Monthly Archives: February 2018

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

“Autocratic top-down management” fails NHS and leads to mediocrity

“Autocratic management is a leading cause of poor NHS care, according to the compiler of a European health service league table that ranks Britain 15th.

The UK trails Slovakia and Portugal while the best performers such as the Netherlands and Switzerland pull away, according to the Euro Health Consumer Index. Treatment is Britain is mediocre and there is an “absence of real excellence” in the NHS, the report concludes. Only Ireland does worse on accessibility measures such as availability of same-day GP appointments, access to specialists and waits for routine surgery.

The findings come after a global study this week found cancer survival in Britain still lagged well behind the best in the world.

Arne Björnberg, who compiles the Euro Health Consumer Index, said: “Cancer survival rates are one of the prime examples of NHS mediocrity.”

More money is needed to improve care, according to a study that finds a strong correlation between treatment results and how much countries spend on health.

However, Professor Björnberg said that the most urgent lesson the NHS could learn from other countries was about the corrosive effects of an “autocratic top-down management culture”. He said: “As a Scandinavian what strikes you when you visit the UK is British management is extremely autocratic. Managing 1.5 million using a top-down method doesn’t work very well. If you go and ask a secretary or a receptionist anything out of the routine in Scandinavia, the most negative response would be: ‘I’ll see what I can do’. But in the UK they will say: ‘I’ll have to talk to my manager’. Subordinate staff are not allowed to use their brains in the UK and managing a professional organisation like healthcare like that is not a good idea.”

The Netherlands has consistently topped the rankings, which some have attributed to a system of competing insurance companies. However, Professor Björnberg said that the main lesson to be learnt from the Dutch was not about market forces but the need to put doctors in charge and force them to take account of patients’ views.

“If you have intelligent people and make them talk to customers frequently, that is a good idea,” he said.

“You have 1.5 million intelligent and dedicated people working for [the NHS]. Liberate the medical profession and put politicians and amateurs at arm’s length.”

[Autocratic top-down] NHS bosses dismissed the findings, preferring an index compiled by the US-based Commonwealth Fund, which ranks Britain top of 11 global health systems. The NHS scores well on measures such as equal access, but ranks tenth at keeping people alive.”

Source Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Privatisation, Virgin Healthcare

Virgin: rewarded for failure

Virgin already run children’s services, many GO’s surgeries and other former public services in Devon. They will no doubt bid as aggressively as usual for more Devon health care services when Devon gets its (Un)Accountable (Non)Care (Non-scrutable) System which will allow wholesale privatisation of our NHS.

“Virgin Trains will be handed a lucrative new contract to run services on the west coast main line despite serious criticism of its owners’ handling of the east coast franchise.

The Department for Transport is expected on Monday to award the company a new deal to operate the line between London and Scotland for another two years. The contract will take the form of a “direct award”, when the incumbent is handed a short-term deal without other train operators being able to bid.

The announcement could prove awkward for Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, who has been criticised for his handling of Virgin’s east coast franchise. It is being scrapped in 2020, three years early, after the company overestimated passenger numbers and suffered a revenue shortfall. It is feared that the franchise could collapse even sooner, forcing the government to rewrite the contract or even renationalise the line.

The confirmation of the west coast deal could be seen as a “reward for failure” by critics of Britain’s privatised railway. The west coast is the country’s most profitable rail line, making £51 million for Virgin — a joint venture between Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group and Stagecoach — in 2016-17.

It will also fuel concerns over the franchising system, which has suffered a shortage of bidders in recent years. A third of rail franchises are let on a direct award basis. However, the DfT is preparing to mount a staunch defence of the deal, insisting that it merely represents confirmation of a contract announced more than a year ago, before the east coast fiasco.

Sources said that the west coast was well run, with the franchise delivering more than £200 million a year in premium payments to the government, reversing a previous position when it made a £75 million net loss.

It was also claimed that comparisons with the east coast were unfair. The east coast is 90 per cent run by Stagecoach. However, the west is 51 per cent owned by Sir Richard’s company, with Stagecoach holding a 49 per cent stake.

Stephen Joseph, executive director of the Campaign for Better Transport, said: “There is a need for a fundamental review of franchising. We can’t keep the railway running on direct awards. We need long-term thinking.”

The existing west coast franchise had been due to end in April. The government announced more than a year ago that a direct award would be made, allowing Virgin to run the line up to April next year. At that point, a new franchise was expected to be created — “the west coast partnership” — to run both west coast trains and HS2 services when the high-speed line is built in 2026.

However, it is believed that Virgin will now continue to run the line for a further year — up to April 2020 — delaying the start of the long-term west coast partnership by 12 months.

The direct award is expected to require Virgin to improve its passenger satisfaction ratings, extend free wifi in carriages, introduce passenger compensation for trains that are at least 15 minutes late and accommodate work needed to prepare for HS2.

A DfT spokesman said: “As set out in November 2016, we intend to award a short-term contract to operate services on the west coast main line until the start of the new west coast partnership, which will run services on the west coast line and shape the future of HS2.”

Source: Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Land banking, Land Supply, Planning System

Tories disagree about compulsory land purchase for housing

Wonder where Swire stands on this?

“Labour’s plan to force the cheap sale of land to the state to boost housebuilding has been branded “deeply sinister” by Liz Truss, chief secretary to the Treasury, but the proposal has exposed a split in the Conservatives with influential Tory backbenchers backing the plan.

The shadow housing secretary, John Healey, told the Guardian on Thursday that a Jeremy Corbyn-led government could use compulsory purchase powers to buy land at closer to agricultural value rather than paying up to 100 times more, the kind of mark-up that land zoned for housing can currently fetch.

The proposal is intended to reduce the cost of building new council housing but Truss responded on Twitter saying: “First the utility companies, then the landowners. Who next? #freedomerosion #confiscation”.

She said she could not support the state imposing prices on landowners or private companies, adding: “We need more market not less.”

Nick Boles, the former Tory planning minister, who supports a similar policy to Labour, denied it was sinister and replied to Truss: “Why should a few landowners receive all of the windfall profit from planning permission when the taxpayer bears the cost of infrastructure?”

He argued that existing prices of development land aren’t the product of market forces.

“They’re the product of artificial scarcity created by the nationalisation of development rights and the introduction of the planning system,” he said.

Former education minister Robert Halfon also said he was sympathetic to the idea and said it was “an option we should look at”.

“We have to rapidly solve our housing crisis and we need to build social housing quickly,” he said. “We need to seriously look at this kind of thing and see the evidence on whether it would make a difference or not.”

Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, is examining proposals to remove planning permission from those who build too slowly. Oliver Letwin, the former Downing Street policy chief, is due to publish a review of land-banking later this year.

Landowners warned that small farms could suffer from the Labour proposal, which they described as “seeking to forcibly remove their assets at artificially low prices”.

“Compulsory purchase of land should only ever be a last resort and in practice it is far more likely to be small family farms that suffer, not the big players who have far more means to defend themselves,” said Christopher Price, policy director at the Country Land and Business Association which represents over 30,000 landowners across rural England and Wales.

Paul Smith, managing director of Strategic Land Group which makes money by securing planning permission for greenfield sites and sharing in the uplift in value, also attacked the plan.

“Land values are a consequence, not a cause, of house prices,” he said. “The industry and government should pool its collective wisdom and have a proper conversation around finding a workable solution to freeing up land – there are surely more straightforward ways to release land for development which should be fully explored.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/02/labours-housebuilding-plan-labelled-deeply-sinister-by-tory-minister

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC HQ

Struggling council may have to sell its new HQ …

Bet that caused a few palpitations and raised blood pressure in East Devon! But it’s Northamptonshire which has banned all but essential services spending.

“A cash-strapped local authority has imposed emergency spending controls as it faces “severe financial challenges”.

The section 114 notice bans all new expenditure at Northamptonshire County Council, with the exception of statutory services for protecting vulnerable people.

Last month the government said an inspector would look into allegations of financial failings at the authority.

It is believed to be the first such notice issued in more than 20 years…

The Conservative-led council announced in December that it was looking to increase council tax by almost 5% as it sought to make savings of £34.3m.
At the time, council leaders claimed they were facing huge demand for services, as well as cuts in government grants.

It was revealed in January the authority was considering selling its new £53m headquarters, which officially opened in October.

One Angel Square was designed to save money by closing 12 offices and making best use of a new office block. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-42920716

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, NHS (local)

“Protest in Exeter [tomorrow, Saturday 11 am] will call on Government to ‘fix our NHS’ “

“Tomorrow (Saturday) will be a national day of action and Save Our Hospital Services Devon will be among those calling for:

 An immediate cash injection to relieve the crisis facing the NHS, which has seen ‘unacceptable’ waiting times in A&E, delays admitting and discharging patients, deaths on trolleys and in waiting ambulances, and the cancellation of all routine operations.

 An end to the closure of hospitals, wards and beds in Devon.

 No imposition of Accountable Care contracts in Devon or any other part of the country, but a return to a fully public, fully funded, fully accountable NHS, free at the point of use.

 Fair pay for NHS workers and the restoration of bursaries for student nurses.

The protest will begin in Princesshay Square at 11am tomorrow (Saturday).”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/protest-in-exeter-will-call-on-government-to-fix-our-nhs-1-5379581

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Land banking, Land Supply, Planning System

“Labour plans to make landowners sell to state for fraction of [development] value

Won’t that put the cat amongst the East Devon land-holding fat pigeons! And to add insult to land-owning injury – some top Tories agree!!!

“… Landowners currently sell at a price that factors in the dramatic increase in value planning consent is granted. It means a hectare of agricultural land worth around £20,000 can sell for closer to £2m if it is zoned for housing.

Labour believes this is slowing down housebuilding by dramatically increasing costs. It is planning a new English Sovereign Land Trust with powers to buy sites at closer to the lower price.

This would be enabled by a change in the 1961 Land Compensation Act so the state could compulsorily purchase land at a price that excluded the potential for future planning consent.

Healey’s analysis suggests that it would cut the cost of building 100,000 council houses a year by almost £10bn to around £16bn.

… With the “hope value” removed from the price of land, the cost of building a two-bed flat in Wandsworth, south-west London, would be cut from £380,000 to £250,000, in Chelmsford it would fall from £210,000 to £130,000 and in Tamworth in the West Midlands, where land values are lower, it would drop from £150,000 to £130,000.

“Rather than letting private landowners benefit from this windfall gain – and making everyone else pay for it – enabling public acquisition of land at nearer pre-planning-permission value would mean cheaper land which could help fund cheaper housing,” said Healey.

The proposal is expected to face strong opposition from landowners, including many pension fund investors, who would risk losing considerable sums on what they expected to receive. Savills, the property consultancy, warned that owners might launch legal challenges claiming the move infringed their property rights.

Companies known as strategic landowners make money for investors by buying agricultural land that may be needed for future housing at low prices, securing planning consent and selling it on for significant profits. They include Legal & General, which boasts “a strategic land portfolio of 3,550 acres stretching from Luton to Cardiff”.

… A similar policy has been advocated by some leading Conservatives, including the former planning minister Nick Boles. In a sign of growing political consensus, he said the huge windfalls gained by some landowners were inequitable and that the current system of capturing the uplift in land value through section 106 agreements was “incredibly inefficient”, because private developers could afford to outwit planners with expensive lawyers and consultants.

“There will be mass opposition, but there aren’t that many landowners and they are not a huge voting block,” Boles said. “Not all Conservatives would naturally feel comfortable with this but I have been struck by the positive reaction.”

Speaking earlier this week Javid indicated he would like to change the system. He said: “I think it’s right that the state takes a portion of that uplift to support local infrastructure and development.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-plans-landowners-sell-state-fraction-value

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality

“Number of council homes sold off under Right to Buy increases five-fold in six years after Tories lift cap”

“The rapid loss of social housing because of the Right to Buy scheme has been laid bare after new figures revealed more than five times more homes are being sold now than in 2012.

Councils said Right to Buy had become “unsustainable” after it emerged the sell-off of council homes has drastically accelerated in the past few years, while Labour labelled the figures “indefensible”.

More than £3.5bn of public money has gone to help almost 60,000 tenants buy their home at a hefty discount in the past six years, prompting local councils to warn of a “fire sale” of low-cost homes.

Town-hall leaders said Right to Buy had become “unsustainable” and could not be continued unless councils are given more powers to build replacement homes. …

In April 2012, Conservatives ministers “revamped” Right to Buy and raised the maximum discount on a property to £75,000 (it has since increased further, to more than £100,000, in some parts of the country). Since then, the number of homes sold off has increased by 409 per cent, from 2,638 in 2011-12 to 13,416 in 2016-17.

This has come at a rising cost to the taxpayer, with the average discount given to tenants having more than doubled since 2012, from £26,690 to £61,810 – a 132 per cent increase.

It means tenants are able to buy their home at less than half the market value – with the average discount now at 43 per cent of the property’s value, up from 25 per cent in 2012.

In total, nearly 58,000 council homes have been privatised under Right to Buy in the past six years alone.

The mass sell-off comes despite the number of social homes in England having hit record lows and council house waiting lists reaching ten years in some parts of the country. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/right-to-buy-council-homes-sold-off-private-landlords-rent-tory-cap-a8189881.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Axminster, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Transport (local)

That by pass for Axminster wasn’t always flavour of the month!

How times change! Following on from the effusive self-congratulations of EDDC for securing £10 million towards an Axminster by-pass, here is a news item from 2012, published in the now defunct “Sidmouth Independent News” from a time when an Axminster by-pass was thought by EDDC to be a very, very bad idea:

“Trinity House department store in Axminster has had scaffolding ripped off it by a passing lorry. Story here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-20431396

It was sheer luck that no-one was hurt in the accident in this busy main street through the town.

We welcomed people from Axminster to the Stroll to the Knowle on 3 November 2012. When consulted about the Local Plan the majority of those responding preferred to have major development to the east of the town (where there is a potential site) because it could fund a much-wanted and much-needed bypass of the town centre.

EDDC preferred to allow development by EDBF member Axminster Carpets on a site to the north of the town, despite objections to flood risk and traffic management problems. Then Planning supremo Kate Little said that the northern site was preferable as the eastern site was unlikely to result in a bypass, as any road through a new development would not probably be qualified to be called a by-pass.

A judicial review is taking place about this decision – taken whilst the new Local Plan was in its first consultation period and not included in the old Local Plan – early next month. The High Court has taken the rare step of issuing a “protective costs order” in this case where, if local people do lose the case, they will only have to pay a small part of the company’s legal costs.”

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/page/204/?pages-list

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, AONB, Blackhill Quarry, Clinton Devon Estates, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Planning System, Rural communities, Woodbury

Blackhill Quarry: Who’s listening to the Community?

At the time this article was prepared, more than 145 individuals and resident associations had lodged formal objections against Clinton Devon Estate’s (CDE) planning application 17/3022 to create new industrial units on the Blackhill Quarry site. The condition on granting the original quarry licence was that when extraction ceased, the site should be returned to its natural state.

This number of objections is rising hourly, in spite of a determined PR campaign by CDE in the Exmouth Journal and local Parish Magazines to spin a favourable case (It’s only a small bit of land… the site proposed is currently covered in concrete and any restoration to high quality habitat will be problematic…. mitigation proposals that might secure significantly more wildlife benefits for the surrounding heathland are being discussed. Etc.) The consultation period has been extended.

Owl recalls last May CDE launched an on line “tell us what you think” survey with the introduction:

“We look to listen carefully to our staff, customers and those in our community. How we engage with you and what you think about our approach to sustainability is important to us and we want to get it right. Your feedback to this survey will play an important part in helping us develop our future communications.”

The survey asked questions such as:

To what extent do you agree with the following?

1. Clinton Devon Estates puts responsible stewardship and sustainable development at the heart of everything they do?

2. Clinton Devon Estates understands and conserves the wildlife it manages. And

3. How credible do you think “We pledge to do today what is right for tomorrow” is as a statement from Clinton Devon Estates?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/05/30/time-running-out-to-tell-clinton-devon-estates-what-you-think-about-them/

anyone want to rethink their rezponses in light of the above?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2018

Posted under

Axminster, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Housing (local), Infrastructure, Public Open Space, Transport (local)

Axminster North-South relief road gets £10 million from government plus grant for “Greater Exeter” alternative green spaces

Good news for Axminster? The much-needed relief road that East Devon District Council Tories initially refused to put in the Local Plan (when Bovis was building in the town) is getting a government grant of £10 million. £10 million doesn’t go far on roads these days, so will it be enough? Good news for Crown Estates and Persimmon who are said to own a large parcel of land to the east of Axminster (at least they did in 2015]:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/05/27/axminster-persimmon-and-crown-estates-meet-the-neighbours/

On a more worrying note, “Greater Exeter” (which includes East Devon) also gets £3.7 million for “Greater Exeter Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space” which means allowing developers to build on current green spaces if others can be created elsewhere.

The only problem being, the areas to be concreted over seem to get build on rapidly before the “alternative green spaces” are found or designated!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/678379/MVF_Successful_Bids.xlsx

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Police (local)

Devon police numbers down by 10% in 5 years

Owl wonders how many extra police officers we could have if we abolished the office of Police and Crime Commissioner?

“There are almost 10 per cent less police officers on Devon’s streets than five years ago, new figures have revealed.

The number of neighbourhood officers employed by Devon and Cornwall Police is down by a huge 58 per cent during that period with local PCSOs down by 13 per cent.

During the five year period Devon and Cornwall suffered a net loss of 311 officers with there now being 367 fewer police on the streets than in 2012, according figures released by the BBC shared data unit.

Devon and Cornwall Police said that the reduction in numbers do not reflect the ‘wider police roles visible in our communities’.

Assistant Chief Constable Jim Colwell said: “There is no doubt policing numbers have seen a reduction in the last six years across many areas of the force.

“Supporting local communities with a visible neighbourhood policing presence remains critically important and a bedrock of policing in Devon and Cornwall.

“While the figures released may show a reduction in the number of dedicated neighbourhood staff, they do not demonstrate the number of wider police roles visible in our communities.

“Neighbourhood policing is part of every police officer and PCSO’s business, so also includes response officers, local investigation staff and other operational officers who are not reflected in these figures.”

ACC Colwell added: “The way in which we police our communities is evolving and officer’s roles and responsibilities need to change with this.

“As a force we are constantly assessing threat, harm and risk to our local communities and flexing our policing resources to meet these challenges and demands.

“We have been very honest and open with the public while making these changes and having to place greater resources in areas hidden from public view – such as child sexual exploitation and other online crime.

“Indeed, overall policing numbers in Devon and Cornwall are set to increase in the coming year to give an increased frontline presence across the entire force area.

“Within this is a firm commitment between ourselves and the Police and Crime Commissioner to maintain a dedicated neighbourhood policing model.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/latest-figures-show-devon-lost-1146590

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Virgin Healthcare

And another wobbly privatisation domino: Virgin Care

“IF Carillion was a financial wreck that had to be fed ever more contracts to keep going until it was too late, something similar can be seen in the UK’s outsourced health services.

The company now winning the most NHS contracts is Virgin Care, which provides everything from children’s services in Devon to urgent care in Croydon and adult social care in Somerset. Yet it has a balance sheet that makes Carillion’s look like a picture of health.

On a total turnover of £252m up to March 2017, Virgin Care companies recorded losses of £15.9m last year. Set against this, income from several joint venture partnerships with local GPs totalling £4.2m still left the group with an eight-figure loss. Having been in the business several years now, the fact that Virgin can’t make a profit on its healthcare contracts raises the awkward question of whether it, like Carillion, has been bidding too low for them – and in the process elbowing out the NHS organisations with which it often competes. (When it loses, recent legal action against health commissioners in Surrey showed, those elbows are pretty sharp – see Eyes 1439 & 1440).

Liabilities exceeding assets

The years of loss-making have left the Virgin Care companies, mainly Virgin Care Ltd and Virgin Care Services Ltd, with liabilities exceeding assets by around £28m, and most of what assets the companies do have are in the “intangible” form of technology Virgin Care has developed. The losses are replenished by loans from unknown sources within the wider Virgin group. Since its accounts also show that it doesn’t expect profits for the “foreseeable future” – which again questions the wisdom of low-balling bids – these will have to keep rolling in for some time yet.

The business is spared from insolvency by ultimate owner Sir Richard Branson promising from his bolt-hole in the British Virgin Islands to continue to provide support, allowing Virgin Care’s directors and its auditor KPMG (which checked the Carillion numbers!) to declare that the companies are “going concerns”.

So long as Beardie continues to plough cash into the healthcare companies, the contracts carry on rolling in (a record £1bn worth last year), and other parts of the business such as his rail group secure large taxpayer bailouts, all remains well. But relying on the kindness of strangers, ie taxpayers, and a proprietor with who-knows-what long-term plans to provide stable public services looks about as sensible as it was to rely on Carillion.”

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1462/news

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Feb 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Transparency

Hinkley C: whose Big Brother will be watching it?

“China planted bugs to spy on discussions at the glittering African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa that it built five years ago, it has been claimed.

The alleged hack was discovered when IT engineers investigated why the centre’s computer servers reached a peak for data activity between midnight and 2am. They found that the servers were connected to others in Shanghai, and were transferring information, according to an investigation by the French newspaper Le Monde.

Ethiopian cybersecurity experts found microphones hidden in desks and walls and at the time, last January, there were Chinese engineers in the building managing its computers.

African heads of state and AU civil servants remained unaware of the discovery, one AU official told the paper. “We have taken some steps to strengthen our cybersecurity,” he said. “We remain very exposed.”

The £141 million HQ was built and paid for by the Chinese in a symbol of the mutually beneficial friendship between the world’s youngest populations and one of its wealthiest nations.

The construction of buildings, roads, ports and railways across Africa, has helped China edge out former colonisers and western partners and gain pole position in the battle for Africa’s human capital and mineral wealth.

The revelation over the bugs came as African leaders and officials converge for the AU’s annual summit.

Kuang Weilin, China’s ambassador to the AU, called the claims “ridiculous and preposterous” and said their publication was sour grapes. “China-Africa relations have brought benefits and a lot of opportunities. Africans are happy with it. Others are not,” he said. “People in the West . . . are not used to it and they are not comfortable with this.”

Source: The Times (paywall)