Citizens could lose right to sue Government post-Brexit; government says tradition will protect us

“The Brexit Bill includes a provision that could strip UK citizens of the right to sue the government, campaigners have pointed out.

Currently, the UK is subject to rulings of the European Court of Justice, including the so-called Francovich rule, which has been part of EU law since 1991. It allows EU citizens the right to sue their respective governments for failing to implement EU law such as environmental law, workers rights and business regulation.

However The European Union Withdrawal Bill states: “There is no right in domestic law on or after exit day to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich”.

This has sparked concern that this weakens the rights of citizens to seek redress if the government were to fail to uphold certain laws.

Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Tom Brake, said: “This is a shameless attempt to take away people’s rights through the backdoor.
“Citizens must be able to hold the government to account when it breaks the rules.”

Martha Spurrier, director of the civil liberties group, Liberty, told The Times: “This chilling clause, buried deep in the Bill’s small print, would quietly take away one of the British people’s most vital tools for defending their rights,

“Putting the government above the law renders our legal protections meaningless. It exposes a clear agenda to water down our rights after Brexit.”

However, the government said the UK has a “longstanding tradition” of ensuring public rights and liberties are protected.

A government spokesman said: “The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU and that is exactly what we are doing. The right to Francovich damages is linked to EU membership – the government therefore considers that this will no longer be relevant after we leave.

“After exit, under UK law it will still be possible for individuals to receive damages or compensation for any losses caused by breach of the law.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/citizens-rights-redress-threatened-brexit-bill

Clinton Devon Estates to take over work of Jurassic Coast Trust

Oh dear sweet Lord – clifftop holiday homes and Disneyland here we come – and definitely no National Park!

“An East Devon landowner is set to play a significant part in the future of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.

Clinton Devon Estates, which owns and manages 25,000 acres of land across Devon, has pledged its support to the Jurassic Coast Trust which is taking over the management of the 95-mile stretch of world heritage coastline, from Devon and Dorset county councils this July.

The landowner is joining the Trust as one of four Lead Business Partners, currently the only partner in Devon alongside three based in Dorset, and will pledge £3,000 per year to the charity, helping to safeguard its future.

The Trust’s link with businesses and landowners is essential in ensuring it can carry out its work looking after the world class coastline, which stretches between Exmouth in Devon and Studland Bay in Dorset, on behalf of UNESCO for the “benefit of the whole of mankind”.

A large part of the Estate’s East Devon acreage is made up of the Pebblebed Heaths, which are named after the Budleigh Salterton pebblebeds and are a designated conservation area.

The Trust is poised to support the landowner’s existing educational outreach, which focuses on the ecology and management of the heaths by the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust.

Kate Ponting, countryside learning officer at Clinton Devon Estates, said: “We have had an informal, mutually supportive relationship for a long time as our paths have crossed over the years.

“The Estate owns land very close to, or on the Jurassic Coast, and the Trust is keen to extend its work in East Devon, so the partnership should afford more opportunities for collaborative working.

“We have a lot in common with the Trust whose work is based on geology; the geological story of the Pebblebed Heaths is part of our shared heritage which we’re passionate about.

“We hope to celebrate this heritage further, through extended community engagement and we’re hoping the Trust’s expertise will enhance what we already do.”

The Trust also plans to provide downloadable audio guides about East Devon’s geology for the Clinton Devon Estates’ website.

Guy Kerr, Programme Manager for the Jurassic Coast Trust, said: “We are delighted to have Clinton Devon Estates on board as one of our Lead Business Partners. The East Devon pebblebeds are a crucial part of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and we look forward to working closely with Clinton Devon Estates to preserve this landscape and enthuse people with its incredible stories.”

http://www.devonlive.com/clinton-devon-estates-take-over-management-of-jurassic-coast-world-heritage-site/story-30478379-detail/story.html

Flooding – the past doesn’t predict the future

“Nearly every major city and town in Europe is built on a river and we protect this urban infrastructure by using past floods as a gauge of the potential risk,” said Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London.

“The study shows that this approach underestimates the risk, as climate change has made European floods occur earlier in the year, increasing their potential impact.

“This means all the infrastructure that we have built to protect our cities needs to be reviewed as much of it will be inadequate to protect us from future climate change-induced extreme flooding. … “

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40889934

Outsourcing kills democracy

“Outsourcing of public services began in the 1980s, a central feature of the drive to roll back what neoliberalism casts as a bureaucratic, inefficient state. Its proponents claimed the involvement of private providers would increase cost-savings and efficiency, and improve responsiveness to the “consumers” of public services. Thirty years later, the value of these contracts is enormous – more than £120bn worth of government business was awarded to private companies between 2011 and 2016, and their number is increasing rapidly. At least 30% of all public outsourcing contracts are with local authorities.

Unlike government, private companies have no duty to provide for any public interest; the laws of the market mean their primary motive must be to maximise returns for shareholders. Questions have been raised about whether corruption or “misuse of public office for private gain” contributed to the Grenfell disaster; but the nature of outsourcing public services means that even the most well-meaning politicians can enter into contracts that result in severe detriment to the public, in both financial and human terms, without any crime having been committed.

The relationship between local councils and companies bidding for contracts is usually highly unequal. Local government funding cuts have caused a reduction in resources dedicated to providing scrutiny and oversight. The Audit Commission, previously responsible for scrutinising local authority contracts, has been abolished. The private companies involved, often huge multinationals, have significant advantage over local authorities in terms of technical knowledge and negotiating experience.

If it’s hard for councillors to evaluate and oversee these contracts it is nigh on impossible for the people using and experiencing services to apply scrutiny to the contracts governing their delivery. “Commercial confidentiality” is frequently cited as a reason for not disclosing the information necessary to assess contract content – and services, when delivered by the private sector, are not subject to the rules on freedom of information that apply to local government.

Attempting to use opportunities promised in legislation when the Audit Commission was abolished, residents in Lambeth, London, recently undertook a “peoples’ audit” of the councils accounts. The resident audit group included highly experienced finance professionals, who spent hundreds of hours chasing information requests and working their way through poor quality data. The published report claims to have identified numerous instances of inadequate governance of contracts, including questionable valuations of council property and land, systematic overcharging and billing for work that wasn’t carried out. The report calculates financial losses that run into millions.

In the London borough of Haringey, council leaders are planning the highest value local government-private sector contract in history. It was never presented in any manifesto on which voters could express their opinions or make their voices heard. The deal involves placing £2bn worth of council homes, property and land into a new “development vehicle” that will demolish and rebuild vast swaths of the area. This new entity will be 50% owned by private company Lendlease, a multinational property company with a turnover of billions of dollars.

Lendlease has form when it comes to contracts with the public sector. Its redevelopment of the Heygate estate in Southwark initially promised 500 social homes, that number reduced to just 82 in the final plan – only 20 have so far been built. It has made millions of pounds from its contracts with Southwark council.

Five years ago the company admitted fraud in government contracts in the US. Three years ago an Australian local government deal resulted in the authority being hundreds of millions of dollars out of pocket. In 2016, the company was named in an investigation into noncompliance with building regulations in Melbourne, Victoria, for using highly flammable cladding on a public hospital construction project, although subsequently Lendlease has offered to replace the cladding in the spring at no charge to the taxpayer, and says test panels were successfully installed in May.

In Haringey, local campaigners have found it almost impossible to examine the content of the Lendlease contract. Senior councillors have ignored the overview and scrutiny committee’s advice against the deal, and campaigners now plan to challenge it via judicial review. Although the councillors responsible for agreeing the deal may no longer be in power come next May’s local elections, its consequences will outlive many political careers. Any future council wanting to reverse the deal will be breaking the terms of the contract, and that is likely to incur financial penalties which will impact heavily on all the borough’s residents. So where is the accountability?

Less than 90 years after the right to vote was extended to all men and women in the UK regardless of wealth, the practice of outsourcing government services to private companies is rendering democracy ineffective, particularly for those most affected. While we could attempt again to insert more transparency and accountability into these opaque agreements, it may just be simpler, and more cost-effective, to return responsibility for government provision where it belongs – back in-house – with the people elected to represent us.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/10/outsourcing-killing-local-democracy-britain-stop-it

“Rough sleeping in Britain is forecast to rise by 76% in the next decade unless the government takes urgent action, homelessness charity Crisis has stated.

The charity today published its analysis of homelessness in all its guises in England, Scotland and Wales, prompting housing groups to warn the problem is likely to get worse unless more housing becomes available and there are changes to welfare.

According to Crisis, in 2016:

9,100 people were sleeping rough
68,300 households were sofa surfing
37,200 households were living in hostels
19,300 households were living in unsuitable temporary accommodation
12,100 households living in squats
8,900 households sleeping in tents, cars or on public transport
5,000 households in women’s refuges or winter night shelters.

The report warns that, if current policies continue unchanged, the most acute forms of homelessness are likely to keep rising, with overall numbers estimated to increase by 26.5% and households in unsuitable temporary accommodation set to rise by 93%.”

“Labour criticises government hospital asset sales”

“Labour has accused the government of selling off valuable hospital assets to help plug a hole in NHS finances.

Figures from data body NHS Digital show that the amount of NHS land in England earmarked for sale has more than doubled in the past year.
Analysis commissioned by Labour found 117 sites deemed surplus were still in medical or clinical use.

Ministers said selling land would give vital funds for patient care and free up space for much needed new housing.

The government has set itself a target of selling off enough public sector land to generate £5bn worth of income by 2020.

The NHS is asked to contribute as a major property owner.

NHS property being included for sale includes hospital buildings and some ambulance stations.

But Labour said hospitals were being stripped of their assets and forced into a “fire sale”.

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: “This government’s refusal to fund the health service has seen standards of care for patients drop and NHS building and upgrade works pushed back.

“The NHS needs an urgent injection of funding to make up for years of Tory underfunding, but the answer is not a blanket sell-off of sites which are currently being used for patient care.”

The Department for Health said disposing of surplus land and buildings reduced running costs and it was right to put sites that were no longer needed to economic use.

It said any income generated would be used to improve the quality of the NHS.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40883502

“Secret NHS land sales” by Tory Government

“A secret “fire sale” of hospital land – including dozens of properties still being used for medical care – is planned to bail out the cash-strapped NHS, new documents show.

The Department of Health has quietly doubled the amount of land it intends to dispose of, triggering accusations of desperate measures to plug a big hole in NHS finances.

Details of more than half of the 1,300 hectares now up for sale have been kept under wraps because of “sensitivity” – raising suspicions that many other sites also have clinical uses.

Today’s analysis, carried out for Labour by the House of Commons Library, went through Department of Health data of land that NHS organisations “have deemed surplus” and eligible for sale.

Of the 543 plots, totaling 1,332 hectares – worth many hundreds of millions of pounds – 117 are currently being used for clinical or medical purposes, Labour said.

However, data on 734 of those hectares, spread over 63 sites, has been held back due to “issues of sensitivity”, the analysis found.

Jonathan Ashworth, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, claimed a long-running failure to fund the NHS properly had forced “a blanket sell-off of sites which are currently being used for patient care”.

“Crumbling hospitals are in desperate need of investment for repair and renewal,” Mr Ashworth said.

“But the Government must provide that investment, not strip hospitals of their assets and force them into a fire sale.

“There has been a huge rise in the amount of NHS land available for sale this year, but for more than half of it the Government are keeping the details secret and refusing to fully answer reasonable questions.

“It all adds to the suspicion that ministers are drawing up secret plans for a fire sale of valuable NHS assets to plug the black hole in their finances.”

The criticism comes as Labour launches a major assault on the Prime Minister’s management of the NHS, warning her tenure has seen rising waiting times, cancelled operations and a growing crisis in social care.

However, the Department of Health hit back, insisting only truly unwanted land would be sold – with the cash raised ring-fenced to improve NHS services.

“There will be no ‘fire sale’ of NHS assets, but we continue with our ongoing efforts to help hospitals dispose of land they do not need,” a spokesman said.

“This will provide vital funds for the NHS to spend on patient care and free-up space for much needed homes.”

Ms May’s adoption of the Naylor report triggered criticism during the campaign. Dr Kailash Chand, the former deputy chairman of the British Medical Association, called it “an outline to sell off the NHS”.

The NHS Confederation then urged the Government to step back, calling for the land to be set aside for homes for NHS staff unable to buy on the open market, because of the housing crisis.

It linked the housing shortage to rising NHS vacancies, with 15 per cent of registered nursing jobs unfilled and 12 per cent of positions at GP practices vacant.

The most valuable site on today’s surplus list is the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, in Stanmore, London, which has a market value of £38.75m.

Other highly-priced locations include the Ida Darwin Hospital, in Cambridge (£20m), two sites at Broadmoor Hospital, in Berkshire (£16.75m and £11m), the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, in Bath (£10m) and Papworth Hospital, in Cambridgeshire (also £10m).

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn, on a visit to Cornwall, will focus on the condition of the NHS to mark the release of performance data up to the point of the Prime Minister’s first anniversary in No 10.

He will say that, after 11 months, nearly 2.4 million people had waited more than four hours for treatment in casualty departments – or one in 10 patients.

Suspected stroke sufferers faced only a 50-50 chance of getting to a hospital within one hour and about 270,000 people had been added to NHS waiting lists.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-hospital-land-secret-sale-tories-privatisation-sell-off-theresa-may-labour-warning-medical-sites-a7885071.html

Special interest groups (such as blogs) and democracy

Summary of article:

“How should the interest group process operate in a liberal democracy?

• Elected representatives and politicians should recognise a need for continuous dialogue between decision-makers and different sections of the public over detailed policy choices. Procedures for involving interest groups in consultations should cover the full range of stakeholders whose interests are materially affected by policy choices.

• The resources for organising collective voice and action in pressure groups, trade unions, trade associations, non-governmental organisations, charities, community groups and other forms should be readily available. In particular, decision-makers should recognise the legitimacy of collective actions and mobilisations.

• The costs of organising effectively should be low and within reach of any social group or interest. State or philanthropic assistance should be available to ensure that a balanced representation of all affected interests can be achieved in the policy process.

• Decision-makers should recognise inequalities in resources across interest groups, and discount for different levels of ‘organisability’ and resources.

• Policy makers should also re-weight the inputs they receive so as to distinguish between shallow or even ‘fake’ harms being claimed by well-organised groups, and deeper harms potentially being suffered by hard-to-organise groups.

• Other aspects of liberal democratic processes, such as the ‘manifesto doctrine’ that elected governments implement all components of their election programmes, do not over-ride the need to consult and listen in detail to affected groups, and to choose policy options that minimise harms and maximise public legitimacy and consensus support.

• Since policy-makers must sometimes make changes that impose new risks and costs across society, they should in general seek to allocate risks to those groups best able to insure against them.”

The some paragraphs from the article:

“Between elections, a well-organised interest groups process generates a great deal of useful and perhaps more reliable information for policy-makers about preference intensities. By undertaking different levels of collective action along a continuum of participation opportunities, and incurring costs in doing so, ordinary citizens can accurately indicate how strongly they feel about issues to decision-makers.

So sending back a pre-devised public feedback form, writing to an MP, supporting an online petition to the government, or tweeting support for something indicates a low level of commitment. Paying membership fees to an interest group or going to meetings shows more commitment, and gives the group legitimacy and weight with politicians. Going on strike or marching in a demonstration indicates a higher level of commitments still. A well-organised interest group process will allow for a huge variety of ways in which citizens can indicate their views. …

This area of policy-making has been stable for many years, with occasional fringe scandals. Two small changes have taken place recently. The 2014 Lobbying Act introduced an official register of paid lobbyists operating with MPs in Westminster and in touch with Whitehall departments. But this was on a rather restrictive basis, affecting especially paid-for lobbying firms and some groups with developed governmental or parliamentary liaison operations.

The lobbying industry (estimated by some sources to be worth £2bn a year) also remains self-regulated. For a period during the bill’s passage (2013-14), the Cabinet Office proposals seemed to threaten to make academics, universities and a wide range of charities advocating for policy changes register too. But after much criticism this proposal was fought off. However, the legislation is still somewhat controversial – particularly among charities, who complain that it stifles them before election campaigns. …

Nobody now claims that the UK’s interest group process is an equitable one. There are big and powerful lobbies, medium influence groups and no hopers battling against a hostile consensus. Democracy requires that each interest be able to effectively voice their case, and have it heard by policymakers on its merits, so that the group can in some way shape the things that matter most to them. On the whole, the first (voice) criterion is now easily met in Britain. But achieving any form of balanced, deliberative consideration of interests by policymakers remains an uphill struggle. Business dominance is reduced but still strong, despite the shift to cognitive competition and more evidence-based policy-making.”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/08/10/audit-2017-how-democratic-and-effective-is-the-interest-group-process-in-the-uk/

We are dying earlier thanks in part to health cuts – insurers happy

“A slowdown in the growth in life expectancy for the UK population has increased profits at insurance and pensions firm Legal & General, which said people were dying sooner than it had expected.

The century-long improvements in UK life expectancy have stalled in recent years, with experts blaming a range of factors such as rising obesity, dementia, stress, a lack of exercise, alcohol intake, as well as government cuts to health and social spending.

L&G’s chief executive, Nigel Wilson, said: “People have been dying much quicker than anyone had expected which as a consequence … gives us extra cash.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/09/lg-profits-boosted-as-uk-population-dying-earlier-than-expected

Electoral Officers might – one day in the distant future – be fully accountable

The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill is slowly (very, very slowly) wending its way through parliament and, as the title suggests, hopes to extend the reach of the FOI Act. The Statement of Purpose (in full here) sums up the aims:

‘The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill will seek to make housing associations, local safeguarding children boards, Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and the Housing Ombudsman public authorities for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, whilst making information held by persons contracting with public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000…’

See:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/freedomofinformationextension.html

for the very, very, very slow timetable.

Exmouth: water-skiiers or wetlands? Powerboats or peregrine falcons?

“Sailors, kite surfers and other water users on the Exe Estuary want plans for two exclusion zones to protect wildlife scrapped, claiming they would cause conflict among them and could force them out the water.

Pete Hardy, from the Exe Powerboat and Ski Club, described the plans as “very frustrating” and claims water users concerns are not being listened to.

“Powerboating would be affected by the other sports being pushed into our area and it would lead to conflict between powerboaters, kite surfers and paddle boarders,” he said.

But Exe Estuary Management Partnership says in its eight months of consultation it has listened to “hundreds” of views and, as a direct result, has amended some proposals.

It says human activity directly influences the distribution and behaviour of wildlife on the Exe and with more people choosing to live, work and holiday in the area, the number of water users will continue to rise.

Wildlife charities have declined to comment before the consultation period finishes tomorrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-40777250

How Ireland tightened lobbying rules (and why)

Likelihood of this happening here – zero. All that happened here was the opposite – charities were banned from criticising the government:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/chilling-lobbying-act-stifles-democracy-write-charities-party-chiefs

“Two years after Ireland introduced some of the strictest laws in the world on lobbying transparency, the reforms are being held up as the gold standard for policymakers looking to shine a light on the often murky world of influence peddling.

Calls for transparency are growing louder across Europe, especially in Germany, where a series of scandals have put a spotlight on the car industry’s close ties with senior politicians.

Ireland’s experience, say proponents of the law, has dispelled worries that tough lobbying rules would cripple the industry or limit the ability of politicians to do their job — as MEPs in Brussels resisting similar obligations have argued.

“Transparency is catching hold,” said Sherry Perreault, head of lobbying regulation at Ireland’s Standards in Public Office Commission, who’s traveled across Europe to showcase the Irish reforms. “To see this catching fire outside of Ireland is really terrific.”

The Irish reforms are simple. Any individual, company or NGO that seeks to directly or indirectly influence officials on a policy issue must list themselves on a public register and disclose any lobbying activity. The rules cover any meeting with high-level public officials, as well as letters, emails or tweets intended to influence policy.

For those in the business, the impact of the register and its requirements are primarily about the way the industry is perceived — and, broadly, they’re happy about it.

“I’ve not heard anybody suggest the Lobbying Act has impacted in any way the willingness or the ability to influence [policymakers],” said Conall McDevitt, CEO of Hume Brophy, one of Ireland’s largest lobbying firms. “It’s always better in our industry to have transparency, we’re all the stronger for it.”

Indeed, the push for more transparency is often advocated by lobbyists themselves, eager for legal clarity and happy to present themselves as fulfilling a vital role in modern democracies through the information they provide to policymakers.

“Lobbying has got a very bad name because of the actions of some individuals,” said Cian Connaughton, president of the Public Relations Institute of Ireland. “What the register has done is clarify to people what is happening, who is doing what.”

“It means people can’t say, ‘God knows what’s going on there,’” he added. “The fact that [the] new regime has hopefully increased people’s trust in the system, it’s a big plus.”

Popular revulsion

The tougher laws have their origins in the 2008 financial crisis that brought the Irish economy to its knees. The country’s travails are widely regarded as a consequence of the close relationships between politicians from the Fianna Fáil party, in power at the time of the crisis, and Ireland’s property developers.

“The fact that we had gone through this economic collapse [and that there was] a broadly held belief that influence had been peddled, there was such a ground swell of support for reform,” said Brendan Howlin, currently leader of the Labour Party and minister for public expenditure and reform between 2011 and 2016.

Popular revulsion at corruption had been building for decades. Several inquiries — including one into Ireland’s planning system that found widespread corruption had taken place in the 1980s and 1990s — had concluded that underhand payments had become endemic in the country.

To write what would become the 2015 Regulation of Lobbying Act, Howlin looked at existing rules across the world, including Canada’s, whose government first introduced transparency requirements in 1989 and subsequently strengthened them four times.

“There wasn’t much opposition to the concept,” Howlin said.

The law uses one of the broadest possible definitions of a lobbyist: anyone who employs more than 10 individuals, works for an advocacy body, is a professional paid by a client to communicate on someone else’s behalf or is communicating about land development is required to register themselves and the lobbying activities they carry out.

That means NGOs and other civil society organizations are just as much subject to the rules as groups representing multinationals or local industries.

Failure to register or filing incorrect information can result in a fine of up to €2,500 and a two-year prison sentence. …”

http://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-lobbying-clampdown-model-for-europe/

“NHS underfunding blamed for maternity ward closures”

“Underfunding in the NHS has been blamed for a sharp increase in maternity wards temporarily closing to new admissions since 2014.

Data obtained by Labour under the Freedom of Information Act showed that in 2016 there were 382 occasions when units have closed doors, a 70% increase in incidents between 2014 and 2016. Some units have closed more than once.

The figures released today showed across England there were 225 closures in 2014, 375 in 2015, rising to almost 400 last year.

Information from the 96 hospital trusts – out of 136 – that responded to the FOI request indicated nearly half of England’s maternity wards, 42 (44%), were affected by the closures, some of which lasted more than 24 hours.

Ten trusts had to shut temporarily on more than ten separate occasions each.

Jonathan Ashworth, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for health, said: “These findings show the devastating impact which Tory underfunding is having for mothers and children across the country.

“It is staggering that almost half of maternity units in England had to close to new mothers at some point in 2016.”

Sean O’Sullivan, head of health and social policy at The Royal College of Midwives (RCM), said trusts were right to close wards when not doing so risked compromising safety of the service but stressed that persistent and regular closures were a sign of an underlying problem around capacity and staffing levels that needed “immediate attention”.

He added: “The RCM has warned time and time again that persistent understaffing does compromise safety and it’s about time the government listened to those best place to advise.”

According to a report from February, the RCM states the health service has a shortage of 3,500 midwives with over a third soon approaching retirement age.

A spokesman for the Department for Health, said: “Temporary closures in NHS maternity units are well rehearsed safety measures which we expect trusts to use to safely manage peaks in admissions.

“To use these figures as an indication of safe staffing issues, particularly when a number of them could have been for a matter of hours, is misleading because maternity services are unable to plan the exact time and place of birth for all women in their care.”

The government says the NHS now employees an extra 2,000 midwives since May 2010 and another 6,500 are currently in training.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/nhs-underfunding-blamed-maternity-ward-closures

Speak truth to power – or watch chickens coming home to roost

Guardian letters

“• Rather predictably, following James Munby’s “blood on our hands” outburst, the NHS “identified a bed” for the suicidal 17-year-old, leaving him to claim, probably correctly, that NHS England would not have acted “as effectively or speedily” without his “outspoken warnings” (Judge’s plea as suicidal teenager is found refuge, 8 August). With new crises being highlighted almost daily, the latest being the closure of maternity wards, and pregnant women being “pushed from pillar to post”, Munby’s example should be followed (Maternity wards closed 400 times as shortage of beds and staff grows, 8 August).

At a time when the “austerity chickens” are coming home to roost, and Labour protests are not always getting the media attention they deserve, he cannot be the only dignitary to be appalled by the current situation. Is it not incumbent upon all judges, archbishops, lords, and even some “celebrities”, to make their voices heard? If the “brand” is indeed to be “reinvented”, royals also could be doing more than “championing mental-health charities” (The royals, a brand reinvented by the millennial generation, 5 August).”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/08/britains-young-suffer-as-austerity-continues-to-take-its-toll

Exmouth Regeneration: computer says “no”!

Dear Dr MacAllister

Thank you for your request for information. Please find the response to your query below.

Please clarify who was awarded the contract to market the site for the second time and when the agent began the process of remarketing the site
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site.

How many developers were contacted with brochures or other marketing materials in respect of the second marketing of the Queens Drive site?
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site

What has been, or will be, the process for the selection of the preferred bidder?
The requested information is not held – this process has not commenced

How many organisations have, to date, submitted a bid to develop the site and what are there names?
No information held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site

What is the timeline with regards to choosing a preferred developer
Timescales are as published online http://eastdevon.gov.uk/regeneration-pro… although there has been some slippage.

Please provide minutes of meetings and correspondence between the council, the marketing agent and prospective and submitted bidders
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site

Please provide evidence and explanation of the logic of pursuing vacant possession as a means ro entice a developer and please explain the process of decision making
The requested information is not held – we have not progressed the re-marketing of this site and so minutes, emails and other communications are not held. Please also note that we are not required to provide commentary or explanation in order to comply with our obligations under Freedom of Information legislation – our responsibility is to provide copies of information held only.

I hope this information is helpful but, if you feel dissatisfied with the way we have responded to your request, please contact our Monitoring Officer, Mr Henry Gordon Lennox, to request an internal review [email address]

You may also approach the Information Commissioner for advice at http://www.ico.org.uk

Regards

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/selection_of_developer_for_the_q?nocache=incoming-1019239#incoming-1019239

East Devon: not the best place to have babies?

Honiton, Tiverton and Okehampton maternity units are to close, with services centralised on Exeter.

Let’s, say, take Hawkchurch:

Hawkchurch to Honiton – 15 miles, 25 minutes to Honiton
Hawkchurch to Exeter – 33 miles, 53 minutes to Exeter

Source: AA route planner, miles rounded

28 extra minutes – ON A GOOD DAY – to hospital with a maternity emergency.

That’s if you have a car with an available driver – or an ambulance – sitting outside your home when an emergency begins. A very unlikely scenario. And it assumes a clear road and good conditions – not night-time rain or snow, or a blocked country road.

“Under this government, maternity units are understaffed and under pressure. It’s shameful that pregnant women are being turned away due to staff shortages, and shortages of beds and cots in maternity units.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/08/nhs-maternity-wards-england-forced-closures-labour

Hello, Mr Parish, hello.

Hospital closures: “Repulsive party political puppet show” and “Bow your heads in shame”

Two letters in View from … titles – pulling no punches

Rockbeare Parish Council objects to further expansion of Cranbrook

“… Cranbrook town council’s own planning committee objection to the application last month. And now Rockbeare parish council has voted to object to the application.

The objection says that it infringes on the emerging Rockbeare Neighbourhood Plan but also is premature, does not address the issues around congestion at the M5 junction 29 junction, the density of houses is too high, and the location of the all-weather pitch, the play areas, and the gypsy sites are in the wrong place.

Jacqui Peskett, locum parish clerk to the council says: “The application infringes on the emerging neighbourhood plan as the green wedge between Rockbeare and Cranbrook is intended to include the whole area to the east and north of Parsons Lane and that any development of the area to the west of the country park as proposed would potentially cause flooding in Rockbeare village.

“The proposal is premature, since there is still no overall development plan for Cranbrook, now promised for over three years, so issuing any more development permissions may seriously prejudice the proper development of a Cranbrook masterplan.

“The proposal does nothing to address the capacity of the M5/J29 which is already reaching overload at peak times.

“The developers have not learned the lessons of the first phase of development as the density of 45 homes/hectare is too high.

“The proposals makes no provision for healthcare and would exacerbate the already inadequate education provision in the area by adding a further primary school when the capacity of the secondary provision in Cranbrook is already at the limit.”

The objections also has concerns that the location of the all-weather pitch, the play areas, and the gypsy sites are in the wrong place.

But neighbouring Broadclyst parish council decided after a lengthy meeting that they have no comment to make on the reserved matters application.

Cranbrook town council had objected on the grounds that the green wedge between towns would be too narrow, the density of housing was too high and the location of the gypsy sites were in the wrong place.

Since the build of the new town in East Devon began in 2010, 3,500 homes, a railway station, St Martin’s Primary School, play facilities, the neighbourhood centre, local shops, the education campus, the Cranbrook Farm pub, while construction of buildings in the town centre and the sports pitches are underway, while plans for the ecology park in the town have also been submitted.

The application for the southern expansion for Cranbrook would see the town get an additional 1,200 homes, but also a petrol station, a residential care home, employment land, a new primary school, and an all-weather sports facility. …”

[For detailed information see original article]

http://www.devonlive.com/rockbeare-parish-council-object-to-cranbrook-expansion-plans/story-30472214-detail/story.html