Is this why there is a dangerous rush to close community hospital beds?

Nothing to do with care at home”, everything to do with austerity cuts. AND much more opportunity for private companies to make big profits from home care instead of NHS costs in hospitals.

“Councils have been told to reduce hospital bed-blocking by up to 70% by next month or face funding cuts.

The warning came in a letter, seen by The Sunday Times, sent to council and NHS chief executives by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Department of Health last month.

The letter sets out the “expectations” it has for local authorities to reduce delays in discharging people from hospital, with some councils facing demands to cut bed-blocking by up to 70%.

Councils that do not do enough to help NHS patients go home could have their share of a £2bn social care fund withheld.

Of the 152 councils with social care responsibility, 42 are required to reduce bed-blocking by 60% or more, based on their performance in February. Reading borough council has been given the highest target of a 70% reduction.

More than two-thirds are expected to reduce bed-blocking attributable to social care by 50% or more.

The letter accompanying the targets said progress would be assessed in November and 2018-19 allocations of the £2bn fund could be reviewed.

This could see poorly performing councils lose out on anticipated funding.

Last night, Izzi Seccombe, a Tory council leader who speaks on community wellbeing for the Local Government Association, said setting “unrealistic and unachievable targets” for councils to cut bed-blocking was “counterproductive.”

“The threat of reviewing councils’ funding allocations for social care . . . could leave many councils facing the absurd situation of failing to meet an unattainable target, losing their funding and, on top of this, potentially being fined by hospitals.”

Last month The Sunday Times revealed that the NHS had fined at least 22 councils for causing delays in discharging patients and threatened 11 others with charges.

A DCLG spokesman said: “No one should stay in hospital longer than necessary. It puts unneeded pressure on our hospitals and wastes taxpayers’ money.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

“Managers on more than £400,000 a year at failing NHS authorities”

“Temporary NHS managers brought in by failing health services are being paid record rates of up to £400,000 a year.

Ministers have repeatedly ordered clampdowns on “excessive and indefensible” management pay and promised extra scrutiny of deals which pay more than the £142,500 salary of the Prime Minister.

But a Telegraph investigation of 32 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) failing so badly that they have been taken over by NHS England shows that in fact rates have reached a record high.

Nurse leaders last night said executive pay was “spiralling out of control” amid warnings that “sky-high” remuneration packages were not being matched by improvements to frontline services. Health services insisted they were forced to pay “premium” rates to attract good managers quickly.

The figures, from NHS annual reports for 2016/17, disclose 21 managers at the struggling organisations on rates equal to at least £200,000 a year – including five on more than £300,000.

… “At North, East and West Devon Martin Shield cost over £90,000 for three months – an annual rate of £375,000 – as “turnaround director.” …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/19/managers-400000-year-failing-nhs-authorities/

Does our councils promote social value when funding public services via charities?

This is i portant be ause, more and more, councils are sub-contracting their responsibilities for health and social care to charities.

Small charities that deliver public services have a problem.

The government grants that once helped to fund this work are drying up fast – their total value halved in the decade between 2004 and 2014, according to the NCVO, and has continued to drop ever since. This leaves organisations dependent on income from local council contracts, where the complex tendering process is stacked against smaller providers. At risk of being squeezed out completely, they face what the Lloyds Bank Foundation earlier this year called a “broken commissioning landscape”.

The government knows this is a problem. The House of Lords select committee on charities expressed concerns back in 2016, recommending that the government takes steps to promote commissioning based on impact and social value rather than simply on the lowest cost.

The Social Value Act, introduced in 2012, is one of very few ways in which central government can influence who is commissioned to deliver local services. It requires councils to think about the social, economic and environmental benefits of their decisions when they commission contracts above a certain value (around £170,000).

This means officials are encouraged to do more than simply favour the lowest bidders; they are invited to consider what else a provider could contribute to the area. One organisation might be committed to employing local people, for example. Another might offer to work with small community groups, or bring together existing networks of GPs, schools and others to coordinate services more effectively. The aim is to level the playing field, and enable non-profit providers – such as charities, social enterprises and community businesses – to compete with big private companies.

The government promised a review of the act back in February, something tantamount to an acknowledgement that it is not having the desired impact. Those plans have since been derailed by the snap election and the review is now promised “in due course”.

With the review still pending, we at Power to Change spoke to (pdf) community businesses across England, to find out what changes could be made to improve the situation.

The organisations we spoke to were positive about the aims of the act, and confessed that the commissioning landscape would be “much bleaker” without it. Some councils even welcomed the fact that the act gave them, as they saw it, “permission to explicitly consider social value”.

But many community businesses dismissed the act as “tokenistic”, complaining that it made little practical difference to how councils commissioned or from whom. We found limited evidence that the act actually affected their decisions about whether to tender for contracts: organisations who wanted to work with their council said they would have gone ahead regardless.

If the government wants to improve the impact of the act, our research has some simple recommendations.

Lower the financial threshold

Fairer UK charity contracts will demand long-term government support
The act only applies to local authority contracts worth more than £170,000. Very few community businesses operate at that kind of scale, particularly those committed to working only in their local area. A lower threshold would bring more small organisations into play, either as providers or, more likely, as partners.

Apply it to goods and works, not just services

The principles behind the act are very popular with government, councils and community business alike, so extending it to contracts for goods and works would be another way to introduce social value into commissioning. In his report into the act in 2015, for example, Lord Young celebrated parliament’s decision to commission bottled water for two years from a social enterprise whose profits were shared with the charity Water Aid. There is no reason this sort of innovation shouldn’t be more widespread.

Offer more support for potential providers

Providing more support and guidance, especially some highlighting successful practice, could boost take-up of the act. For commissioners, this could mean giving examples of where they have made savings or improved outcomes through commissioning with social value in mind. For small voluntary or community-led organisations, this could be examples of similar organisations that successfully engaged with the process.

Access to data on the progress and effects of the act is also limited. We recommend the introduction of an open-source, central dataset on the use of the act across local authorities in England, including monitoring data on social value outcomes.

Promote the act more

Our research found an alarming number of social enterprises and community businesses either weren’t sure how the act worked or hadn’t heard of it. The government should give the act greater publicity, targeting community groups who might want to take up the opportunity it offers. For the same reason, the guidance surrounding the act needs to be much clearer and more accessible.

Explain how social value is measured

It can be fiendishly difficult to measure social value, but it can be done – and local groups told us that councils could do more to explain how they will be assessed. This could start with commissioners consulting interested parties locally on what sort of measurements they will be using and how they will be collected, not least so that local groups can decide whether or not to apply for a contract in the first place.

Encourage councils to take risks

New charities minister, but government isn’t interested | Asheem Singh
Local authorities like to praise the not-for-profit sector for bringing more innovation and greater flexibility to social problems. But this does not always extend to commissioning decisions, which can favour large, well-known private firms over smaller groups. This may be understandable, but councils will need to overcome this risk-aversion in the future.

Make the act part of wider social change

The act requires councils only to consider social value in commissioning. But not every local authority limits itself to this: Oxfordshire county council and Somerset district council were celebrated last year by Social Enterprise UK for incorporating the act into a wider agenda for social change. This meant using the act to focus on a whole strategy to strengthen the local area, something commissioners all over the country could learn from.

Russell Hargrave works for Power to Change”

https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2017/aug/15/seven-ways-improve-social-value-act

“Neil Parish MP snubs Seaton Mayor’s request for urgent meeting with Health Secretary”

And Parish sends a circular letter as his reply – one exactly like others he sent to people also asking him to save their hospitals:

“Councillor Jack Rowland, Mayor of Seaton, has posted on Facebook:

As many of you know I wanted to arrange a face to face meeting with Neil Parish and Jeremy Hunt regarding the CCG decision to close the hospital beds at Seaton Hospital.

I’ve now received a reply from Neil Parish and the email I sent to him and the reply is reproduced below.

Dear Jack,

Thank you for your email on beds at Honiton and Seaton.

I am deeply saddened by the decisions to close beds at Honiton and Seaton Hospitals. I wanted beds to be retained at Seaton and Honiton, as part of a wider upgrade to health services in Devon. This closure is not the outcome I wanted. I would like to pay tribute to all the staff who have worked so hard to maintain fantastic inpatient beds at the hospitals over the past years.

We now have to make the best of the current situation. The CCG have stated they believe there is sufficient at-home care to replace the current beds. Hospital staff will now be redeployed into community care. Every patient who previously required care in the hospitals must now have the same level of care delivered to them at home or in a residential care home. This promise must be kept and I will be monitoring the situation carefully.

Regarding the future of Honiton and Seaton Hospitals, I want the buildings to continue to host vital health and social care services. Particularly, I want the sites to be used as health and social care hubs, with a positive future for each of the locations. I believe the hospitals still have an important role to play in community healthcare services. Any suggestions you could provide in this area, which would help maintain viable services at Seaton, would be appreciated.

I know this might be a disappointing response, but I hope we can continue to maintain excellent care in our community.

Thank you again for your email.

Yours sincerely,

Neil

Neil Parish MP
Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Honiton
House of Commons | London | SW1A 0AA
Telephone: 020 7219 7172 | Email: neil.parish.mp@parliament.uk
http://www.neilparish.co.uk

In response to this email:

From: cllr.jack.rowland@btinternet.com [mailto:cllr.jack.rowland@btinternet.com]
Sent: 16 August 2017 12:26
To: PARISH, Neil
Cc: townclerk@seaton.gov.uk; Martin Shaw ; Marcus Hartnell
Subject: Seaton Hospital – bed closures

Dear Mr Parish,

I’m writing to you in my capacity as the Chair of Seaton Town Council.

As you are no doubt aware the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee of Devon County Council voted by 7 votes to 6 on 25 July not to refer the CCG decision to the Health Secretary for a review. An investigation has been called for regarding how the Scrutiny Committee Chair managed that meeting.

In the meantime the RDE Trust are accelerating the bed closure timetable from the original timetable and the beds in Seaton Hospital are now being phased out starting on 21 August and those in Honiton the following week.

This is despite no adequate answers being given to date regarding the concerns about the “Your Future Care” changes now being implemented. At the East Devon District Council Annual meeting all the Councillors present voted in favour of requiring more information on this subject and the EDDC Scrutiny Committee met in June to question representatives of the CCG and were not satisfied with the responses and maintained their opposition to Community Hospital bed closures.

At the Seaton Town Council meeting on 7 August I tabled a motion to demonstrate concern at the decision reached by the DCC Scrutiny Committee and to seek an urgent meeting with yourself and Jeremy Hunt to be attended by myself, Marcus Hartnell (Town and EDDC District Councillor) and Martin Shaw (Town and DCC Councillor). All the Town Councillors present voted in favour of my motion.

In view of your stated opposition to the bed closures in Seaton and Honiton I hope you can facilitate the meeting I am requesting in view of the overwhelming opposition from the elected Councillors in East Devon.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future regarding potential dates, times and venue – we would be willing to travel to London if necessary.

Regards
Jack Rowland
Seaton Town Council Chair / Mayor”

https://seatonmatters.org/2017/08/19/neil-parish-mp-snubs-seaton-mayors-request-for-urgent-meeting-with-health-secretary/amp/

Tourism, new roads and more second homes is not the answer for Cornwall

” … Cornwall is a major tourist area, but its economy is one of the weakest in Europe. EU investments, together with “matched funding”, have injected around £1.5bn into the region, but this has had little impact on raising GDP.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks has been the perception by successive governments that the Cornish economy is synonymous with tourism, with its focus on unskilled, low-paid and part-item employment.

Cornwall is being directed to build 52,500 houses before 2020. A large proportion of these will be bought as holiday homes or by people retiring to Cornwall. This large-scale “immigration” has vastly distorted the housing market. People employed in tourism cannot afford these houses. Perhaps Cornwall’s perversity in delivering a very large pro-Brexit vote was because there are so many middle-class retired incomers who are putting stress on the social and health services .

Tourism is supposed to generate billions of pounds, but very little of this “sticks” in Cornwall because much of it goes to the major supermarkets, which employ unskilled people on low pay.

Government (and the Cornish will not forget the Brexiters’ claims that EU funding would be replaced by central government) must encourage high-value opportunities, such as those within the digital industries that are beginning to grow in Cornwall. And perhaps government should improve the social and health services, digital connectivity and rail and air infrastructure, rather than pumping more money into roads that primarily serve tourists.

Dr Ben Dobson
Crantock
Newquay”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/13/letters-tourist-areas-need-investment-in-jobs-not-just-better-roads

“Daily Mash” nails the Stephen Hawkings/Jeremy Hunt NHS row

“PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking has discovered the densest thing in the known universe.

The world’s most famous theoretical physicist said the super-dense black hole was located in the centre of London and looks like a six foot tall weasel.

Unveiling his discovery, Hawking said: “It sucks in facts and then crushes them instantaneously to the point where they may as well never have existed.

“I still don’t how it could possibly have got there. No-one does. There’s no reason for it to exist in its current position.

“It’s as if the universe is just being spiteful.”

He added: “It’s also the first black hole that appears to be wholly owned by private health care providers.“

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/hawking-discovers-new-super-dense-black-hole-20170819134289

The spat is here:
http://evolvepolitics.com/jeremy-hunt-literally-just-said-stephen-hawking-wrong-scientific-basis-nhs-reform/

Foul dealings in East Budleigh goes national!

Village footballers unable to play for level of fouling

Police have been called in over a dispute between the council and dog-walkers in an east Devon village.

The dispute started after East Budleigh parish council decided to fence off a football pitch on the recreation ground because games were being halted by the presence of dog mess.

Councillors have been subject to such abuse that they are no longer able to drink in the village pub, and the council refuses to engage with the dogwalkers collectively as they consider them a “hate group”.

The council said: “East Budleigh has been particularly bad for dog mess and . . . last season several football games had to be stopped to clear up the dog mess. The idea is to make it a safe area and free from dog mess for everyone — not just the football club.

However, Ray Marrs, from the Friends of East Budleigh Recreation Ground, said: “Lots of people use the field to walk their dogs on and none of us has ever noticed a problem with dog poo on the pitch. How was it possible for councillors to have reached a decision to fence off our recreation ground . . . based upon somebody’s notion of dog fouling without any consultation or knowledge of the village?”

He added that he knew of the abuse and did not condone it. The police are investigating allegations of abusive behaviour and harassment.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/east-budleigh-footballers-unable-to-play-for-level-of-dog-fouling-xgwljqfr8

Second home owners – very wealthy

For graphs, see original article

“Homes sweet homes – the rise of multiple property ownership in Britain
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org

When is a house not a home?

Increasingly often, it turns out. Be it a holiday cottage for weekend getaways, a pied-à-terre in the city, a flat rented out for a bit of extra income, or an empty shell of bricks and mortar working harder for your savings than an ISA possibly could – multiple property ownership is rising. An important and symbolic feature of the shifting patterns of wealth accumulation in 21st Century Britain, here we explore how multiple property ownership is changing, who owns the second homes, and what the policy implications of these trends are.

The rise of the second home owners

The 21st Century rise in multiple property ownership is set against a backdrop of the overall decline in home ownership over the past 15 years.

While the share of British adults in families with any property wealth fell 8 per cent in between 2000-02 and 2012-14, the share with multiple property wealth increased by nearly one-third (30 per cent). In 2012-14 four-in-ten adults had no wealth in property at all, but one-in-ten had wealth in multiple properties (5.2 million adults, up 1.6 million since the turn of the century). These twin trends – fewer people with any properties and more with many – underpin the growing concentration of housing assets that is fuelling the recent increase in overall wealth inequality.

Disregarding mortgage debt (because of difficulties in identifying which properties mortgages are secured against), the assets held in second or additional properties had a gross value of £760 billion in 2012-14 (adjusted to 2017 prices) – that’s 15% of the £5.2 trillion held in gross property wealth overall. This equates to an average of £150,000 per adult with multiple sources of property wealth, a 20 per cent increase since 2000-02. With average net total wealth just over £200,000 in 2012-14, and typical (median) wealth just £84,000, owning multiple properties clearly represents a huge wealth boost.

Not only can multiple property ownership boost wealth – which is important for living standards over lifetimes and particularly in retirement – it also has the potential to boost incomes in the here-and-now, because these properties can be rented out. Consistent with recent growth in the private rented sector (which is provided by a mix of commercial institutions and private landlords), the proportion of adults in the UK receiving income from other property as landlords doubled between 1998-99–2000-01 and 2013-14–2015-16 – from 1.7 per cent to 3.4 per cent. Previous research suggests that the typical annual rental income among this group was around £6,000 in 2008-10 – more than a quarter of typical salaries at the time – underscoring the difference such a source of income can make to living standards.

Who owns multiple properties?

So multiple property ownership remains a minority sport, but one growing in popularity and with the potential to significantly boost wealth and income. It’s therefore right to ask who does it. Three key features stand out:

1. They are mainly baby boomers and members of generation X
Half (52%) of all the assets held in additional properties is held by the baby boomers, born 1946-65, and a further quarter (25 per cent) by generation X, born 1966-80. But of course we might expect this – wealth varies hugely over the life-cycle and peaks around retirement age. And as the name suggests, the thing about the boomers is that there are lots of them.

The chart below overcomes these challenges by showing average gross additional property wealth across all adults in successive birth cohorts and at different ages. What’s striking is the doubling of additional property assets for those born in the 1940s compared to the cohorts before them when they were the same age – it seems the oldest in society today never really got into the second homes game in a big way. All generation X and baby boomer cohorts then improve on their predecessors at the same age. However, the older millennials – those born in the 1980s – are the first cohort on record to under-shoot predecessors on additional property asset – they have less than half the amount that those born in the 1970s had at age 26.

The inescapable conclusion is that those in prime age and early retirement today have so far been the big winners from the rise in second home-owning.

2. They are overwhelmingly rich and wealthy

Owning additional property is sometimes depicted as a common way for typical workers to shore up savings or for ordinary folk to boost their pension with rental income. But situating multiple property owners and private landlords within the wealth and income spectrums makes them seem far from ordinary. 88 per cent of additional property owners are in the top half of the wealth distribution, and 79 per cent of adults with rental income from other property are in the top half of the income distribution. Around one third of each are in the top decile of their respective distributions.

Of course, you could argue that these comparisons to all other adults are a bit unfair. For example, we know that additional property assets are concentrated among the baby boomers who are currently at peak wealth-holding age. By the same token, the common argument that rent from other property is a way of boosting pension incomes means we might expect it to only really be a relevant consideration in retirement, when incomes are now slightly higher and people are less likely to be poor.

However, the additional property owners and landlords look particularly well off even within these groups. For example, over four-fifths (82 per cent) of baby boomer second home owners are in the wealthiest half of their generation. And more than four-fifths (81 per cent) of pensioner landlords are in the top half of the pensioner income distribution. The clear message is that both across society as a whole and among their peers, those drawing on wealth or income from additional properties are disproportionately rich and wealthy.

3. They are concentrated in the South of England

We don’t know where the additional properties are, but analysis of where those receiving rental income from them are based shows a particularly high prevalence in the regions that make up the south of England, as the chart below shows. Nearly six-in-ten landlords (59 per cent of the total) are found in the four regions where it is most common: the South West, South East, East of England and London. Unsurprisingly, these are the areas where incomes and average wealth are highest (and in the case of the South West in particular, a higher concentration of older adults will also contribute to this pattern).

A case for action?

In sum, holding assets in more than one property has grown in recent decades, and can be a huge boon to both wealth and incomes. The second home owners are mainly adults in prime age or early retirement, are rich and wealthy even among their peers, and are most likely to be living in the south of England. Of course there are individual exceptions, but stepping back to the big picture: if you were painting an image of society’s affluent, this would be it.

Given that younger generations are failing to accumulate wealth at anything like the rate of their predecessors, and that we have a housing crisis that manifests itself in concerns about security and quality for those renting from private landlords, this state of play seems far from optimal. And to be fair, this is one aspect of the shifting patterns of wealth accumulation in 21st Century Britain that policy makers have woken up to in recent years, with attempts at action. Stamp duty surcharges on second homes were introduced last year, and reduced mortgage tax relief for those engaged in buy-to-let came in this April.

These steps have pros and cons, but there’s a case for thinking even more broadly – from implementing the commitment to tackle empty homes in the recent housing white paper, to greater regulation of private landlords and increased security of tenure to shore up tenants’ position. And from a taxation perspective, the reality of a larger second home owning group, made up largely of older, very affluent people cannot be ignored as we wrestle with the public finance pressures of an ageing society. These are options and challenges our Intergenerational Commission will continue to explore, because from the perspective of many of Britain’s real ordinary folk who still desire to own their home but find doing so increasingly out of reach, one house would be enough.”

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/homes-sweet-homes-the-rise-of-multiple-property-ownership-in-britain/

“Older patients’ families struggle to complain about poor hospital care”

Owl says: No worry – soon there won’t be any hospitals to complain to or about!

“The survey of over 600 Gransnet members reveals that:

of those who were concerned about the treatment of their older relative, just over half (58%) complained

two-thirds (67%) of those who complained do not believe complaining makes a difference

over 1 in 3 (35%) respondents said there were occasions where they were concerned about the care or treatment of their older relative in hospital

almost 1 in 3 (31%) felt that the hospital staff did not have an adequate understanding of their older relative’s condition or care needs.

The survey also reveals wider concerns about communication with older patients and their families:

2 in 5 (40%) participants did not feel they were kept informed about their older relative’s condition in hospital and were not given enough opportunities to discuss their care and treatment;

1 in 3 (33%) respondents felt they were not adequately involved in decisions about their older relative’s care and treatment.

Poor communication is a factor in around one third of all complaints the Ombudsman service investigates about the NHS in England. …”

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/older-patients-families-struggle-complain-about-poor-hospital-care

Twiss in charge of infrastructure money

Stakeholders? Bet it isn’t us but developers he’s talking about! Exmouth’s Queen’s Drive access for Grenadier, “improved access” to Feniton, Gittisham and Cranbrook western extension here we come!

“Since September last year, EDDC has been charging Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on certain types of new development.

The council passes 15 per cent of this income, or 25 per cent if a neighbourhood plan has been completed, to town or parish councils, with the remainder to be spent by EDDC.

The council is now inviting stakeholders involved in the delivery of infrastructure to bid for this cash by September 22, with a final decision to be made in February 2018.

Councillor Phil Twiss, EDDC’s portfolio holder for strategic development and partnerships, said: “The CIL is a fairer, faster and more transparent way of funding infrastructure delivery.

“It provides more certainty than the current Section 106 system, which is negotiated on a site by site basis.

“However, unlike 106 money, CIL money can be spent anywhere in the district.

“Unfortunately, the projected income from CIL falls a long way short of the total infrastructure costs required to deliver the Local Plan.

“This is because the legislation requires the charges to be set based on what is viable for developments to pay rather than what is required to deliver the necessary infrastructure.

“CIL was designed to be matched with funds from other sources in order to deliver projects and so difficult decisions will need to be made in terms of prioritising projects and projects should demonstrate what other funding would be used in addition to CIL.

“The CIL pot is never going to be able to meet all demands made on it and we will have a robust and rigorous qualification process in place to ensure that the money is well spent and in the right places.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/council-looking-to-allocate-money-for-east-devon-infrastructure-1-5155171

Boris Johnson: almost a billion pounds wasted on vanity projects!

Public money wasted:

Garden Bridge £52 m
New Routemaster £321.6 m
Emirates cable car £21 m
Water cannon £323,000
Hire bikes £225 m
(hire bikes was supposed to be “cost neutral” – where have we hear THAT before!)
Estuary airport £5.2 m
Olympic stadium conversion £305.5 m
(original cost estimate with large part from football club which did not materialise)
Statue at Olympic Stadium (Orbit) £6.1 m

The article:

“The scrapping of Boris Johnson’s Garden Bridge project has exposed a £940m bill for his “vanity projects” as London mayor and prompted a senior Labour figure to say her party was partly to blame.

The figure is the total spent on eight projects closely associated with the former mayor, including the pedestrian bridge for the Thames that was abandoned this week, which either failed or whose value for money has been questioned.

His office insisted that the schemes represented important investments and that to describe them as vanity projects was “ignorant and wrong”.

Three Johnson projects ended in failure at a cost of more than £57.5m: the Garden Bridge; the purchase of water cannon; and the Thames estuary airport. ..”

Five others: the new Routemaster bus; hire bikes; the Emirates Air Line cable car; the conversion of the Olympic stadium and the ArcelorMittal Orbit helter-skelter, all did go ahead at a combined cost of more than £900m. They have run into problems after turning out to be far more expensive than promised.

The former Labour minister Margaret Hodge, whose review of the Garden Bridge project led to its abandonment, said she was shocked at how “irresponsible” Johnson was with public money. But during her review she was also struck by the lack of scrutiny of his profligate spending decisions when mayor.

“I kept thinking how the hell was he allowed to get away with this,” Hodge told the Guardian. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/18/bridge-940m-bill-boris-johnsons-mayora-vanity-projects-garden-bridge-routemaster-bus

Torbay Council Customer Services – a stepping stone to greater things in the office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Customer Services at Torbay Council leads to greater things.

After starting life as a market trader Ms Hernandez took a position as a Receptionist at the Riviera Centre and later became a Customer Service supervisor there from 1998 – 2000. She then moved on to the Press and Public Relations department (2000-2002) and ended up as Crime and Disorder Reduction Co-ordinator (2001-2004) before leaving for pastures new [Source: Linkedin]

Now Torbay Council’s current Assistant Director of Customer Service is becoming one of Ms Hernandez’s “monitors” as Chief Executive of her office (though they seem to have overlapped only during the time when Ms Hernandez was a Torbay councillor). One of her jobs at Torbay was Executive Head of Community Safety (2008-2011). Ms Hughes began her career at Torbay in Environmental Health, in which she received her degree. Source also Linked In.

Truly, Torbay council is a breeding ground for local talent where crime prevention is concerned – as Ms Hernandez had also wanted her fellow Torbay councillor and friend Mark Kingscote to join her as her deputy until the Police and Crime Panel “recommended” against it (as that is all they are allowed to do):

http://www.devonlive.com/panel-refuses-deputy-police-and-crime-commissioner-for-devon/story-30428805-detail/story.html

Ms Allen has been a DCC Assistant Treasurer since 2009 and was educated locally at Colyton Grammar School.

Two people have been appointed to “monitor and advise” the police and crime commissioner (PCC).

Frances Hughes will be the new chief executive and Nicola Allen will be the treasurer.

Ms Hughes is currently the assistant director of community and customer services at Torbay Council and Ms Allen, is the senior assistant county treasurer with Devon County Council.

Both were “unanimously confirmed in their appointments by the Police and Crime Panel”, said the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).

A spokesman said the role of chief executive is one of two positions created with the intention of monitoring and advising the elected PCC in their activities, as well as ensuring the manifesto is fulfilled on behalf of both the public and government.

The OPCC has been trying to fill the two statutory posts since CEO Andrew White moved to Lincolnshire Police and treasurer Duncan Walton announced he was retiring.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-40851277

(Some) council leaders brand single-option consultation a sham

“The leaders of Adur and Worthing councils have called for a ‘sham’ A27 improvements consultation to be halted and re-run with further options.

Highways England has put forward just one £69million proposal to tweak six key junctions between Worthing and Lancing. But councillor Neil Parkin and councillor Dan Humphreys have joined forces to campaign for a rethink. Mr Parkin, Adur District Council leader, said: “Highways England say they want to consult with us but we say this is a sham.”

“By not allowing the public to weigh up options and see full costings how are we to make any kind of decision? “All I do know is the current scheme on the table is barely worth the disruption and certainly not worth spending £69million on.” Modest improvements to six junctions between Durrington Hill and the Lancing Manor roundabout are proposed which would cut three minutes from journey times but, according to Highways England’s own scoring system, would deliver no ‘significant benefits’.

In its consultation document the agency alludes to more expensive and radical solutions, such as underpasses and flyovers but dismisses them as too expensive without further explanation.

Mr Humphreys, Worthing Borough Council leader, said: “The more I listened to officials explaining the scheme at the launch of the consultation the more angry I became. “Highways England do not seem to be taking us seriously. Our questions were met with an ‘experts know best’ response while there was no explanation about why other options hadn’t been explored,” said.

“The current consultation should be halted and a proper one, involving other options and explanations started afresh. The agency must have those plans and calculations so let’s seem them.” The leaders insisted it is not for the councils to submit plans but for Highways England to give local residents, businesses and politicians real choice and real consultation.

Consultation ends on September 12 with two years of construction expected to start in 2020 if the scheme is approved.

Article originally appeared on Worthing Herald”

https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/council-leaders-brand-single-option-consultation-a-sham/

Cameron’s former council taken to court over austerity cuts

“There were chaotic scenes on Thursday 17 August as Oxfordshire County Council, the borough in which David Cameron’s former constituency sits, appeared in a central London court. It was there to defend itself in a case which is a legal first. And the case the Tory-run authority had to answer? That its austerity-driven cuts to vital services may have broken the law.

A legal first

The Court of Appeal was hearing the case of Luke Davey. In November, a judge granted the 40-year-old from Oxfordshire a judicial review against the council, following a 42% cut to the amount he received to pay for his care and support. This is because Davey has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, is registered blind, and requires assistance with all of his intimate personal care needs.

But Davey’s case is a legal first, because his lawyers are using the Care Act 2014 to argue that the council has broken the law. Specifically, that Oxfordshire County Council has breached its obligations under the “wellbeing” principle of the act.

Disabled people’s organisation Inclusion London and campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) are supporting Davey’s case. The groups had organised representatives to support Davey before and during the hearing. And in another legal first, Inclusion London was granted an intervention in the case by the judge: the first time an organisation led by disabled people has been given this privilege.

But things didn’t go smoothly for the campaigners.

At first, they gathered outside the main entrance to the courts, raising awareness of both the case and the broader issues facing sick and disabled people in society.

One campaigner’s banner referenced an UN report which accused successive Conservative-led governments of committing “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights.

And campaigners like DPAC Steer Group member Nicola Jeffery were also highlighting the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF), which had previously supported disabled people to access their communities and maintain their day-to-day lives. But the Conservative government abolished the ILF in 2015.

But there were angry scenes when disabled campaigners, their solicitors and the media tried to enter the court building. Security at first told them they could not go in, as there were “not enough staff on duty” to cope, and they were not willing to open the disabled entrance.

After the intervention of a reporter and several wheelchair users, the court’s security opened up the supposedly ‘accessible’ entrance to the court. But the entrance was barely accessible, and one disabled campaigner was nearly knocked to the ground by a passing cyclist.

Setting a precedent?

Davey’s case, if successful, could set a precedent, as it’s the first time the Care Act 2014 has been cited in law. The council argues that there were two underlying reasons given for its decision to reduce Davey’s personal budget. Specifically, that:

He could spend more time alone without the benefit of a Personal Assistant being present.
Davey could and should reduce the amount which he pays to his Personal Assistants.
But his solicitors say that, by cutting his support from £1,651 a week in 2015 to £950 a week now, Oxfordshire County Council has breached Davey’s rights under the wellbeing principle of the act. Specifically, that it will cause/pose:

Additional and excessive anxiety to Davey, from having to spend unwanted time alone.

The risk of Davey losing his established care team of 18 years.

The wellbeing principle of the Care Act says that a council has a legal duty to “promote” a person’s wellbeing. Specifically:

Personal dignity.
Physical and mental health and emotional well-being.
Protection from abuse and neglect.
Control by the individual over day-to-day life.
Participation in work, education, training or recreation.
Social and economic well-being.
Domestic, family and personal relationships.
Suitability of living accommodation.
The individual’s contribution to society. …”

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/08/17/chaos-court-david-camerons-former-tory-council-accused-breaking-law-video/

Care for people without families

In many “care closer to home” scenarios it is assumed that the patient (Owl refuses to call them clients – this isn’t home hairdressing) have some sort of outside support – family, friends or voluntary groups. This is often not the case – especially in rural areas.

So, what should our health services be doing?

“… Firstly, we need to review our care services from the point of older people doing everything entirely without support from family. This includes everything from finding out information to getting their washing things in the event of unplanned hospital admission to creating a lasting power of attorney to arranging hospital discharge to searching for a care home. Only then can we see how much family support is required to make the system work and where we need to change things so it works for those without. Care services that work for people without family support will work far better for people who do have family too.

Secondly, care services must make a greater effort to understand why so many more people are aging without children and the issues that face them. It is not possible to design services that work if you do not understand the people you are designing them for. People ageing without children must be included in all co-production and planning on ageing as a matter of course.

Thirdly services must consider their use of language. Branding services with “grandparent/grans/grannies” unless they specifically mean only grandparents should use them exclude older people who are not and never will be grandparents.

Fourthly, people ageing without children should be supported to form groups both on and off line where they come together to form peer support networks. People ageing without children want to help themselves and each other.

Fifthly, the gap around advocacy must be addressed. People ageing without children have been very clear on their fears of an old age without a child to act as their intermediary and advocate in their dealings with care services particularly if they become incapacitated mentally or physically.

Finally, everyone, both people ageing without children and those who do have family, should be helped to plan for their later life.

People ageing without children must be brought into mainstream thinking on ageing. By working collectively we can as individuals, communities and wider society address the needs of older people without children or any family support. Only by working together so can we do care differently for people ageing without children.”

https://www.independentage.org/policy-and-research/doing-care-differently/designing-care-services-that-dont-rely-family-kirsty-woodard

Devon number 4 in best places for pensioners to live

Research by the Prudential insurance company – though they might want to check the state of the NHS and social care before coming here – unless they are very rich, of course, when that won’t matter.

Best to go to Dorset perhaps.

The list:

1. West Sussex
2. Dorset
3. East Sussex
4. Devon
5. Norfolk
=6. Oxfordshire
=6.Worcestershire
8. Isle of Wight
=9. Suffolk
=9. North Yorkshire

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4801054/Why-West-Sussex-best-place-pensioner.html

Government ripping us off – again

From The Times (pay wall). It’s going to make commuting by rail to Exeter from Axminster, Honiton, Feniton, Whimple and Cranbrook a very expensive way of getting there – so more cars will be clogging up more roads in “Greater Exeter”.

“Nobody likes being ripped off. And there is something particularly distasteful about being fleeced by your own government.

But that is precisely what is happening. Rail fares are set to rise at a much faster rate than employee earnings, with annual season tickets of over £5,000 an increasingly common sight. And interest charges on student loans in England will rise to 6.1 per cent from the autumn.

From students to commuters, the cost of living in the UK is on the rise. And some of the biggest cost increases are in areas where the government sets the terms.

Both rail fares and student loans are linked, under government policy, to the retail price index measure of inflation, long ago discarded by economists as a flawed measure of price growth. It is widely known that RPI consistently overstates inflation in the UK, and that the alternative measures of inflation, consumer prices index (CPI) and CPIH (which includes owner-occupiers’ housing costs) are a far better reflection of what is actually going on.

Indeed, in the June 2010 budget George Osborne announced that, partly for these reasons, the government would start using CPI for the uprating of benefits and public sector pensions. The same budget mentioned “reviewing how CPI can be used for the indexation of taxes and duties while protecting revenues”, yet there has been near-silence on this issue ever since.”

“Seaton vigil will protest next week’s closure of community hospital beds”

Press release

“NEW Devon CCG, an unelected quango, intends to permanently close the remaining in-patient beds in Seaton and District Community Hospital next week (beds in Okehampton will close at the same time and in Honiton the following week).

The CCG has shamefully ignored the views of the community in Seaton, Colyton, Beer and Axminster and their elected representatives in the town, parish, district and county councils, all of whom have protested against this decision. A narrow majority of councillors on Devon County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee, which failed to properly scrutinise the CCG’s decision, has prevented us from formally requiring the Secretary of State to re-examine it.

On the initiative of Cllr Martin Pigott, Vice-Chairman of Seaton Town Council, there will be a vigil outside the hospital on

Monday 21 August
from 12 to 1pm

to protest at the closure of the in-patient beds and express our deep concern about the very future of the hospital. Cllr Jack Rowland, Mayor of Seaton, and I will be supporting the vigil. We shall be supporting Seaton Town Council’s demand that, even at this late stage, Neil Parish MP must intervene with the Government to reverse this decision.”

Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton

How to fritter away our money or close our hospitals – just because you can

Guardian letters – also has echoes of the DCC “scrutiny” meeting sabotaged by Sarah Randall Johnson and her Tory posse which beat down referral of Seaton and Honiton hospital bed closure to the Secretary of State with their sleight of hand, resulting in the total loss of all their beds in the next two weeks.

“The proposed garden bridge across the Thames was bound to fail as soon as Zac Goldsmith lost to Sadiq Khan, given that the project never had the support of a majority of the 25-member London assembly (Recriminations fly after garden bridge cancelled, 15 August).

The parties opposed to the scheme, with 16 members of the assembly between them, were one seat short of the two-thirds super majority required to stop Boris Johnson and George Osborne frittering the best part of £52m, which had the support of only nine Conservative members.

Ultimately, the origins of this fiasco lies with the Blairite fixation with experimenting with directly elected local potentates, rather than properly constituted English regional assemblies and the single transferable vote for local elections.

David Nowell
New Barnet, Hertfordshire

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/16/better-ways-to-spend-the-garden-bridge-cash