Jump to content

Salisbury Street Nursing Home losses to taxpayers


Recommended Posts

At next Tynwald the PAC report into above purchase & contract to pay for 40 bed spaces whether occupied or not following allegations from David Murray.

Heres a bit from summary 

We note with concern that the Department in conjunction with Treasury acted outside of vires leading to a potential loss to the taxpayer in excess of £600,000, split almost evenly between paying for empty beds and paying twice through benefits. We conclude that Government needs to be careful in assessing its vires when entering into commercial negotiations.

5. In our quest for value for money, the Committee remain concerned that in the context of Salisbury Street being purchased for £7.9 million, and the new similarly sized care home planned for the Homefield site at an estimated £5 million,1 Government has commissioned the building of a similarly sized care home on the former Glenside site. This is Government owned land, and yet appears to be costing twice as much as it would for a private developer.2 We recommend that the Department justify its value for money in light of this report. 

Looks like more lessons to be learnt!! The full report is here https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2021-PP-0012.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anything government touch invariably ends up as a feeding frenzy for all involved. I really hope cabinet office get some business savvy people in, who take a look at these things with clear focus on v

It all comes back to honesty, transparency and openness. Or more the lack of it. We have an ageing population. The government hadn’t been renewing its estate adequately or in time. They really did hav

The charges are comparatively reasonable. About £550-600 a week.  Capacity is claimed at 43. Current occupancy is 21. They’ve only got 21 en-suite rooms. Suspect they can’t reconfigure, or a

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Banker said:

At next Tynwald the PAC report into above purchase & contract to pay for 40 bed spaces whether occupied or not following allegations from David Murray.

Heres a bit from summary 

We note with concern that the Department in conjunction with Treasury acted outside of vires leading to a potential loss to the taxpayer in excess of £600,000, split almost evenly between paying for empty beds and paying twice through benefits. We conclude that Government needs to be careful in assessing its vires when entering into commercial negotiations.

5. In our quest for value for money, the Committee remain concerned that in the context of Salisbury Street being purchased for £7.9 million, and the new similarly sized care home planned for the Homefield site at an estimated £5 million,1 Government has commissioned the building of a similarly sized care home on the former Glenside site. This is Government owned land, and yet appears to be costing twice as much as it would for a private developer.2 We recommend that the Department justify its value for money in light of this report. 

Looks like more lessons to be learnt!! The full report is here https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2021-PP-0012.pdf

£600,000??? A mere trifle. I'm sure they could've rounded it up to £1 million if they really tried. Amateurs!

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Love to hear the thoughts of notwell

You beat me to it TP....Or any of his other personalities...who ranted black was white at other posters on these boards that this was "a decent deal" for the Govt.

Edited by Non-Believer
extra bit
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Pretty sure we were all questioning the value of the home at the time.

But it is allowed to perpetuate. Nobody is ever held to account 

It all comes back to honesty, transparency and openness. Or more the lack of it. We have an ageing population. The government hadn’t been renewing its estate adequately or in time. They really did have to close Glenside and Albert Terrace ( or at least stop accepting new residents ). There weren’t enough private developments coming on line. They want to outsource to private operators because long term it’s cheaper because they lose the employment add on costs of pensions.

The decision probably was justified. But presentation and explanation is abysmal. Just like Covid, Liverpool landing stage, and tons of other things where the dreaded commercial confidentiality is invoked.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It all comes back to honesty, transparency and openness. Or more the lack of it. We have an ageing population. The government hadn’t been renewing its estate adequately or in time. They really did have to close Glenside and Albert Terrace ( or at least stop accepting new residents ). There weren’t enough private developments coming on line. They want to outsource to private operators because long term it’s cheaper because they lose the employment add on costs of pensions.

The decision probably was justified. But presentation and explanation is abysmal. Just like Covid, Liverpool landing stage, and tons of other things where the dreaded commercial confidentiality is invoked.

And the majority of the Manx public just stuck it up...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, piebaps said:

The report concluded that the purchase was a good one and that the price was fair. Am I missing something

Quite, the real criticism is the amount they’re paying to develop Summerhill ( ex Glenside ),  where they already own the land, and the £600k paid for empty bed spaces.

Again, because of lack of transparency and an inability to be frank, even to PAC, and perhaps because PAC is playing politics, I suspect that there is a large part of the perceived overspend on Summerhill is demolition and getting rid of the asbestos in Glenside.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...