The views of one carer
which should have been put to the meeting are detailed below. NCC
has not responded to the letter below or informed service users of
increase in cost of the services they receive since the February meeting.
However, increases in cost of care have been published in Nottinghamshire
County News, Spring 2007 issue.
Dear Notts County Council - NCC,
My name is XXXX & I am involved withh a group which provides support
for carers & those they care for in the East Midlands area. Your
letter to Mrs. XXXX - a member of our group - has been discussed and
I am writing to you on behalf of Mrs. XXXX who is my Grandmother &
I am her carer.
There are several issues which need to be addressed:
1. NCC have already made changes to the way care is delivered to the
elderly. These changes have taken place without consultation of either
service users or carers. Changes include private care companies (presumably
profit making companies) providing care rather than NCC staff. From
talking to various "care professionals" it is evident that
the level of training and staff support provided by the private companies
is not as good as that offered by NCC. The actual effects of this
on the service user's has yet to be seen, but drawing parallels with
the privatisation of certain sectors of the NHS I doubt that it will
be positive!
2. Since service users and family carers were not consulted about
these changes one can only assume that the changes were done for cost-cutting
purposes. If these changes have been successful, why is there now
a need to increase costs to service users? Especially since home care
provided by Derbyshire County Council (less than 0.5Km away from where
Mrs. XXXX
lives) is free!
3. Why not save money on sandwiches at council meetings? The annual
catering bill for Council meetings was reported in the press as being
£25,000! And the "Tea Trolly" was subsidised by a
massive £140,000 annually...Is this true? Was this just for
Ashfield District?
4. Why not consider a complete re-vamp of the system? Carer's only
receive around £45 per week and have to prove they provide around
35 hours per week care (minimum!). The Government pays well below
minimum wage and gets away with it by calling the payment to carer's
a benefit. If Disability Living Allowance and Carers Benefit were
at a reasonable rate, care service users would be able to pay for
their own private care without relying on the whims of local government.
5. You must realise that these changes to "Home Care" will
also affect the "unpaid" family/friend carers who already
save the Government an estimated £54-£57 billion annually.
Yet again you have failed to consult carers!!! Carers - who are usually
close family relatives of those they care for - will not want to see
more money leaving the family home & landing in the pockets of
wasteful local authorities. An increase in cost of care may lead to
a reduction in service use and an increased burden on family carers.
This isn't fair! Or perhaps, since you obviously want to wind down
the care system (by privatising and increasing charges), you intend
to increase the burden on family carers.
6. Mrs. XXXX is 95 years old. She receives around £570 per month
from state pension & benefits. She pays around £90 council
tax per month; £60 per month to attend NCC day centre (another
anomaly - why do OAP's get a free bus pass, but those using special
bus to attend day centre have to pay?? How can this be fair?? They
can't use the free bus it isn't disabled friendly!!); £70 per
month on NCC & NCC provided private carers. 40% of her pension
is paid back directly to NCC. How can this be justified?
Please remember that any changes made by the County Councils Cabinet
will affect those "unpaid" carers whose duties are covered
by the enclosed "Job Vacancy". The consultation period (of
effectively less than 5 days) is really insufficient - and carers
haven't even had the chance to respond. This is yet more evidence
of the Council's inability to understand the issues surrounding "CARE"
and "CARERS". The decision not to even consult carers is
indicative of the lack of respect shown to the people who save the
Government an estimated £57 billion annually.
I would like to round off by saying that any civilised society should
provide care for those who are unable to care for themselves, and
that that care should be provided freely. This fundamental principal
used to be a cornerstone of the Labour movement, but alas is no more!!
Yours sincerely, XXXX For
NCC replies click here