33 Million of Cost/Savings Per Annum

[humptygrumpty]

The use of consultants is generally because there is not the specific expertise within the council, this folly that councils should be totally expert in all matters goes against folks comments about staffing levels.

On that matter, there will be a minimum number of staff required, it is difficult to argue against that as no matter how few islanders there are, there still has to be the correct levels. quote]

 

Why does there have to be so many staff here in comparison to Orkney ? Doesnt the same rules apply here ? They have only 3-4 thousand less population but seem to get by quite well with around 1700 staff ? The council here is vastly overstaffed and I dont think any sane person could deny that.

[Spinner72]

^^ The Orkney "comparison" keeps cropping up, but as I have said a few times, just look a little at the comparison in services and actually it is arguable that Shetland is in fact getting better "value per employee" than Orkney.

 

For an on current topic example, Orkney has 3 authority run care homes, whilst Shetland has 12.

[paulb]

thats just the bit that they should not be cutting down on.

[Infiltrator]

The last stats I saw (and posted previously on here) declared that 1 in 3 people in employment in shetland are employed directly by the council, and I think we can assume that many of the 2nd persons out of the 3 have an income largely funded indirectly by council money from employment supporting council services.

 

I appreciate some extra services are required because of the remote location, but that aside, surely in a relatively small economy like shetland, having such a large percentage of the personal income in the isles coming from a local employer that then has fairly limited potential to raise fresh revenue from outside the local economy must eventually lead to a bust?

[Spinner72]

^^ Inevitably. Sadly, though, this council actually did have a way of generating income that most others don't, yet still it has been squandered.

 

Something not often noted regarding the current situation is how much worse it could/would have been had it not been that the private sector in Shetland is going through a major boom phase just now. There is still no excuse not to be working in Shetland despite the hundreds of jobs already shed by the SIC.

 

thats just the bit that they should not be cutting down on.

 

I understand the sentiment, but sadly there is little else left to cut. Smaller services like Roads, Housing etc culd be completely eliminated and you would still have to cut social care as it is such a massive slice of the pie.

 

Its not nice, not popular, but unavoidable.

[paulb]

then if we can't afford to keep the elderly in there own homes the cheapest choice by far then we either will need to house them in care centres or hospitals. its roughly 1400 a week for hospital care. 1060 for care homes plus whatever is added to cover the excess that the council pays.

 

so at most 4 visits at say 15 quid an hour is roughly 420 a week so can we really afford to reduce that cost. with either of the first two options there will be a need to build to meet the demand.

 

in an ideal world the family should cope with their family members needs but sadly they often can't. we also need to remember that folks are being allowed home now with more demanding health needs. and some of the care is well beyond that of untrained family members.

 

its a really difficult area to deal with. it really is a no win situation for everyone involved.

[Wheelsup]

If the care services were tendered out we would still have to pay for it?

The current care homes would be of little interest to private companies, I guess, as they would have too few beds to make it viable, even with the staff on minimum wage. The standard of service we enjoy here is way beyond what they get down south, where they often employ staff with little english.

Something for us all to look forward to, when we get get old(er).

[shetlandpeat]

The council will still be responsible for the service as they would still be the service provider. They would still have to fully monitor it and ensure it fits with other services and providers needs as well as the needs of the service users. However, with large numbers of private companies either in administration or teetering on bankruptcy, would putting your loved ones through the trauma be worth the risk.

[shetlandpeat]

The council will still be responsible for the service as they would still be the service provider. They would still have to fully monitor it and ensure it fits with other services and providers needs as well as the needs of the service users. However, with large numbers of private companies either in administration or teetering on bankruptcy, would putting your loved ones through the trauma be worth the risk.

[unlinkedstudent]

The council will still be responsible for the service as they would still be the service provider. They would still have to fully monitor it and ensure it fits with other services and providers needs as well as the needs of the service users. However, with large numbers of private companies either in administration or teetering on bankruptcy, would putting your loved ones through the trauma be worth the risk.

 

Eh? Check out one of providers in Aberdeen, namely Allied Healthcare (www.alliedhealthcare.com). Their website states they have over 119 carers registered in the Aberdeen branch alone. You might also want to read this:-

 

"Acromas' position in the social care sector has been boosted by the news that is to acquire Allied Healthcare, one of the UK's leading providers of domicilary care and healthcare staffing services.

 

Following the acquisition of social services provider Nestor Healthcare for £124 million in December, it has been reported that Saga and AA owner Acromas, co-owned by private equity firms Charterhouse, CVC and Permira, has agreed to buy home care provider Allied Healthcare for £106 million. ... Allied Healthcare is one of the UK’s leading healthcare staffing providers with over 110 branches nationwide. Staff delivered over 12 million hours of care and support last year – equivalent to over 10 minutes for every man, woman and child in the UK. The company holds contracts with over two thirds of commissioning local authorities and works with over 100 primary care trusts. Allied has over 10,000 homecare staff, support staff and registered nurses."

 

(http://www.docare.co.uk/news/Acromas%20takeover%20of%20Allied%20Healthcare)

 

Permira, for one, ain't exactly some fly by night company.

 

No doubt, however, you'll go hunting on the web for some report about how dire some of their carers are.

 

And as I stated earlier, the Council does not necessarily have to be the service provider - service users can purchase their care direct from the agency and don't have to go through a Local Authority.

 

Doesn't Healthcare Improvement Scotland monitor and regulate private healthcare service providers in Scotland in much the same way as the Care Inspectorate (previously Care Commission) does in England?

 

Edit:

Social care in Scotland is regulated by Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland.

[MuckleJoannie]

If the care services were tendered out we would still have to pay for it?

The current care homes would be of little interest to private companies, I guess, as they would have too few beds to make it viable, even with the staff on minimum wage. The standard of service we enjoy here is way beyond what they get down south, where they often employ staff with little english.

Something for us all to look forward to, when we get get old(er).

 

I understand the main problem for tendering care services is TUPE. This means that any staff currently working for the SIC would have to be transfrerred with exactly the same pay and conditions so the scope for saving would be limited.

[shetlandpeat]

The council will always be responsible for the care, they are the ones who will be contracting their provision out and will still have to monitor and scrutinise the company. The council will be ultimately responsible.

The thing you are missing, is that there is now a profit being made in the care of folk. That is the wrong part, social care should not be a business, it is the way that the Conservatives want to go as it is there agenda, one council I read last year had plans to give all of its responsibilities away. Companies, as we know look after share holders first. Carers are people, there are bad ones and good ones. The problem is, the first bad thing is Tories support this as purely a money saving program, this, with the lower wages paid and the more part time work will result in benefits having to be paid to some folk who never claimed before.

It is the choice of the heartless. This blanket excuse of saving money is blx. If you think it is the right way to go in the interest of the service user, then you too have no heart or compassion for the needs of folks.

[unlinkedstudent]

...If you think it is the right way to go in the interest of the service user, then you too have no heart or compassion for the needs of folks.

 

Pardon? If a private service provider can provide for the service user as equally a good service if not better than that provided by the Council AND at a lower cost to the service user, then yes, it IS the way to go. Why should some pensioner, having paid tax for most of their life, have to pay an extra couple of quid an hour by keeping someone in the Council in their job? By going private, that pensioner is still keeping more than one person in work; namely both the carer and the admin staff at the agency office.

 

I have no heart or compassion by wanting to save those in receipt of care money?

[paulb]

and when that private company decides to reduce the quality or go bust then what. why the heck should we copy the failing services of south. reduce the cost sure but there is no need to turn it into a money maker for some company. whose interest is just profit.

[shetlandpeat]

What would be the guarantees the private provider have to give. Also, how many pensioners would go private. You, have missed the point. It is not just about cost, or going private, simply because it is cheaper, does not mean the private company would be subject to whims of it's owners, what protection would the service user have against a bad vote in the boardroom that puts the company assets at risk? So, you change all the serviced to private companies, TUPE the employees, the provider then changes terms, also, the employees are not paying into the pension, they get their money and terms lessened, have to fight to get union rights again so they can be represented. Less money in the community because wages are dropped, more benefits claimed, profits from social care leaving the island. It is not the way to sustain a community, forcing it into a lower level of income, putting more pressure on the social housing market, the bigger cost is to everyone, while the private company is making profits from your tax money, and no doubt using unchecked loop holes to avoid paying UK tax, which are supported by the current administration. It stinks of backroom deals for a start.

The total of private care home operators going bust grew by 12 per cent in the past 12 months. The annual rate of failures among private providers has more than doubled since the economic crisis began, with 250 residential care operators shutting.

So, safe in their hands? I think not. So, unemployment will go up, councils will be forced to get back to providing social care, but with far less money. Your thought of privatising social care for the most vulnerable is insensitive, unbalanced and typical of Tory ethos. I agree, there has to be a look at how it is done, but to give away assets and cash to faceless companies that will not benefit the whole of the community with their business is morally aberrant and not in the best interest. It is short term folly to line pockets.