IN a democratic society the Government of the day is charged with the solemn responsibility of caring for all of its citizens and, therefore, is judged by other nations on how they acquit this duty.

Indeed, so fundamental is this duty of care that other nations judge the moral compass of a nation by how its Government deals with the care needs of its most vulnerable and voiceless citizens. Without any doubt the elderly infirm fit this vulnerable category.

Before you dismiss this letter as a rant from another carer wanting help with an elderly parent, let me humanise for you one such elderly UK citizen, Anna Hodge, a 90-year-old female classified with severe dementia.

Anna, my mother, grew up within a generational cohort where young people were taught that serving their country was the honourable thing to do.

So when World War Two broke out Anna, without hesitation, volunteered for the Wrens and encouraged her then fiancé Albert (my father) to join the army. While both lost close relatives during the course of the war, they were proud to do their duty.

On being demobbed they married and resumed civilian life. Not an easy task with jobs being scare and food rationing, however, they both turned their hands to what they could do to earn a wage, pay their taxes and educate their three daughters.

Indeed, mum in those days washed windows, worked in a factory, re-trained as a secretary and then as a nurse. A skill that was to stand her in good stead as she first nursed her mother and then her husband through the end stages of their lives.

No early retirement though for mum though. She continued to work as a matron in a number of aged care residential homes until she was 70 years of age, all the time paying her taxes. Not once did she go on the dole but instead instilled a very strong work ethic in her children and grandchildren.

Now fast forward to 2014 where my mother, now 90, has recently been diagnosed with severe dementia. At one stage in her life when she herself needs help.

For the last five years as my mother's capacities have declined I have willingly taken on the care of my mother. Now, at almost 65 myself, and widowed, I am mum's sole, full-time carer.

However, the strain of this task in recent months has impacted so much on my own health that as a last resort I approached Devon County Council for help.

Only someone who has been the sole carer of an elderly, frail patient with dementia can know what a lifeline it is to have one or two days a week respite care at home such as Harewood House.

These precious hours a week allow me the opportunity to do the most mundane of tasks (shopping, paying bills, dealing with my health needs) and have proven to be my own sanity lifeline.

So, I would ask you to consider the impact that not having respite care will have on Anna, myself and the country. Harewood House has the facilities to stimulate mum's declining mental capacities. Without them the remaining year or so of her life will unneccessarily hasten a decline in her mental state. Without the two days of respite care that Harewood House provides, my own health will deteriorate even further and I will no longer be able to care for my mum.

The upshot then will be that the country will end up having to pay for the full-time care of my mother and most likely my own care as well.

Returning to my original point, my mother has served this country in its hour of need and now I feel it is this country's turn to help mum in her hour of need. Especially as the 1998 Human Rights Act states that people with dementia and their carers have the right to an adequate standard of living.

Therefore please recognise how vital Harewood House is to Tavistock's elderly with all its facilities and dedicated staff.

Anna Rainsford

Mary Tavy

I WAS shocked and dismayed when I discovered that Devon County Council is proposing to close Harewood House in Tavistock.  

I was astounded when I read the list it had compiled of so-called alternatives to the day care services Harewood House provides.  

DCC's rather random list illustrates how little it knows about the services and facilities available and how out of touch it is with the needs of frail, elderly people needing day care and socialisation.  

None of the facilities or service providers contained in this list can individually or collectively offer the comprehensive service Harewood House Day Care Centre provides.

Voluntary organisations, for obvious reasons, do not provide care and activities for five days a week as Harewood House Day Centre does.  Some can only offer fortnightly meetings and even then for only an hour or two.  They do not have the capacity or facilities to replace those at Harewood.  

Indeed, the services they currently offer are by no means permanent as they rely on securing funding in an increasingly competitive climate and they rely on volunteers to run the service and volunteer trustees to oversee it.  DCC cannot guarantee that any voluntary or, indeed, private services will continue.

Critically, no private or voluntary sector service provides transport and escorts.  Frail, disabled, elderly people are collected from their homes in the morning by escorts and transported to Harewood House for a day of activities and a two-course cooked lunch then returned back into their homes in the afternoon.  Even if taxis were affordable drivers could not be expected to escort people in this way.

Visits to Harewood once, twice or several times a week provide a lifeline for our elderly residents.  It is an excellent service run by wonderful, caring members of staff.

This being the case, I trust Cllr Stuart Barker, cabinet member for adult social care, will honour his promise that the council will 'be prepared to keep centres in places where there is demand and insufficient alternatives.

Cllr Barker also states in his letter accompanying the consultation document 'that any needs that you currently have will continue to be met and no decisions will be made before taking your views into account.'

Closing Harewood House would diminish help and support to frail, elderly people and inevitably some current day care centre users will not be able to remain in their homes and will need residential and/or nursing care.

Consequently, it is vital that Harewood House remains open and continues to provide its essential services.

Jan Simpson

Watts Road

Tavistock

I TOO was appalled at the possible closure of Harewood House given its value to the local community and its provision of literally vital services.

While we understand the need to keep expenditure down and to make cuts at national and local level, this surely is a step too far, bearing in mind that Tavistock and its surrounding area probably has a higher than average proportion of senior citizens and that the population as a whole is aging.

I appreciate that it is Government diktats and its reduction of funding which are behind the proposal but I feel that our local county councillors should ensure that council tax is increased by at least 2% to provide an extra £6-million to safeguard some services, including those provided by Harewood House. This would only cost taxpayers an average of £22 per annum.

A recent poll on the Devon County Council website http://www.toughchoices.co.uk">www.toughchoices.co.uk shows that 81% are in favour of council tax being increased although the sample was small.

We have had no council tax increases in the past few years but we now seem to be at a stage where, purely on the grounds of cost cutting, short sighted decisions are being taken with our services, and I am sure that most local people would be prepared to pay a bit more to ensure that services for senior citizens — and the young — are not worsened.

We are supposed to be a caring society but, as far as I can see, the vulnerable are being affected the most by these particular cuts.

Keith Bowles,

Tavistock