way system).

The fact is the adult services budget is a quick-win in fiscal terms for the Tories and this has been identified for some time.

People may also be interested to see the timing of this decision, especially during Christmas. The Conservatives were well aware of the 'savings' that required in Quarter 2; but have left it until now to put out the consultation. I consider that an absolute disgrace to do this over this period... and whats more this would have been planned.

It is also grossly unethical and ill-timed by those who should know better.

This is not about improvement in services to our residents. It is pure and simple about outsourcing care services to deliver savings of £1m per annum at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Save Nelson Court

The Luton & Wayfield team is working with local and cross-party campaigners to Save Nelson Court from Conservative cuts.

You can sign the petition to protect the service here.

Whilst the Tories can overspend by £5.1m on capital and revenue budgets it is simply unacceptable they have announced the closure of this centre for the vulnerable and elderly.

It is utterly unethical

Below from the website:

UPDATE FROM THE 29th NOVEMBER CABINET MEETING

At the cabinet meeting today Medway Conservative councillors were very keen to stress the benefits of privatisation, and seemed to think that the private sector could provide an identical service, with the same staff and staffing levels. As well as pay rent for the premises and make a profit.

They were also keen to stress that the 60-day consultation period would convince residents and relatives that there would be no adverse effects of privatising care. Under the new system the care homes would be allowed to take 'self funding' residents who would presumably be asked to pay a lot more than the council pays for supported care - we would like to know if the care homes would then be keen to take the challenging clients with high maintenance needs for the amount of council funding, when they could be making a nice profit instead.

Somehow this doesn't seem to be the real world!

Much was made of how residents could have more choice and more independence - given that these homes are for dementia patients, it is a bit pie in the sky to expect them to start taking responsibility for sorting out their own care and funding.

It should be remembered that many have outlived their families and friends and apart from the care home staff, who are their surrogate 'family' there is nobody to care what happens to them.

SAVE ELDERLY SERVICES

Elderly care, particularly dementia care, which is provided by Medway Council's own service centres is consistently graded as 'Excellent' by the care commission. We already have a shortage of beds in Medway for older people needing to go into care, and private providers naturally take those who are the 'easiest'. Not only do the council's own facilities provide a safety net for clients with high level needs (e.g. dementia patients using wheelchairs, or with cultural requirements such as a daily shower or special diet), but they also act as a benchmark of excellence against which prospective clients and their relatives can compare other homes.

Many elderly residents in our homes have no relatives living locally, but homes such as Nelson Court in Luton not only provide them with basic care but encourage activities and socialising, as well as a hairdresser and outings.

The council's own centres allow residents freedom of movement around the units and small 'quiet' rooms in which they can sit, or receive relatives and friends without having to use their bedrooms.

Relatives and friends are welcomed at any time and because working conditions are good there is a very low turnover of staff, so managers and carers get to know individual clients and their relatives so any problems can be dealt with quickly and amicably.

Added to this we should not forget the respite service which council homes offer, giving carers a much needed break and clients a chance to socialise. This respite also means that any medical conditions which have been overlooked are picked up and dealt with which eases the burden on home carers.

I would urge Medway Council to think very carefully before getting rid of the jewels in the crown in terms of elderly care!

To find out more, email maureen@savenelsoncourt.org.