In last week’s edition you highlighted Cllr Nigel Bell and a group of Labour councillors standing outside the Nascot Lawn Respite Centre condemning last week’s decision of the county council to defer referring Nascot Lawn to the Secretary of State.
It’s strange then that the previous week when the question of referral was considered in depth by the county council’s health scrutiny panel, the two Labour members, including county councillor Margaret Eames Petersen, voted against such a referral.
Also at last week’s county council meeting, all Labour county councillors, including Cllr Bell, supported the motion proposed by the Liberal Democrats that a final decision on such a referral be delayed until the end of August. Why? Because unlike their public showboating they recognised that there has been real progress in finding long term rest and respite for these children.
No-one pretends that the whole affair should have been handled far better. Yet all sides are now working together in a way that a year ago would have seemed impossible.
READ MORE: Councillors vote down motion to refer Nascot Lawn decision to Secretary of State
Had Nascot Lawn been referred to the Secretary of State it would have brought everything to a grinding halt while everyone waited for his decision. He would have to consult with all parties concerned and then reach a decision.
The consensus view is that this could take at least six months with the families left in limbo and despair.
Each child has been reassessed for both the continuing health support they require, funded by the CCG, and the social respite funded by the County Council. Only two or three of the 40 or so children should have been fully funded by the CCG, the rest by the county council.
Future children’s assessments will follow this pattern, so only a few could ever be justifiably supported by Nascot Lawn’s wonderful caring nursing staff.
The building cannot meet the standards required by a county council-run rest and respite centre, so Nascot Lawn has no future, and the Secretary of State could not save it because be cannot change the way a child’s needs are assessed.
Nigel Bell and Labour know this which is why their posture is so hypocritical.
Hempstead Road, Watford
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel