Welcome debate on future of Dail Mhor care home

I was so pleased to see a response to my letter of December 26, 2019, from Joanne Matheson of the Joint Community Councils Working Group concerning the provision of permanent residential beds at Dail Mhor.

The reason I welcome the response is that I strongly believe that there needs to be open public debate on this vital matter and to that end I would appreciate the opportunity to respond further to the points made.

Ms Matheson avers that I am well aware that the ‘working group’ is fully committed to reinstating full-time residential care facilities. Well, she has now stated that to be the case but in the absence of any mention of full-time residential facilities in any of their press releases or any published minutes, members of the community might be forgiven for having no knowledge of this ‘commitment’.

It is also claimed that I am aware of statutory changes which make it currently impossible for Dail Mohr to deliver this service. I am not aware of any such changes but it would be very disappointing if the working group is permitting NHSH to hide behind such a claim.

Local people are not interested in the details of the challenges faced by NHSH in meeting their statutory obligations, only that they do what’s necessary to overcome the challenges and provide the vital service. I think the aspect of Ms Matheson’s letter which will give local people most concern, however, is the statement that the working group continues to work towards a viable way to provide fulltime residential care, but follows that with the statement that ‘small-scale, dedicated residential care facilities are no longer viable’. Which is it?

By virtue of our geographical situation and demographics everything in this remote area is going to be ‘small-scale’, but that doesn’t mean essential services should not be provided or should have to pass some arbitrary test of viability. All our facilities (schools, fire service, police, ambulance and medical care) are ‘small-scale’ but the provision is judged on need not viability.

It is widely perceived in the community that the interests of NHSH would be best served by ignoring the need for permanent residential beds at Dail Mhor on the basis of viability. Ms Matheson states that the working group ‘would not like that (permanent beds) to come at the expense of these other services’, but almost without exception, members of the community regard the provision of permanent residential beds as by far the most important service that Dail Mhor should provide and if they had to choose, I’m certain they would choose permanent beds. If the working group is unable to persuade NHSH of this then it should be changing tack from persuasion to campaigning. It’s that important. Alan Thomson, Strontian