“Doctors’ union accuses government of privatising NHS”

Doctors have accused the government of “consciously” creating the crisis in NHS hospitals in order to pave the way for a private sector takeover.

Delegates at the British Medical Association’s annual representative meeting in Bournemouth voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion that they were told amounted to a verdict of conspiracy rather than incompetence.

It has prompted a row with the Department of Health, who said in an official statement that the motion had “no relationship with reality”.

Doctors agreed that “the crisis in NHS hospitals has been consciously created by the government, in order to accelerate its transformation plans for private sector takeover of healthcare in England”.

Proposing the motion, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the incoming chairman of the union, said that quality and safety in the NHS were threatened by demands for efficiency savings. He said: “NHS costs are rising at 4 per cent per annum but with only a 2 per cent annual uplift to the NHS budget in coming years something has to give and the reality is clear to doctors, patients, the public and indeed everyone except government.

“The general election was a wake-up call, rejecting the political pretence of trying to squeeze a quart into a pint. In the name of safety and quality, austerity and savage cuts have to stop. We are a rich nation, we are a civilised society, the public deserve a safe, civilised health service. We cannot and must not accept anything less.”

Dr Nagpaul said that legislation that forced health service commissioners to tender services, or GPs to send their patients to private treatment centres, proved “this is deliberate and it does need to be challenged”.

Dr Grant Ingrams, opposing the motion, asked the meeting: “Do you really believe this and preceding governments would be capable of such clear thinking?”

He said: “The current parlous state of the NHS has not been due to political conspiracy, but is due to political cock-ups.”

Dr Mark Porter, the outgoing chairman, said that while there was evidence of more use of private services within the NHS, albeit from a low base, “there is not the same evidence that this is a deliberate conspiracy”.

A BMA spokeswoman said: “The rise in the number of private providers has led to the fragmentation of care, which makes the delivery of high-quality care more difficult.

“Politicians need to urgently address the funding and staffing crisis in our NHS, otherwise services simply won’t be able to cope with rising demand.”

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: “This motion sadly has no relationship with reality — while, of course, there are pressures on the frontline, the government is now spending more than any in history on the NHS, has left doctors themselves to decide on use of the private sector, and public satisfaction is now the highest it has been in all but three of the last 20 years.”

Separately, doctors expressed concern that patients were increasingly turning to crowdfunding to get appropriate wheelchairs.

Dr Hannah Barham-Brown, a 29-year-old junior doctor from London, had to fund her own chair after being diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome two years ago.

She said: “The guidelines for getting chairs now are so strict, wheelchair services across the country are being privatised and it’s just getting harder and harder to get access.”

She said the standard NHS chair weighed around 20kg and she would have needed to be pushed everywhere. Her own £2,000 chair, towards which the NHS offered only £140 voucher, allows her to work full-time and independently.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

Islington wins landmark appeal on affordable housing

Islington Council says it has won “a landmark case” after the Planning Inspectorate upheld the local authority’s refusal of planning permission for a site, on the grounds the application did not provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

The developer had applied to build 96 homes on a former Territorial Army Centre in Parkhurst Road, and initially sought to avoid providing any affordable housing.

Islington’s policy requires developments to provide the “maximum reasonable” amount of affordable housing, with 50% affordable housing provision being the starting point.

The council refused planning permission for the development on 13 May 2016. The developer appealed and eventually increased its offer of affordable housing to 10%.

A planning inspector dismissed the developer’s appeal last week (19 June).
Islington said the decision centred around how the viability of the development was assessed and, in particular, how the price of land should be determined.

“Viability appraisals are a tool increasingly used by developers and their viability consultants in recent years, to enhance profits and/or minimise risk at the expense of delivering affordable housing as required by the council’s planning policies on affordable housing,” it claimed.

“This extremely important appeal decision confirms a ‘…land owner is required to have regard to the requirements of planning policy and obligations in their expectations of land value.’”

The council also said that the inspector had considered the developer’s market value methodology, which relied on transactional evidence not comparable to the development site, as an inappropriate approach.

The inspector’s decision is just the latest stage in a long-running battle. An initial planning application for the site was submitted in 2013 by developers First Base, and the council refused planning permission for this development twice on the grounds of not providing enough affordable housing as well as other matters.

First Base had sought to justify the low levels of affordable housing provided based on factors such as the purchase price paid for the site, and land transactions of other schemes.

Cllr Diarmaid Ward, Islington Council’s Executive Member for Housing & Development, said: “Islington, like all boroughs in London, faces a significant shortage of affordable homes.

“A viability process in planning that allows developers to rely on a flawed approach to market value that delivers little or no affordable housing makes this problem worse, and means developers are not making a fair contribution to the community.

“The decision from the Planning Inspectorate sends a strong signal that developers need to take into account planning policy requirements when bidding for land, and that they cannot overbid and seek to recover this money later through lower levels of affordable housing.”

Cllr Ward added: “This decision will ensure the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is provided, and strongly discourage developers and landowners from manipulating the development viability process to deliver fewer affordable homes.”

The council’s guidance on development viability specifically cautions developers against overpaying for land and using the purchase price as a justification for providing little or no affordable housing.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31637%3Acouncil-wins-row-over-providing-maximum-reasonable-amount-of-affordable-housing&catid=63&Itemid=31

Former EDDC councillor tells MPs to do what she didn’t – promote local tourism

Mrs Kerridge is the former EDDC Tourism Champion … criticism is too little too late – as she was in a position to change the situation!

Town councillor Sheila Kerridge said while visitor numbers are falling in Devon but are up 10 per cent in a decade in Yorkshire – where the budget is 100 times bigger.

She argued that Sir Hugo Swire needs to fight for more tourism cash for all of his constituency.

Cllr Kerridge, the former tourism champion at East Devon District Council (EDDC), told a meeting last week: “Devon only receives £45,000 per annum. Yorkshire receives £5million. I want this committee to do something about that – not just for Sidmouth but all of East Devon.

“We should lobby our MP to go to central government to say tourism is vital for the South West, vital for East Devon and vital for Sidmouth.

“Let’s get him to say we need more money. We want our share. We should lobby, lobby, lobby to get our fair share.”

Cllr Kerridge cited figures showing visitor numbers to Devon are down four per cent compared by 2006.

Her calls came after news Sidmouth Town Council had joined third sector tourism board Visit Devon as an early adopter after its relaunch.

Town clerk Christopher Holland said: “We are one of the first councils to get on board with Visit Devon. It can be moulded to how we want it – we don’t want it just to be for Torbay or the English Riviera. We can promote what we want to promote.

“Visit Devon is a good brand but Devon is far behind Cornwall in how we promote ourselves as a destination. We need people to turn off the M5 before they get to Cornwall.”

Cllr Simon Pollentine said: “EDDC have dropped East Devon as a brand by not investing in it. This council is continuing to invest in tourism promotion and they aren’t.”

Cllr Ian Barlow questioned if it was value for money and said £1,000 could buy a lot of promoted posts on Facebook and Twitter.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/calls-for-fairer-tourism-funding-for-east-devon-1-5078588g

Fly outbreak in Feniton

Fly outbreak in Feniton ( from the blog of Independent Councillor Susie Bond:

I’ve just heard from the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) who has been looking into the most recent problem with flies in the village. She has responded directly to the seven residents who have contacted her office.

It looks as though the poultry farm on Green Lane was the source of the flies, despite the farmer having complied with the larvicide regime.

Environmental Health Officers currently think that the combination of young birds in the sheds and the extreme temperatures last week led to the fly problem.

Further treatments have been carried out at the farm to reduce the number of flies.

The EHOs request that people monitor the fly levels and update her directly (lturner@eastdevon.gov.uk).”

For the full report see:

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/latest-on-fly-outbreak-in-feniton/

Greendale Business Park 120% expansion plan – battle for who really controls East Devon planning policy and an EDA councillor excluded from meetings about his own area.

document to support the already approved “East Devon Local Plan.”

The Owners proposal is approx. 120% more development beyond the present developed area. The various coloured outlines show the proposed
development areas.

 

“East Devon District Council recently asked local people about a planning

The Local Authorities proposal for Greendale Business Park. “No further expansion beyond the present permitted developments already permitted”

The Owners version published in a document called the “Greendale Masterplan” which is included in the published consultation documents.

This proposal, known as the “Villages Plan,” will provide planning guidance until 2031 for the larger villages in East Devon and two large industrial sites of Hill Barton and Greendale.

The Villages Plan is not yet approved but the owners FWS Carter and Sons have submitted a “masterplan” proposing a massive 120% expansion to their site. There is considerable local concern that further expansion at Greendale Business Park will now continue.

The company`s agents have submitted a multitude of documents to support their claim for continued expansion and in a bid to overcome possible objections have re-introduced a “liaison group” which they claim is:

“To provide better lines of communication and wider understanding”

A few years ago, following a great many complaints, contentious planning applications and planning appeals the owners of the Business Park were asked by the County Council to invite Planning, Environmental Officers and locally elected representatives to form a liaison group.

This was a success for a few years, but was disbanded by the management 18 months ago, however they held a liaison meeting on Wednesday June 21st at their offices.

There is local concern over who the owners invited to attend.

There was no invitation for members of the Residents Association, Woodbury Parish Council were restricted by the company who named two Councillors they wished to attend. Most controversially the “Terms of Reference” was changed by removing the word “Local” from “Local Elected Member of the District Council” and the invitation was sent to Conservative Budleigh Town and District Councillor Tom Wright but not the current ward member.

The local ward Councillor Geoff Jung (EDA Independent) who is also the secretary of the Residents Association and a Parish Councillor says:
“This is not the normal practice for a “Liaison Group”, but the company has the right to invite whoever they wish to these meetings.”

“It`s totally “legal” but it`s certainly not democratic, I am unable to represent people as a member of Residents Association, nor as a Parish Councillor, nor as a District Councillor”. “I now have the most bizarre situation that I must direct residents with local concerns to the new Chair of this Liaison Group, Conservative Exmouth Town and recently elected Local County Councillor Mr Richard Scott.”

“It`s standard practice that a District Councillor represents his own ward at Liaison meetings and this requires the approval of the District Council. Cllr Wright has ignored this protocol and attended but, I am very pleased to hear that planning officers from the District Council will not attend the meetings until my inclusion is agreed.”

“There are serious local concerns regarding the recently submitted “Greendale Masterplan” and I suspect that the re-introduction of this Local Liaison Group is to do with these expansionist plans”

The Planning History.

Thirty years ago, the business park was a farm with some agricultural buildings which the owners claimed to be “redundant for farming use” They were given permission to be converted to Industrial units. More agricultural buildings were built and again allowed to become Industrial. Many of planning applications were “retrospective” (Built or converted prior to Planning Permission being submitted.

In 2009 the Business Park was permitted to enlarge to its present size as an “Exception Site to the then Local Plan” This was because the East Devon Business Forum (chaired by disgraced Conservative Councillor Graham Brown who boasted to a daily Telegraph “sting” reporter that he could provide approval for planning for a fee). The Forum claimed there was an acute lack of Industrial land available within the district.

Steadily the owners have built a very large Business Park in the open Countryside which was never the local planning authorities policy.
The residents of the rural village of Woodbury Salterton consider that any further expansion will destroy their beautiful village set in the open countryside, and for the last 10 years have campaigned for better planning protection.

The Local Authority with their recently approved Local Plan decided on the location for housing and commercial land, and agreeing with the village residents that further expansion of Greendale Business Park would not be appropriate or suitable.

The Local Plan is a blueprint for district planning until 2031 and includes policies for commercial and industrial developments to be built close to urban settlements. Substantial commercial opportunities exist at Cranbrook, Exeter Airport and on land known as the West End (on the outskirts of Exeter). This is to follow the Government`s planning policy that people should not be required to commute far from their homes to a place of work.
The village community, through their Residents Association, their Parish, District and County Councillors have strived for a sensible balance of development and the proposals included in the Local Plan and the emerging Village Plan are a direct result of 10 years of hard work of campaigning and lobbying.

Councillor Geoff Jung says:

“The decisions for both the Local Plan and the Villages Plan were decided democratically and agreed by full Council and by a Government Planning Inspector. The owners of Greendale must not be allowed to bulldoze further and further into the countryside.”

And to add insult to injuries in the UK : the sixth richest country in the world

“Ambulances are set to be given far longer to reach 999 calls in a controversial bid to ease spiralling pressures on emergency services.
Handlers could be given four times as long to assess calls after a study of 10 million calls found too many cases being counted as hitting official targets, without patients getting the help they need. …”

(Source: Daily Telegraph)

and

“Patients would be turned away from GP surgeries when they get too busy, under plans to create a “black-alert” system for overstretched family doctors.

Under the proposals, which have the support of the Royal College of GPs, surgeries would be able to shut their doors on days when they believe they cannot provide safe care to any more people. …”

Source: The Times (paywall)

and

More people are unhappy with the NHS than satisfied for the first time in a poll of the public run by Britain’s doctors, and 70% say they think the health service is going in the wrong direction.

The growing public concern will be revealed by Dr Mark Porter, leader of the British Medical Association, who will tell his annual representative meeting in Bournemouth on Monday that the government is “trying to keep the health service running on nothing but fumes”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/26/uk-public-are-more-dissatisfied-than-ever-with-nhs-poll-shows

Expensive new HQ and luxury apartments for rich elderly people or good-quality social housing? Tough choice for EDDC

Sidmouth resident Mike Temple has the lead letter in today’s Guardian on social housing. Our council is MUCH more interested in moving into its very expensive new offices (£10 million and counting) than building, or encouraging the building of, social and truly affordable housing. As shown when it agreed to sell its Knowle site to PegasusLife for super-luxury housing for only rich, elderly people, with PegasusLife attempting to exploit a loophole via a planning appeal to avoid any on-site or off-site affordable properties.

“The fire at Grenfell Tower has highlighted a number of issues relating to government housing policy in recent years, not only the failure to apply proper safety measures but also its whole approach to social housing.

The 2012 national planning policy framework, often described as a “developers’ charter”, has given precedence to expensive private development while discouraging social housing. The result is that through land-banking, slow build-out rates and using the housing market as an investment, house prices have risen way beyond the reach of most average-wage earners. At the same time, an increasing proportion of the incomes of the lower paid is spent on rented accommodation, which is often of poor quality.

Among the 72 Conservative MP landlords who voted against the 2016 housing bill to make “rented properties fit for human habitation” were the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, housing minister Brandon Lewis (who has also said installing fire-sprinklers could discourage house-building), fire minister Nick Hurd, and David Cameron.

Official Statistics on social housing show that since 2010 the number of government-funded houses for social rent has plummeted by 97%.

Gavin Barwell, until recently housing minister and author of a white paper that offered proposals to ease development while doing little to promote social housing, has – like the government he serves – failed to act on the recommendations in the report on the fire at Lakanal House in 2009. Like previous Conservative minsters he preferred light-touch regulation so that warnings have been ignored at national and local government level.

The result is a system that has failed to protect our citizens – cost-cutting and reckless decisions were made with little fear of anyone being held responsible.
Mike Temple
Sidmouth, Devon”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/25/grenfell-tower-tragedy-shows-social-housing-system-has-failed-uk-citizens

Grenfell Tower let down by local newspapers – leaving only tenants’ blog to report the problems

“Decline of advertising revenue and changing perceptions of ‘quality journalism’ have left no room for much needed local reporting

A day after the Grenfell Tower fire in West London, a Sky News camera crew is talking to writer, film-maker and local resident Ishmahil Blagrove as he delivers a polished exposition on the failings of the media as playing a part in the disaster.

“This is not just a story – this situation has been brewing for years … You the media, you are the mouthpiece of this government and you make it possible.” Later Blagrove describes the mainstream media as “a bunch of motherfuckers” to a small crowd surrounding him who break into polite applause. Channel 4’s Jon Snow faced an angry group outside Grenfell the same day, asking him where the press was when the fire safety concerns were first raised.

Among the many elements of failure which lead to the unacceptable and avoidable, the failure of accountability reporting on local communities is obvious to anyone who cares to scour the archives. The Grenfell Action Group blog carefully documented their repeated complaints to the council. Other reporting is scarce, and where it exists, hard to find.

Grenfell Action Group blogposts form the most reliable archive of concerns about the area’s social housing, and yet they were unable to make the council act on their behalf. Even in the aftermath of what the group describes as “social murder”, it continues to publish posts on other housing tenants and issues in the area. Inside Housing, the trade publication, has been full of good reporting on safety issues but it has a different constituency and no leverage over local officials.

The causes of the failure of local journalism are well known: commercialism, consolidation, the internet, poor management. The fixes for that, though, cannot be found in an environment which is commercially hostile to small scale accountability journalism, and for that we are all to blame.

The decline of in-depth reporting about London’s richest borough is a microcosm of what has happened to local journalism in the UK and beyond – the pattern is the same from Kensington to Kentucky.

A few minutes on Google will give you a snapshot of how local media has become a hollowed-out, commercial shell for an important civic function. In 2010 the Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle launched a Proper Papers Not Propaganda campaign against H&F News, the Hammersmith and Fulham freesheet published by the local council at a cost of £175,000 of taxpayers’ money. Councils using advances in printing technology to cheaply produce professional-looking papers was the second part of a pincer movement on the local press, the first being the loss of advertising to Google’s search advertising.

In 2014, Trinity Mirror closed seven local papers and consolidated three West London titles, including the Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle, and relaunched one Gazette to cover the territory of three defunct papers.

In truth the detailed coverage of local stories was already difficult for news organisations to maintain, and in some cases the idea of high-quality local reporting had always been a myth. But the evisceration of any sustainable professional journalism at the local level creates both an accountability vacuum and a distance between media and the communities it reports on.

As well as council-owned outlets, a plethora of glossy lifestyle and housing media mop up the advertising revenue not ingested by Facebook or Google. The local publication Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster Today – listed as the only free newspaper in the borough – has no local reporting at all.

The “news” site contains no information about its ownership or staff. However, in company filings its editor is listed as Kate Hawthorne, who is also the director of public relations company Hatricks.

The revolution in ground-level local media has never taken off in the way it was meant to. The local blogs run by tenants, activists and other citizens, find themselves isolated and crowded out in clogged social streams, short on attention, funding and traction. Often they rely on the tenacity and unpaid labour of their founders for survival.

As scale has become the sine qua non, choosing between the world and the local street has become the bargain for editors. The Guardian closed its own local city reporting experiment in 2011. The Daily Mail and General Trust sold its local newspapers to expand its global news and entertainment website. New players like Huffington Post and BuzzFeed are globalists not localists. The New York Times is putting more reporters into Europe than onto the local beat. The Washington Post was freed from a local remit and has soared since.

Senior editors are much more likely to be spending time in a departure lounge than a council chamber. Many have never held a reporting job that required them to sit in local courts or civic meetings.

Covering local housing meetings is an unglamorous beat for any journalist; hardly anyone reads your work, almost nobody cares what happens in the meetings, and the pay is extremely low. Yet it is hard to argue there are more civically important jobs for journalism than reporting the daily machinations of local power.

Local reporting serves another function which is seldom discussed. Local journalism should be a pipeline which takes young people from very different backgrounds into the profession of reporting; it ought to provide an access point for people to get to know and understand the importance of accountability coverage by participating in it.

The shallow wisdom of digital editors is often that when nobody reads your story, you are doing it wrong. But the stories worth covering that nobody reads are the fabric of the public record.

The immediate reach of a single story is only half the story. The record of what happens for instance at Kensington and Chelsea committee meetings is for the most part available in PDFs on the council’s website. There is no corresponding public record kept by independent reporters and without the Grenfell Action Group we would know almost nothing of the warning signs that were repeatedly pushed in front of the council.

The rise of vast advertising platforms has sucked money from the market, and the efficiencies have been good for business and bad for journalism. National and international media, who were numerous on the ground after the Grenfell fire, have conspired in creating an attention economy which leaves no room for the unread story.

Coverage of the “quality” of a media outlet often starts with a “how many….” metric about views and shares. There is decreasing correlation between high numbers and quality journalism; when it is set in a social environment, where gimmicks and outrage cause social “sharing”, the opposite is often true.

John Ness, who has been editor in chief of two US-based ventures to make hyperlocal journalism work on the web, Patch and DNAInfo, sees the difficulty of establishing and maintaining independent journalism at local level as feeding into issues of trust and transparency which blight all media.

I think people increasingly understand that our news ecosystem is broken, to the point where we can’t agree with our neighbours about what news events actually happened the day before. And I think people increasingly understand that the base of that ecosystem, local news, has to be fixed if we’re going to get back to a place where we share the same reality with our neighbours.,” he says.

There is decreasing correlation between high numbers and quality journalism
Ness thinks the route to sustainability resides primarily with people paying more for local media. In the US, communities with high-density populations and engaged citizens have had some success at creating not-for-profit local outlets, like the investigative outlet The Lens in New Orleans, and the veteran Voice of San Diego, or the much larger Texas Tribune in Austin. These remain the exceptions rather than the rule.

The BBC is increasingly the best hope of a route to building sustainable local reporting, but the costs of broadcasting are even less compatible with the scale issues of local stories, and the political penalties for rooting out corruption at council level mitigate the appetite for the mission.

As national and global news outlets in all their many forms continue to flood into the Grenfell story, they will I am sure, unearth and report on the root causes. But the stories which expose the causes of the fire, however they emerge, will not make up for the lack of the stories that might have stopped it in the first place.

The bitter irony of course is that a story read by a thousand people might have had more impact than one seen by 10 million. It is with deep regret and shame that we will never know if that could have been the case. Like Blagrove says, it is not just a story, it has been coming for a long time.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2017/jun/25/grenfell-reflects-the-accountability-vacuum-left-by-crumbling-local-press

Kensington and Chelsea Housing councillor had been complained about by estate residents prior to fire

The councillor referred to – Rock Fielding-Mellor, the Deputy leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing Property and Regeneration, has apparently fled his home

“We recently lodged a formal complaint with LeVerne Parker, the Chief Solicitor and Monitoring Officer of RBKC, in hope that it would lead to some scrutiny by the Standards Committee of the property holdings and business interests of Rock Feilding-Mellen, the Deputy leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing Property and Regeneration.

We subsequently received a formal response from the Monitoring Officer in which she dismissed our complaint and declined to refer the matters we raised to the Standards Committee. We then prepared a rebuttal of the arguments she used to justify her dismissal of our complaint which we sent back to her, asking that it be escalated for the attention of the Town Clerk. We strongly recommend that you read her response via the link here:

Click to access decision-letter-cllr-feilding-mellen.pdf

in tandem with our rebuttal below [read further on at this link for more information here]:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/rbkc-declines-to-investigate-rock-feilding-mellen/

Was “smug” Swire responsible for the Seaton/Sidmouth switch?

Owl says: we all know he is a pal of Jeremy Hunt.

Seaton County Councillor Martin Shaw (Independent East Devon Alliance) Facebook page:

“Was Hugo Swire behind the Seaton-Sidmouth switch? A smug Swire told BBC’s Sunday Politics this morning that East Devon had more community hospitals than western Devon and than the national average. He failed to mention that it has many more over-85s too. He backed the NEW Devon CCG’s plans to replace community hospital beds with care at home, and said we must ’embrace change’.

Swire knows that beds in Exmouth and Sidmouth, in his constituency, are safe from closure. So he is happy to write off Seaton (which he no longer represents after boundary changes a few years back) and Honiton.
Swire’s self-satisfied comments raise the question of whether he played any role in the CCG’s bizarre, unexplained, last-minute switch of 24 beds from Seaton to Sidmouth. Clearly had the CCG stuck with its original preferred option of closing beds in Sidmouth, they would have given Claire Wright a huge issue – which might well have seen her taking Swire’s seat in the general election.

Readers will recall that during the consultation, Swire was already saying that if beds had to go, they should stay in Sidmouth. Did Sir Hugo, or Tories acting on his behalf, lobby the CCG? How did the CCG respond?
Swire’s colleague Neil Parish MP told me and other Seaton councillors that the decision ‘smells’. Whose smell was it?

I appeared on the same edition of Sunday Politics as Swire, but was not in the studio to respond to him. Here I am being interviewed! (YOU WILL BE ABLE WATCH THE FULL PROGRAMME ON BBC iPLAYER SOON.)”

Tory MPs ordered not to take holidays abroad – poor old Swire

… in case the loss of a vote bringing down the government.

Oh dear, that’s Swire’s stranded!

(Source: Sunday Times – paywall)

Exmouth – the next Porthlevan, where posh tourist money doesn’t trickle down

” … As with many rural and coastal communities, Porthleven is struggling to adapt to the challenges posed by a booming tourist sector: money comes in from outside, pushing prices up, forcing the locals out, second homes proliferate and the traditional activities that define a place become little more than window-dressing. Meanwhile that tourist money doesn’t filter down to the local community. “That’s the downfall of Cornwall,” says Gary Eastwell, emerging from one of the other fishing boats.

“I was born here, but I can’t afford to live here. It would make our lives a lot better if they would buy our fish from us, but none of them do. The people who come here think they’re eating fish caught here, but they’re not. Why would you put road miles on a lobster?”

The tensions are not unique to Porthleven. Around the country fishing communities are facing the pressures of adapting to a new economy. In Worthing in West Sussex, which has one remaining fisher, a social enterprise has set up the Last Fisherman Standing project to celebrate and protect the heritage of the industry in the town. It has also started a project, Catchbox, to help fishers sell their fish locally. The Northumberland seafood centre in Amble is another project that aims to boost tourism and support the fishing industry. Similar initiatives have taken place from Fleetwood in Lancashire to Sidmouth in Devon, where commercial fishing has ceased.

“Heritage has been commodified,” says Chris Balch, professor of planning at Plymouth University. “We go to mining communities that don’t mine. We go for the nostalgia – a nostalgia for these places that haven’t really existed for a very long time. It’s the nature of the changing economic base of the rural economy. Global forces push these places to the edge even more.

“The truly rural place hardly exists any longer. It’s all connected to an urban base, and that’s the change these rural economies are confronting. The raison d’être and the demographics have changed. It’s very difficult to cope with. Every place is managing that change, but it becomes much more obvious in a small rural community.”

In many coastal communities, locals have been encouraged to take matters into their own hands, developing economic plans and deciding for themselves how they want a community to develop. Tim Acott of the Greenwich Maritime Centre points to the example of Hastings, where the Fishermen’s Protection Society has drawn attention to the work of fishers in the town and their cultural and economic contribution. “Hastings has the largest beach-landed fleet in Britain,” he says, “and the community has pushed above its weight in protecting fishing as part of its cultural heritage. There are places where the fisher communities are still thriving, but there are also places in the UK where you could call it a besieged industry.”

Last year the New Economics Foundation launched its Blue New Deal, aiming to identify and address the problems afflicting coastal communities. “We need a new approach to the development of coastal areas,” says the foundation’s Fernanda Balata. “One that puts local people in control. We need to think about places in the round and consider how all the different parts of a town’s coastal economy can work together. If nothing is done, the small-scale fishing industry will die out. We can see the impact of that in inequality and how these communities come to feel left behind, and the social and political problems that follow from that.”

Manda Brookman of the Cornwall-based pressure group Coast sees the same problems.

“We need to ask if tourism is there for the destination or if the destination is there for tourism,” she says. “Tourism should be irrigating the community, not extracting from it. Some of these places have ended up becoming a pastiche – it’s the prostitution of place. Good tourism should be making sure that there are social, environmental and economic benefits. If not, then you need to be asking if you should be doing tourism at all.”

Rick Stein’s spokesman has told the Guardian that his fish came from the area, and that customers received the same quality fish whether they were in Padstow, Porthleven or Barnes in London. He added that this model meant the business could be sure the fish it was serving came from sustainable sources.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/24/criris-in-britains-coastal-villages-as-fishing-communities-fight-for-survival

New York Times explains the Grenfell Tower fire

“… The facade, installed last year at Grenfell Tower, in panels known as cladding and sold as Reynobond PE, consisted of two sheets of aluminum that sandwich a combustible core of polyethylene. It was produced by the American manufacturing giant Alcoa, which was renamed Arconic after a reorganization last year.

Arconic has marketed the flammable facades in Britain for years, even as it has adjusted its pitch elsewhere. In other European countries, Arconic’s sales materials explicitly instructed that “as soon as the building is higher than the firefighters’ ladders, it has to be conceived with an incombustible material.” An Arconic website for British customers said only that such use “depends on local building codes.”

For years, members of Parliament had written letters requesting new restrictions on cladding, especially as the same flammable facades were blamed for fires in Britain, France, the United Arab Emirates, Australia and elsewhere. Yet British authorities resisted new rules. A top building regulator explained to a coroner in 2013 that requiring only noncombustible exteriors in residential towers “limits your choice of materials quite significantly.”

Fire safety experts said the blaze at Grenfell Tower was a catastrophe that could have been avoided, if warnings had been heeded.

… But by 1998, regulators in the United States — where deaths from fires are historically more common than in Britain or Western Europe — began requiring real-world simulations to test any materials to be used in buildings taller than a firefighter’s two-story ladder. “The U.S. codes say you have to test your assembly exactly the way you install it in a building,” said Robert Solomon, an engineer at the National Fire Protection Association, which is funded in part by insurance companies and drafts model codes followed in the United States and around the world.

No aluminum cladding made with pure polyethylene — the type used at Grenfell Tower — has ever passed the test, experts in the United States say. The aluminum sandwiching always failed in the heat of a fire, exposing the flammable filling. And the air gap between the cladding and the insulation could act as a chimney, intensifying the fire and sucking flames up the side of a building. Attempts to install nonflammable barriers at vertical and horizontal intervals were ineffective in practice.

As a result, American building codes have effectively banned flammable cladding in high-rises for nearly two decades. The codes also require many additional safeguards, especially in new buildings or major renovations: automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarms, loudspeakers to provide emergency instructions, pressurized stairways designed to keep smoke out and multiple stairways or fire escapes.

And partly because of the influence of American architects, many territories around the world follow the American example. But not Britain.

… “If the cladding cannot resist the spread of flame across the surface, then it will vertically envelop the building,” Mr. Evans warned, in testimony that now seems prophetic. “In other words, the fire will spread to the outside of the building, and it will go vertically.” Many other fire safety experts would repeat those concerns in the following years.

But manufacturers argued against new tests or rules. Using fire-resistant materials was more expensive, a cost that industry advocates opposed.

“Any changes to the facade to satisfy a single requirement such as fire performance will impinge on all other aspects of the wall’s performance as well as its cost,” Stephen Ledbetter, the director of the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology, an industry group, wrote in testimony to Parliament.

“Fire resistant walls,” he added, “are not economically viable for the prevention of fire spread from floor to floor of a building,” and “we run the risk of using a test method because it exists, not because it delivers real benefits to building owners or users.” (In an interview last week, Mr. Ledbetter said his group had updated its position earlier this year to warn against the type of cladding used at Grenfell Tower.)

Business-friendly governments in Britain — first under Labour and then under the Conservatives — campaigned to pare back regulations. A 2005 law known as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order ended a requirement for government inspectors to certify that buildings had met fire codes, and shifted instead to a system of self-policing. Governments adopted slogans calling for the elimination of at least one regulation for each new one that was imposed, and the authorities in charge of fire safety took this to heart.

“If you think more fire protection would be good for U.K. business, then you should be making the case to the business community, not the government,” Brian Martin, the top civil servant in charge of drafting building-safety guidelines, told an industry conference in 2011, quoting the fire minister then, Bob Neill. (“Should we be looking to regulate further? ‘No’ would be my answer,’” Mr. Neill added.)

Mr. Martin, a former surveyor for large-scale commercial projects like the Canary Wharf, told his audience to expect few new regulations because the prime minister at the time, David Cameron, wanted to greatly reduce the burden on industry, according to a report by the conference organizers.

Two years later, in 2013, a coroner questioned Mr. Martin about the application of building regulations in the case of another London fire, which killed six people and injured 15 others at a public housing complex called Lakanal House. Mr. Martin defended the existing regulations, including the lack of a requirement for meaningful fire resistance in the paneling on the outside of an apartment tower.

A questioner told him that the public might be “horrified” to learn that the rules permitted the use of paneling that could spread flames up the side of a building in as little as four-and-a-half minutes. “I can’t predict what the public would think,” Mr. Martin replied, “but that is the situation.”

Moving to a requirement that the exterior of a building be “noncombustible,” Mr. Martin said, “limits your choice of materials quite significantly.”

After the coroner’s report, a cross-party coalition of members of Parliament petitioned government ministers to reform the regulations, including adding automatic sprinklers and revisiting the standards for cladding. “Today’s buildings have a much higher content of readily available combustible material,” the group wrote in a letter sent in December 2015 that specifically cited the risk of chemicals in “cladding.”

“This fire hazard results in many fires because adequate recommendations to developers simply do not exist. There is little or no requirement to mitigate external fire spread,” added the letter, which was first reported last week by the BBC.

But in Britain, still no changes were made. “The construction industry appears to be stronger and more powerful than the safety lobby,” said Ronnie King, a former fire chief who advises the parliamentary fire safety group. “Their voice is louder.”

… As recently as March, a tenant blogger, writing on behalf of what he called the Grenfell Action Group, predicted a “serious and catastrophic incident,” adding, “The phrase ‘an accident waiting to happen’ springs readily to mind.”

… For many tenants, an object of scorn was Grenfell Tower’s quasi-governmental owner, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organization. It was created under legislation seeking to give public housing residents more say in running their buildings, and its board is made up of a mix of tenants, representatives of local government and independent directors. But Kensington and Chelsea is the largest tenant management organization in England, a sprawling anomaly supervising roughly 10,000 properties, more than 30 times the average for such entities. Tenants came to see it as just another landlord.

The organization had promised residents of Grenfell Tower that the renovation last year would improve both insulation and fire safety. Board minutes indicate that it worked closely with the London Fire Brigade throughout the process, and local firefighters attended a briefing afterward “where the contractor demonstrated the fire safety features.” During a board meeting last year, the organization even said it would “extend fire safety approach adopted at Grenfell Tower to all major works projects.”

… The cladding itself was produced by Arconic, an industry titan whose chief executive recently stepped down after an unusual public battle with an activist shareholder. Arconic sells a flammable polyethylene version of its Reynobond cladding and a more expensive, fire-resistant version.

In a brochure aimed at customers in other European countries, the company cautions that the polyethylene Reynobond should not be used in buildings taller than 10 meters, or about 33 feet, consistent with regulations in the United States and elsewhere. “Fire is a key issue when it comes to buildings,” the brochure explains. “Especially when it comes to facades and roofs, the fire can spread extremely rapidly.”

A diagram shows flames leaping up the side of a building. “As soon as the building is higher than the firefighters’ ladders, it has to be conceived with an incombustible material,” a caption says.

But the marketing materials on Arconic’s British website are opaque on the issue.

“Q: When do I need Fire Retardant (FR) versus Polyethylene (PR) Reynobond? The answer to this, in part, depends on local building codes. Please contact your Area Sales Manager for more information,” reads a question-and-answer section.

For more than a week after the fire, Arconic declined repeated requests for comment. Then, on Thursday, the company confirmed that its flammable polyethylene panels had been used on the building. “The loss of lives, injuries and destruction following the Grenfell Tower fire are devastating, and we would like to express our deepest sympathies,” the company said. Asked about its varying product guidelines, the company added, “While we publish general usage guidelines, regulations and codes vary by country and need to be determined by the local building code experts.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html

“Staffing crisis leaves NHS on brink of another Mid Staffs disaster, nurses warn”

“Nurses are warning Theresa May that dire staffing shortages have left the NHS on the brink of another Mid Staffs hospital scandal, putting hundreds of lives at risk.

Royal College of Nursing chief executive Janet Davies said the Government has failed to respond to clear and alarming signals that the tragedy she called “inevitable” is about to happen again.

In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Ms Davies pointed to a perfect storm of collapsing foreign arrivals in the profession due to Brexit, plummeting domestic applications, and chronic low pay and high stress pushing people out.

NHS leak reveals ‘shocking’ secret plans for cuts in London hospitals
She said the RCN’s national day of action this week, kicking off a summer of lobbying, is a “final warning” to ministers to take action or face its nurses striking for the first time ever.

The Independent also revealed on Saturday how the number of GPs seeking specialist help for substance abuse and mental health problems is “increasing day on day”, amid fears the NHS is coming apart at the seams.

In the wake of the Conservatives’ failure to win a Commons majority in the election, even Tory backbenchers have been calling for a new approach to a public sector strangled by cuts.

Ms Davies said the long warned-of crisis in nursing, exacerbated by the Government’s approach, has now become so acute that the NHS is in grave danger of suffering another catastrophe on the scale of Mid Staffs.

She went on: “They are risking it again. They are aware of the problem, but their solutions are not working.”

A Government failure to properly heed warnings is already in the spotlight following the Grenfell Tower fire, with ministers having neglected to implement a long called-for safety review that experts say could have helped prevent the blaze that has so far claimed 79 lives.

The RCN reports that there should be 340,000 nurses in the system to make sure patients are safe according to official standards, but one in nine posts – some 40,000 – are unfilled. In some areas of the country it is one in three.

The shortage is likely to worsen as the foreign staffing the NHS depends on has fallen off a cliff since the country’s referendum to quit the European Union.

Official data shows an enormous 95 per cent drop in EU nurses registering since the vote. In July last year 1,304 came – in April this year, just 46.

Ms Davies said: “All around the country we have been very dependent on recruiting people from Europe, but also from the wider world. The NHS has never been without international recruitment.”

She points to the uncertainty created by Brexit and the poor conditions for nurses in the UK contributing to the collapse in numbers.

“We do know that people aren’t applying, the figures just aren’t there. There has been a 95 per cent reduction,” she said.

“People are not applying to come to the UK, because when they did apply they were not coming just for a job, they were coming for a career.

“Nursing is not just a fill-in job.”

The other source of new talent, people coming through UK nursing courses, has also been hit as 2017 marks the first year undergraduates will have to pay tuition fees rising to £9,000.

Official figures are yet to confirm the exact number of would-be nurses starting in September, but data from UCAS points to a 23 per cent reduction on last year.

In new applicants above the age of 25, who bring vital life experience and more often work in the community, where ministers want more care to take place, it is a 26 per cent drop.

Ms Davies said: “My conversation with some universities show a significant drop in applications in some areas.

“I’ve heard from individual universities that in some places they have as few as three people applying. It is pretty dramatic.”

With a tightening on the number of new nurses ahead, it is vital to hold on to those already in a system that Ms Davies says is at breaking point.

Nurses have not seen any sort of pay rise for the best part of a decade, with wages first frozen and then capped at a below-inflation 1 per cent. This year the cap will mean nurses losing £3,000 in real terms, she says.

The RCN reports its members taking on second jobs to make ends meet, including a window-cleaning round and working shifts in a supermarket.

Those who continue are on understaffed shifts, tired, facing more work than they can handle, and with their mental health under pressure, Ms Davies explains.

The strain is showing elsewhere in the NHS too, with referrals to the GP Health Service surpassing expectations since its launch in late January, while medics in all fields are seeking help “in escalating numbers” according to Clare Gerada, former chair of the Royal College of GPs.

Dr Gerada told The Independent stress and burn-out faced by family doctors with increasingly heavy workloads means GPs developing severe depression and anxiety, with some turning to alcohol and substance misuse to cope with the pressure.

The BMA warned earlier this year that two in every five GPs are planning to quit the NHS amid a crisis of “perilously” low morale.

Ms Davies went on: “It’s not being able to do the things that they know they would want to do in their heart, that makes nurses go off their shift crying.

“Lifting a cap on pay and paying people a living pay rise, would make a huge difference.”

In criticism aimed directly at the Prime Minister, she said a “shockwave” had coursed through the profession when Ms May responded to a nurse worried about making ends meet, not with a thought-out answer, but with a campaign slogan, telling her there is “no magic money tree”.

She said: “It was the most insulting thing I have heard for a long time – the idea that the nurse doesn’t understand economics.

She added: “We understand the problem. The question that has to be asked is how much do we want to fund our health service?”

The day of action will see protests across the country on Tuesday aimed at raising awareness of the crisis, with the specific message to Ms May’s government that it is a “final warning”.

Ms Davies said: “This is nurses saying I’m going to leave this profession if nothing changes. This is a last chance. No matter what we’ve been saying, no matter what our organisation has been doing, it hasn’t made any difference.

“We are really going to try and get this cap lifted and try get them to see the effect this is having. If they don’t then that is when we have said we will go to a ballot.

“It’s the last thing that nurses want to do – go on strike. Our members have never been on strike, but they are stuck for what more they can do.”

She explained that a strike would not mean a mass walkout and that the RCN’s constitution does not allow the body to do anything that would harm patients.

It is more likely that action would target specific settings and could cause delays in non-emergency care. When junior doctors first went on strike they continued to provide cover in settings that provide life or death care, such as A&E, intensive care, maternity services, acute medicine and emergency surgery.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: “NHS nurses do a fantastic job in delivering world class patient care and their welfare is a top priority for this Government.

“That’s why we have 12,100 more on our wards since 2010 and 52,000 in training. The Prime Minister also said last week that we want to give EU nationals the same rights as British citizens going forward.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-crisis-cuts-royal-college-nursing-brexit-theresa-may-janet-davies-mid-staffs-strike-a7806656.html

Guardian letters on regulation, health and safety and austerity

“• The elephant in the room not mentioned in Steven Poole’s excellent article on deregulation was the de facto deregulation facilitated by the government’s savage cuts in local authority spending. Councils were inevitably going to respond to these cuts by reducing the resources available for statutory duties where cuts would be less likely to create an immediate outcry, such as regulation enforcement. It would be naive to think that a government obsessed with deregulation would not have been fully aware of this. This week’s news of tower block cladding investigations provides grim evidence of the effects of this strategy, if any were needed.
Jim Hooker
Chichester, West Sussex

• As long ago as 1840, when rapid expansion forced government at least to consider some degree of regulation of buildings, Thomas Cubitt gave evidence to the select committee on the health of towns. He warned that, without rules and regulations, builders would put up houses crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. “I am afraid a house would become like a slave ship, with the decks too close for the people to stand upright.”

Polly Toynbee was right to insist on the need for regulation (They call it useless red tape, but without it people die, 20 June). And they couldn’t, in 1840, even imagine 24 storeys high.
Enid Gauldie
Invergowrie, Perthshire

• Steven Poole provides an excellent account of the right’s professed hatred of regulation and red tape, but this ideological hostility only seems to apply to big business and the private sector.

By contrast, the last three decades have seen the public sector crushed under regulatory burdens and tied up in red tape, often in a bizarre attempt at making schools, hospitals, the police, social services and universities more efficient, business-like and accountable. Talk to most doctors, nurses, police officers, probation officers, social workers and university lecturers, and one of their biggest complaints will be the relentless increase in bureaucracy imposed by Conservative (and New Labour) governments since the 1980s.

Instead of focusing on their core activities and providing a good professional service, many frontline public sector workers are compelled to devote much of their time and energy to countless strategies, statutory frameworks, regulations, codes of practice, quality assurance procedures, government targets, action plans, form-filling, box-ticking, monitoring exercises, and preparations for the next external inspection.

A major reason for public sector workers quitting their profession, taking early retirement or suffering from stress-related illnesses is the sheer volume of bureaucracy that Conservatives (and New Labour) have imposed during the last 35 years. This bureaucracy, almost as much as underfunding, is destroying the public sector, impeding efficiency and innovation, and driving frontline staff to despair.
Pete Dorey
Bath, Somerset”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/22/health-and-safety-is-no-laughing-matter

Corbyn: is housing a right or a marketing opportunity?

” … Speaking to NME [New Musical Express] backstage at Glastonbury after his speech on the Pyramid Stage earlier this afternoon (June 23), the Labour leader said: “I think we have to recognise that what happened at Grenfell Tower is a game changer in our society. It’s a game changer about safety. it’s a game change about attitudes to housing – do we treat housing solely as a marketing opportunity or do we treat it as something that’s a human right and a necessity?

He continued: “I don’t think the fifth richest country in the world should see predominantly poor people burning to death in a towering inferno any more than it should tolerate people sleeping on the streets around stations. We can and should do a lot better. I hope this is a massive wake up call for the entire community and I’m calling on people to campaign like never before for housing justice. …”

http://www.nme.com/festivals/jeremy-corbyn-says-hes-calling-people-campaign-like-never-housing-justice-following-grenfell-tower-tragedy-2093330

A million households could become homeless as they can’t afford rents

“More than a million households living in private rented accommodation are at risk of becoming homeless by 2020 because of rising rents, benefit freezes and a lack of social housing, according to a devastating new report into the UK’s escalating housing crisis.

The study by the homelessness charity Shelter shows that rising numbers of families on low incomes are not only unable to afford to buy their own home but are also struggling to pay even the lowest available rents in the private sector, leading to ever higher levels of eviction and homelessness.

The findings will place greater pressure on the government over housing policy following the Grenfell Tower fire disaster in west London, which exposed the neglect and disregard for people living in council-owned properties in one of the wealthiest areas of the capital.

The Shelter report highlights how a crisis of affordability and provision is gripping millions with no option but to look for homes in the private rented sector due to a shortage of social housing.

Shelter says that in 83% of areas of England, people in the private rented sector now face a substantial monthly shortfall between the housing benefit they receive and the cheapest rents, and that this will rise as austerity bites and the lack of properties tilts the balance more in favour of landlords.

Across the UK the charity has calculated that, if the housing benefit freeze remains in place as planned until 2020, more than a million households, including 375,000 with at least one person in work, could be forced out of their homes. It estimates that 211,000 households in which no one works because of disability could be forced to go.

Graeme Brown, the interim chief executive at Shelter, said: “The current freeze on housing benefit is pushing hundreds of thousands of private renters dangerously close to breaking point at a time when homelessness is rising.”

A total of 14,420 households were accepted by local authorities as homeless between October and December 2016, up by more than half since 2009 – with 78% of the increase since 2011 being the result of people losing their previous private tenancy. Local authorities are under a legal obligation to find emergency accommodation, such as in bed and breakfasts. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/24/social-housing-poverty-homeless-shelter-rent?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Government is NOT making u-turns on safety but to desperately buy votes for the next election

Controversial government proposals to relax fire safety standards for new school buildings as a cost-cutting measure are to be dropped by ministers in a major policy U-turn following the Grenfell Tower fire. ...”

NO it isn’t about Grenfell Tower, or safety – it’s about saying and doing ANYTHING that might stop a Labour victory at the next election.

Should they regain a majority, they will U-turn on their U-turn just as fast as they can.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/government-u-turn-over-fire-safety-controls-for-new-schools

Claire Wright’s report on the disgraceful DCC NHS meeting and its disgraceful chairing by Sarah Randall-Johnson

“It is just as well I have left it almost a week to write this blog because I was very angry on Monday evening.

Before the meeting there was a public demonstration of angry residents mainly from Seaton and Honiton, which was attended by film crews from the BBC and ITV. The BBC and a reporter from the Western Morning News stayed for the whole meeting.

The committee had also received dozens if not, hundreds of emails from residents who were asking us to refer the decision to close 71 community hospital beds in Eastern Devon, to the Secretary of State for Health.

Devon County Council’s newly formed Health and Adult Care Scrutiny met for the first time last Monday (19 June) to review this decision.

Almost all the committee members are either new to the committee or new Devon County councillors.

At the last health scrutiny meeting in March before the elections, I proposed that there were 14 grounds that the committee needed assurances on or it would refer the decision to the Secretary of State for Health on the basis that it wasn’t in the interests of the health service in the area and that the consultation was flawed.

These are legal reasons for referral.

The new chair of the committee is East Devon Conservative member, Sara Randall Johnson, following the retirement of long-serving Labour councillor, Richard Westlake.

During the time between the March health scrutiny meeting and the meeting on 19 June, Richard Westlake had taken the time to instruct the scrutiny officer to draft two letters to the CCG one requesting further information and the second, dated 24 April, expressing concern about the availability of end of life care under the new model of care.

Cllr Westlake alluded to the Francis Report, which was published following deaths at Mid Staffordshire Hospital and which criticised the health scrutiny committee there for lack of challenge.

Points were also made relating to the committee having been told several times previously that the new model of care to be provided in people’s homes instead of in a community hospital, was actually cost neutral, despite claims to the contrary.

The cost of people being cared for at home surely will increase as many people have co-morbidities (multiple conditions), the former chair had pointed out.

His letter also made references to the lack of information relating to the future of bedless community hospitals, given the ownership of NHS Property Services, the exclusion of Honiton and Okehampton Hospitals from the consultation process and the small number of staff who responded to the consultation (less than 2 per cent).
*****************************************

The team for the NHS present at the meeting included Rob Sainsbury, director of operations for NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Adel Jones, integration director with the RD&E, Sonja Manton, director of strategy with NEW Devon CCG and Em Wilkinson-Brice, deputy chief executive of the RD&E.

I started my questions, but before I could ask anything the new chair interjected to tell me to ask all my questions at once to save time.

I was a bit surprised at this as it is poor scrutiny technique. Invariably any reply will miss out much information. I said I would ask them in sequence…

Question 1
This was one I asked in March which at the time could not be answered, despite a decision on the bed closures already having been made. What had been the number of objections compared with the number of responses of support for the bed losses?

Answer: We will get back to you (they said that last time).

Question 2
Finance: How much money would be saved given that mixed messages had been received. Even the information from the CCG in the scrutiny agenda papers was contradictory and referred to different levels of savings, which ranged from £2m to £7m. Given that a decision had already been made wasn’t this a bit vague? See pages 11 and 22 of the agenda papers – link at the bottom of this blog post.

Answer: There is a range of savings and this depends on staff and resources. A fixed amount cannot be set. Savings are based on workforce only.

Question 3
Was it true (as I had been informed by Tim Burke the CCG chair) that the numbers of staff had to double? Are the staff in place?

Answer: Yes the staff do need to double, there are 200 staff that are being consulted with. We don’t yet have the workforce in place because not possible to “double run” (services).

Question 4
What happens to community hospitals that lose their beds? Will they be sold off by NHS Property Services which has a remit for this?

There was an interjection by the chair at this point who asked the CCG to clarify whether this was true (NHS PS having a remit for selling off hospital buildings).

Sonja Manton replied selling off NHS property was a trend….

Answer: This was a piece of work not yet carried out. It will be carried out next. (I am afraid it is not credible that the CCG does not have a list of which hospitals they intend to declare surplus to requirements for selling off by NHS PS, even if there has been no formal decision made).

Question 5
An audit on people fit to leave Eastern Devon hospitals in March shows a marked increase compared with the 2015 acuity audit carried out by Public Health. The public health audit 2015 revealed that around 34 per cent of patients are ready for discharge in community hospitals across Devon and the March 2017 audit stated that 64 patients were ready for discharge. How is this doubling in two years, in the number of patients well enough for discharge possible?

And who carried out the survey?

Answer: Clinicians (mainly RD&E) carried out the survey and the results had changed partly because of a new at home palliative care service and hospital at home. (I am sceptical about this because my understanding is that these services are available only in limited places and were in existence previously anyway).

Other councillors asked questions and made their own points.

After a few councillors had spoken chair, Sara Randall Johnson, said she thought there should be a task group set up to obtain evidence on what the committee was being told.

I disliked this pre-empting of the end of the debate by the chair, especially when she knew I wanted to add to my earlier points.

When I was called to speak I made a proposal to refer the decision to the Secretary of State for Health on the basis that this was the committee’s prerogative at this meeting based on 14 grounds. These questions remained unanswered I said. And out of all the bed closure decisions that I had scrutinised over four years, this was the decision that caused me more anxiety than any other.

LibDem and former fellow committee member, Brian Greenslade, seconded my proposal.

But the chair refused to take a vote.

She said the committee was new and needed to be clear about evidence before any such action was taken. She suggested leaving it to the September meeting.

This was unbelievable! A refusal to take a vote on a seconded proposal is very unusual in council committees.

I pushed the chair to take a vote. The CCG had already admitted they would be closing the beds by then. The suggestion appeared to be to me, an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass.

She refused.

There was significant heckling from the public who were understandably very angry at not being listened to.

A range of other councillors (mainly Conservative) then spoke to back her up claiming that there was not enough evidence to refer and what was the point anyway because the Secretary of State would just “throw it out.”

There were other suggestions that we simply work with the CCG to get a better deal. This was immediately dismissed by the CCG as they had already made the decision to close the beds some months ago.

Responding to this, I explained the process and how we had done this before as a previous committee and it was a very worthwhile exercise for guidance and feedback from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which looks at the process in fine detail before commenting and/or advising.

Without a referral we simply lie down and acquiesce to the worst decision I have ever witnessed as a health scrutiny committee member. And we let down every single resident who is opposed to the plans.

I also reminded the committee that we were there to provide a legal check (the only legal check) on health services in Devon and it was our duty to represent local people’s views. The evidence that a large number of local people were deeply unhappy with the decision, was overwhelming.

The scepticism among new members was extremely disappointing because the Referral is the ultimate in our powers and of course we had the grounds to do it. It had been already established from the previous meeting that we had the grounds to do it! And it had the full support of the previous chair.

We were told by the new chair that that this was the position of the old committee and the new committee could choose to take an entirely different view if it so wished.

This was also extremely disappointing and members of the public were clearly furious.

I then suggested we have an additional health scrutiny meeting in July to re-examine this issue. I suggested it be held on the day of the full council meeting but this was dismissed by the chair who said there wasn’t time. I asked for a different date but this was also glossed over….

… until Conservative leader of EDDC, Paul Diviani, also proposed a standalone meeting sometime soon about the issue.

Was there a seconder for this proposal, the chair wanted to know?!

I reminded the chair that I had already proposed this. It fell on deaf ears.

The debate continued and appeared to go around and around, with interspersed heckling from angry members of the public.

Eventually, I was asked if I would accept an amendment to my proposal of a standalone meeting of the committee in July. I agreed.

The committee voted in favour.

The meeting has now been booked for Tuesday 25 July at 2.15pm, at County Hall.

Here’s the webcast – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/288543

Here are the agenda papers – http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/documents/g2581/Public%20reports%20pack%2019th-Jun-2017%2014.15%20Health%20and%20Adult%20Care%20Scrutiny%20Committee.pdf?T=10

The 14 grounds for referral to the Secretary of State for Health can be found on page 34.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************
Below is an extract from a letter to the chair after Monday’s meeting from one of the angry members of the public who was present

“Dr Sonja Manton offered for you to attend a meeting to see how the CCG works. Why didn’t one of you ask them to simply save everyone’s time and respond fully and completely to the requests for information made in March? Aside from which how can you both scrutinise and also collaborate – surely you have to be independent?

Meanwhile – the CCG are negotiating with nursing staff and nursing staff are leaving the hospital in Honiton. The RD &E is reducing or even not making admissions. By the time you get to your extraordinary meeting it will too late to do anything useful at all.

I expect members of the committee to have the will to ensure that residents in the county they represent have easy access to adequate and safe healthcare.

Why is it that the only member of the committee who consistently and unfailingly has the energy and the will to carry out their role efficiently and as effectively as the constraints of being on a committee permit is Claire Wright? Why do councillors agree to be on the committee if they’re just going to let the CCG do what they like?

Please take the time to reflect on yesterdays meeting and consider whether you and/or some of your colleagues were found wanting and then take steps to ensure that the committee becomes an effective scrutiny committee for the benefit of all the people who depend on it to safeguard them. The public may have the voice but it is the committee that has the power. Please use that power for the benefit of us all.”

Pic (on blog) : I was sent this pic of the demo before the meeting, by Honiton campaigner Gill Pritchett. The quote is by the founder of the NHS and says it all.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/hospital_bed_closures_secretary_of_state_scrutiny_referral_pushed_back_unti

The latest “under the radar” NHS sell-off plans

“All health and social care organisations that drew up plans to overhaul care in England will eventually become accountable care systems, according to new plans released by NHS England.

[Here is a post on these devious plans]:
https://calderdaleandkirklees999callforthenhs.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/wake-up-to-the-accountable-care-organisation-threat/

Regional organisations that created sustainability and transformation plans (STPs) will ‘evolve’ into accountable care systems (ACSs), with some acquiring the status as early as April this year.

NHS England’s Five Year Forward View delivery plan has said that hospital trusts, CCGs and local authorities in the new ACSs will ‘take on clear collective responsibility for resources and population health’.

However, the report notes that CCGs alone will be responsible for improving emergency admission rates, which will be measured and managed on an STP or ACS level from April.

To do this, NHS England has committed to working with ‘upper quartile higher referring GP practices and CCGs’ to standardise the ‘clinical appropriateness’ of hospital referrals, using CCG data and ‘a new tool from NHS Digital’.

Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, announced at a Parliamentary Accounts Committee meeting last month that between six and ten STP areas would be launching as so-called accountable care organisations (ACOs).

However, the delivery plan says that ACOs are the next step after becoming an ACS, with some becoming an accountable care organisation ‘in time’.

In return for becoming an ACS, NHS England has promised the organisations ‘more control and freedom’ over their regional health system including receiving devolved national GP Forward View, mental health and cancer funding from 2018.

The healthcare systems will be set up in stages with the first to be implemented from April this year.

NHS England noted nine STP areas that are ‘likely candidates’ to become the first ACSs, including:

Frimley Health
Greater Manchester
South Yorkshire & Bassetlaw
Northumberland
Nottinghamshire, with an early focus on Greater Nottingham and the southern part of the STP
Blackpool & Fylde Coast, with the potential to spread to other parts of the Lancashire and South Cumbria STP at a later stage.
Dorset
Luton, with Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire
West Berkshire
The delivery plan added that areas applying for ACS status should have ‘successful vanguards, ‘devolution’ areas, and STPs that have been working towards the ACS goal’.

Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said NHS England’s new plans recognisethat the Health and Social Care Act 2012 ‘prevents the creation of a formal ‘mid level STP tier’ with statutory powers’.

He said: ‘The plan also recognises the importance of existing governance and accountability structures focused on trusts, but also the opportunity for shared decision making at the STP level.

‘Finally, it allows different STPs to move at different speeds: enabling the fastest to progress without delay but not forcing others to adopt a single uniform approach they neither want nor are ready for.’”

http://healthcareleadernews.com/article/all-stps-become-accountable-care-systems-under-latest-nhs-plans