The story of the difficulties experienced by the Church of Scotland and its inability to manage Leslie House should have been one of openness, inclusion, partnership and problem solving. Instead, ecclesiastical "commercial interests" have driven it. It has been exclusive and, in pursuit of its singular goal, the Board of Social Responsibility and its employees have exhibited uncaring imperious arrogance and have sought to bully and intimidate.

Fife Council Social Work Department has been involved. That involvement should also have been inclusive, putting the needs and rights of residents at the heart of an assessment and partnership process. Instead, it too has been minimalist, exclusive and threatening.

The Head of Fife Social Work Department, Mr Mike Sawyer has offered his social work staff to review the needs of each individual resident at Leslie House with a view to accessing alternative provision.

Normally a review is held after assessments have taken place, after a care plan is in place and after permanent long term care has been accessed. Usually a review looks simply at the status quo and asks questions such as: Is the provision adequate? Is everyone, including resident and relatives happy with the provision? Are there outstanding issues? A review does not look in a multi disciplinary way at the needs of the resident or at the collective needs and rights of a family of residents such as those being affected by the proposed closure of Leslie House.

Mike Sawyer has offered reviews because he and the Fife Council's Chief Executive, Douglas Sinclair, have accepted the closure announcement by the Church of Scotland. Reviews are being offered to residents on an individual basis, exclusively to assist in accessing alternative provision nothing more, nothing less. That cannot be achieved without the consent and funding agreement of residents and/or their relatives. Now the Head of Social Work is putting out joint press statements with the Board of Social Responsibility in an attempt to justify his position.

Any local authority social worker applies to their duties the statutory requirements of the law in undertaking their task and also the guidelines regarding direction and good practice from the Scottish Executive. They are accountable in law via their department. The Head of Social Work, as a local authority employee, in turn, is accountable to local democratically elected members. They in turn are accountable to the local electorate. The local authority is also accountable to the Scottish Executive.

Leadership, direction and vision from the Head of Social Work are major aspects of the job. These attributes affect not only how a Social Work Department fulfils its statutory duties but also how a social work department delivers and resources local services-increasingly in partnership with health, the voluntary sector and private providers. That is now how the democratic process works. The way Fife Social Work Department wishes to deliver services is available for all to read in the Joint Community Care Plan 2001-2004 available from Fife House (but not unfortunately on the World Wide Web). The promises therein bear no resemblance to the reality as experienced by the members of the Leslie House 21 Group.

The concern of the Leslie House 21 Group is the prejudice to the mental, physical and social well being of residents that would take place should they be reviewed and moved on individually to alternative care providers. As a consequence, relatives are simply withholding their consent to the funding of alternative provision while these concerns remain un-addressed. In so doing, they are able to cite in their support considerable clinical evidence including: The International Journal of Psychiatry Vol 11:659-661 (1996) ); The Barnett Health Authority, Napsbury Report of 1997 and the former Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson who admitted in 1997 that 10% of people die after an enforced change in their residential status. All of the evidence available, acknowledged but ignored by the Board of Social Responsibility and the Head of Social Work, supports these concerns of relatives, which could be addressed by acceding to the request from the Leslie House 21 Group for multi disciplinary assessments and the need for expert risk management and planning for these residents should Leslie House close. These matters should be addressed in partnership and in discussion with all those involved in the assessment and provision of care-particularly when care plans, promises and permanency have been so tragically impacted by the church in pursuit of its commercial interests.

The Leslie House 21 Group exists because relatives believe they are protecting their relatives and upholding their needs and best interests. This is a role and responsibility relatives have in law. The Leslie House 21 Group is also able to cite the duties of a Social Work Department under Human Rights Legislation and the expectation of government that all the processes of a local authority be fully compliant with that legislation. In terms of that legislation, every individual has an absolute right to life and the Fife Council, as a public authority has an absolute duty to protect that right to life. The Council also has a duty to protect the individuals' right to a home and family life and, in the case of the residents in Leslie House, the relationships that they may have with one another. In offering to relocate each resident individually on a piece-meal basis, is Mike Sawyer fulfilling the Council's statutory duty?

While the Leslie House 21 Group refers to multi disciplinary input and Human Rights responsibilities and duties, Mr Sawyer is writing to advise residents and relatives of his responsibilities under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Some relatives see this as a case of "if you don't do what we and the Church want and move out and stop being an irritant we may seek the authority of the courts to displace your legal powers as relatives and move your relatives without your consent, against your advocacy and views and in the full knowledge of the legitimacy of your concerns. There is no need for any partnership discussions-just do what we want and move out". If that is the case, is that not a very subjective, selective and discriminatory misuse of legislative duties let alone an unhelpful initial approach to addressing the relatives concerns?

The Leslie House 21 Group has discovered for itself the continuing interest of outside providers in taking over Leslie House and asked, with support from Henry McLeish MSP, for a partnership forum to look at the needs of these residents in the context of partnership and what might be achievable to maintain their rights, address their needs and examine alternative management and funding options. Such things have been promised in the Joint Community Care Plan but have been rejected by the Head of Social Work with regard to Leslie House Residents. It has also been rejected and over the months continues to be rejected by the Church. Why? Commercial interests again?

Meantime in relation to partnerships and the reconfiguration of how care homes are maintained and provided, relatives refer to how Help the Aged has recently ended their financial difficulties with a fully consultative process and an all party agreement to the sale and continuation of its 32 residential homes to Hanover Friends, which is a not for profit organisation. Hanover Housing, which is a not for profit Housing Association and which, without even beginning a tendering process, has formally expressed an interest and remains interested in Leslie House. Neither the Church nor the local Authority has given this any consideration. Indeed the Church has informed relatives in writing, because of its considered Christian contract with each resident, that it would not sell them off to any non-Christian organisation! Is it simply that the only interest the church has is in money not those placed in its care?

Fife is third largest Social Work Departments in Scotland. Surely Mike Sawyer can do better than offer to review and relocate residents while threatening to use the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act against the concerns and advocacy of relatives. Why not try, in partnership, a consultative and democratic process as promised in the Fife Joint Community Care Plan and as proposed by our local MSP? Surely Mike Sawyer can choose a more democratic alliance than his unholy and exclusive partnership with the Board of Social Responsibility in their exclusive pursuit of commercial interest?

Whatever the outcome, a healthy Social Work Department needs to demonstrate to both its staff and to elected members and the wider public that services can be delivered in a just, democratic and consultative manner. This applies not only to Mike Sawyer but also to the new Director of Social Work for the Church of Scotland, Ian Manson. Leslie House is about means just as much as it is about ends.

Social Work Services, assessors, commissioners and providers alike, must all demonstrate that, for any elderly citizen, their needs and their rights are central to a statutory and inclusive process not only of assessment but also of provision. They, too, are partners in the planning, delivery and funding of services. At every stage, they must not be forgotten simply because of their age and infirmity. To do so diminishes us all.