A letter from a reader regarding the Nascot Lawn situation.

Hertfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group pulled funding to the respite centre for disabled children last year, sparking huge controversy.

Here is our latest story on the matter. 

Cllr Mark Watkin wants to turn the dreadful Nascot Lawn situation into political capital.

He has accused others of hypocrisy but his actions speak louder than his words.

Cllr Watkin wrote to me and other parents back in June stating that he would NOT (his capitalisation not mine) oppose the parents’ wishes to have the decision referred to the Secretary of State.

Just days later he voted against a referral and in the latest meeting of the full council failed to turn up to represent the constituents who elected him while the issue was debated.

He asked for, and received, a consensus statement from parents as to why we wanted the decision referred.

Our statement outlined 10 reasons why we felt referral was needed and was signed by 71 parents and carers, including many who would have been future users of the services.

This group, along with current parents, are already in “limbo and despair” as no new referrals are being made to the service, levels of care have been reduced and some are completely without respite.

While defending his right to change his mind he seems to have done this based on fiction rather than fact. Real progress has not been made.

Only one child is receiving their allocated level of care, Hertfordshire County Council are so exasperated with the behaviour of the clinical commissioning group they are writing to NHS England to complain and contract negotiations so far have only secured health funding for two years (so in 2020 county taxpayers may have to find another £200,000).

The suggestion that the Nascot Lawn site is unsuitable is open to interpretation, although the county council knew back in 2011 that the alternative West Hyde site needed extensive modification and expansion (costing £350,000) to cope with wheelchair dependent children.

A referral to the Secretary of State would not put everything ‘on hold’, it would allow more time for the county council to plan contingency, parents would be assured of some respite rather than the prospect of none, parents who wanted to move services could still do so and the decision of the Secretary of State would create certainty on what provisions need to be provided and who should pay for them.

The technical details of the Nascot Lawn agreement are wrapped up in a section 75 agreement.

This is a partnership agreement that determines how the service should be delivered.

If this agreement was led by the clinical commissioning group with the county council paying their fair share for the social needs of the children this whole debacle could have been avoided and Nascot Lawn could have remained open, children would have had the care they needed, Hertfordshire would have retained its ‘jewel in the crown’ service and taxpayers would have saved money.

It is disappointing that Cllr Watkin didn’t fight for practical solutions rather than criticising others.

Gary Murphy

Leggatts Way, Watford