May Vettraino (93) has been resident in Leslie House for 15 years. In August this year, Mike sawyer, the Head of Social Work of Fife Council, instructed that her Care Plan be reviewed. (Mr. Sawyer has referred to the review as a "review/assessment", but, so far, has declined to demonstrate that the process bore any of the characteristics that one would normally associate with an assessment, e.g. multi-disciplinary input.)

As a consequence of the review, Mr. Sawyer told May's relatives that he and the two social workers, who conducted the review, were recommending that May be moved to a residential home (it is to be noted that May already lives in a residential home). May's relatives asked Mr. Sawyer what circumstances drew him to that recommendation and May would benefit from a move. Mr. Sawyer eventually said that he was so recommending because Leslie House is going to close and also said that he never said that there would be any benefits to May.

The corollary of what he says is that he would not be so recommending if Leslie House were not going to close. As it happens Leslie house cannot close, as there are people living there. Hitherto, Mr. Sawyer has been silent on that point. Moreover, in the absence of any benefits to May, Mr. Sawyer's justification for so recommending has to be questioned.

May's relatives asked the two social workers to confirm their recommendation and, if so, to specify the circumstances that lead them to so recommend including, in particular, the benefits that May would enjoy in the event of a move. Both social workers are declining to confirm their position and are saying that they are doing so, because Mr. Sawyer has told them that he will respond on their behalf, as there should be a single point of contact for such enquiries.

Here we have a Head of Social Work, who has said that two professional social workers have each made an individual recommendation about a client, but it is only the Head of Social Work, who made the statement, who can confirm or deny what they said. Such a situation is preposterous and cannot be allowed to continue. It is only the individuals who can so confirm or deny. It is entirely competent, therefore, for the relatives to seek confirmation of their respective positions from the individuals concerned. It is most inappropriate and wholly unprofessional for Mr. Sawyer to seek to control the expression of the professional views of individual social workers under the guise of "one point of contact". Moreover, it would be wholly unprofessional of the individuals to abandon their duty, as a social care workers, as a consequence of Mr. Sawyer's inappropriate and unprofessional actions.

Happily, such a situation seems to be provided for in the Code of Practice, which has been issued by the Scottish Social Services Council. In particular, Item 2 of the Code provides that: "social care workers must strive to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of service users and carers. This includes being honest and trustworthy; Communicating in an appropriate, open, accurate and straightforward way;….... Being reliable and dependable;…...Declaring issues that might create conflicts of interest and making sure that they do not influence judgement or practice…"

It seems, therefore, by declining to confirm or deny their professional recommendation, as reported by Mr. Sawyer, that the social workers may be in contravention of the Code of Practice, both in terms of practice and spirit. If Mr. Sawyer allows this situation to continue, it must surely prejudice registration as a social care worker beyond 1st April next year.