A new business rates sting for small and medium businesses

“A Plymouth businessman has spoken out against the new “staircase tax” which has cost him thousands of pounds.

Peter Cuddehay, who owns a printing business and art gallery on Plymouth’s waterfront, said new tax rules, which treat different floors in the same building as separate premises, are unfair.

The changes, which affect up to 30,000 small firms, have hit him in the pocket and sabotaged his investment plans.

“It’s an iniquitous tax,” the 67-year-old business owner said. “Where is the fairness? I think it’s wrong.”

Mr Cuddehay has been stung by a Supreme Court ruling which allows the Valuation Office Agency, which recalculated business rates in 2017, to levy rates individually on offices on separate floors or corridors.

Previously they were treated as a single premises.

Some firms face rate hikes of up to £15,000 as a result of the new rules – which are backdated to 2015.

Mr Cuddehay said he has been forced to rip up his accounts for the past two years and start again.

His business operates over three floors, the top one only being a store, which has now been defined by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) as “two premises”.

Mr Cuddehay, who employs five people, previously qualified for business rates relief because the rental value of his property was less than £12,000.

But he now has to pay a back-dated bill of more than £5,000 – and will face tax bills in future when before he didn’t have to pay anything for being below the limit.

He faces prosecution if he doesn’t pay up, so he’s handed over the cash, but appealed and is awaiting a date for his hearing.

“It’s a joke. We must have been one of the first companies to have been hit by this,” he said. “A retrospective action is outrageous, I can’t believe they can get away with it.”

And it’s a double charge for Mr Cuddehay, a member of the Federation of Small Businesses as he now expects his Waterfront Business Improvement District levy charge, calculated on rateable value, to rise too.

“All our plans for investment have gone out of the window,” he said. “We’ll also have to go back to out landlord and maybe say we don’t need the top floor storage.”

Mr Cuddehay has now written to Sutton and Devonport MP Luke Pollard about his predicament.

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, is now under pressure from backbench MPs to address the changes and perhaps overrule them when he announces his Budget in autumn 2017.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/business/businessman-loses-thousands-because-new-376567

Diviani and Randall-Johnson are satisfied these questions have been answered on bed closures – do you agree?

30 [plus] questions” that must be asked BEFORE care at home can be implemented:

Pre-implementation

The model of care:

• Does the new model of care align with our overriding ambition to promote independence?
• Is there clinical and operational consensus by place on the functions of the model and configuration of community health and care teams incorporating primary care, personal care providers and the voluntary care sector?
• Is there a short term offer that promotes independence and community resilience?
• Is there a method for identifying people at highest risk based on risk stratification tool?
• Are the needs of people requiring palliative and terminal care identified and planned for?
• Are the needs of people with dementia identified and planned for?
• Is support to care homes and personal care providers, built into the community services specification?
• Is support for carers enhanced through community sector development support in each community?
• Has the health and care role of each part of the system been described?
• Have key performance indicators been identified, and is performance being tracked now to support post implementation evaluation, including impact on primary care and social care?

Workforce:
• Is there a clear understanding of the capacity and gaps in the locality and a baseline agreed for current levels and required levels to meet the expected outputs of the changed model of care?
• Is there a clear understanding of and plan for any changes required in ways of working:
o thinking
o behaviours
o risk tolerance
o promotion of independence, personal goal orientation

• Have the training needs of people undertaking new roles been identified, including ensuring they are able to meet the needs of patients with dementia?
• Do we have detailed knowledge with regards to investment, WTE and skill mix across the locality and a plan for achieving this?
• Are system-wide staff recruitment and retention issues adequately addressed with a comprehensive plan, and where there are known or expected difficulties have innovative staffing models been explored?

Governance, communications and engagement:
• Is there a robust operational managerial model and leadership to support the implementation?
• Has Council member engagement and appropriate scrutiny taken place?
• Is there an oversight and steering group in place and the process for readiness assessment agreed?
• Have providers, commissioners and service users and carers or their representative groups such as Healthwatch agreed a set of key outcome measures and described how these will be recorded and monitored?
• Is there a shared dashboard which describes outcomes, activity and productivity measures and provides evaluation measures?
• Is there an agreed roll out plan for implementation, which has due regard to the operational issues of managing change?
• Is there a comprehensive & joint communications and engagement plan agreed?
• Is there a need for a further Quality or Equality Impact Assessment?

Implementation
• Is there a clinical and operational consensus on the roles of each sector during the implementation phase including acute care, community health and care teams, mental health, primary care, social care, the voluntary care sector and independent sector care providers?
• Is there an implementation plan at individual patient level describing their new pathway, mapping affected patients into new services?
• Are the operational conditions necessary for safe implementation met?
• Have the risks of not implementing the change at this point been described and balanced against any residual risk of doing so?

Post Implementation
• Is there a description of the outcomes for individuals, their carers and communities?
• Are the mechanisms for engagement with staff, users of services and carers in place and any findings being addressed appropriately?
• Is there a process in place for immediate post implementation tracking of service performance including financial impact to all organisations?
• Is longer term performance and impact being tracked for comparison against pre-implementation performance?
• Have we captured user experience as part of the process, and have findings been addressed and recorded to inform the planning of future changes?
• Are there unintended consequences or impacts (e.g. on primary care or social care) which need to be addressed before any further change occurs?
• Is there a clear communication plan for providers and the Public describing the new system and retaining their involvement in community development?”

Source: http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-

Now Seaton and Honiton hospital beds are closed, here’s something to look forward to

Better keep fingers crossed that you or your loved ones are not in a similar position to some of the people mentioned here.

But if you are one of the unfortunate ones, remember Paul Diviani (EDDC), Sarah Randall Johnson (DCC), Neil Parish MP, Hugo Swire MP, Minister Jeremy Hunt and Prime Minister Theresa May all put you there. They all have one thing in common: they are Conservative politicians whose decisions led to this situation – and think carefully about whether you would vote for them now or in the future knowing what you know now.

People who receive care at home have told a health watchdog that a lacklustre service has meant they have had to go two weeks without a shower, eat their dinner at 3.30 in the afternoon and be cared for by workers who can’t make a bed.

The failings highlighted in a report by Healthwatch England drew on the experiences of more than 3,000 people who receive care at home. Other problems described in the document include care workers coming at different times to those scheduled, not having enough time to fulfil all their duties and some missing appointments altogether.

Across England there are more than 8,500 home care providers, collectively helping an estimated 673,000 people with tasks such as washing, cooking, dressing and taking medication. The report suggested that home care was “in a fragile state” and that care packages were being “designed to meet the needs of the service provider rather than the service user”.

One home care user in Redcar and Cleveland said: “Sometimes they give me a shower but they go over their time. Most of the time they haven’t got the time to give me one so I go a couple of weeks without one and that is not right. I feel dirty.”

A woman in her 80s told Healthwatch Bradford her care workers were unable to boil an egg or make the bed, while another said staff needed to be taught “home care common sense”.

A care user in Barnet, north London, said: “I am diabetic and sometimes carers are late or don’t show up and that really affects my medications and insulin administration.”

However, Healthwatch, the health and care consumer champion, stressed that most people had positive things to say about their domiciliary care – with many older people praising the service because it enables them to remain in their own home and to maintain as much independence as possible.

Neil Tester, the deputy director of Healthwatch England, said: “We heard examples of compassionate care from dedicated staff, but people also talked about care that doesn’t meet even basic standards. Given the challenges facing the social care sector, it is more important than ever that people’s voices are heard.”

Izzi Seccombe, the chairwoman of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said: “This report shows that while most people report that their services are good there is a need to improve services.

“The financial pressure facing services is having an impact and even the very best efforts of councils are not enough to avert the real and growing crisis we are facing in ensuring older people receive the care they deserve.

“The continuing underfunding of adult social care, the significant pressures of an ageing population and the ‘national living wage’ are combining to heap pressure on the home care provider market.”

She added: “This study shows the strain providers are under, and emphasises the urgent need for a long-term, sustainable solution to the social care funding crisis.

“While the £2bn announced in the spring budget for social care was a step in the right direction, it is only one-off funding and social care services still face an annual £2.3bn funding gap by 2020.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: “Everyone deserves access to high-quality care, including those who receive it in their home. This is why we have introduced tougher inspections of care services to drive up standards, provided an additional £2bn for adult social care, and have committed to consult on the future of social care to ensure sustainability in the long term.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/report-highlights-failings-of-home-care-services-in-england

“Rural littering is down to councils charging residents more to use local dumps” says Countryside presenter

Well, it seems simple to us countryfolk: charge people too much to remove their waste and they will dump it somewhere that is free … But councils no longer work for their electors – they are big businesses that exist for profit and development. Fewer services for more money to spend on vanity projects and unsympathetic regeneration.

“… Official figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs showed councils across England reported 936,090 cases in 2015/16, up 4 per cent on the previous year.

Clearing up all the waste is said to cost councils £49.8million a year, and on-the-spot fines of up to £400 are said to have done little to ease the situation.

Craven, who has fronted Countryfile for more than 25 years, continued: ‘This scourge had been on the decline but now it’s peaking and in some quarters blame is being put on local councils.

‘Because they are strapped for cash, they are charging more to use local rubbish tips and even closing some of them, while at the same time cutting back on household waste collections. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814648/John-Craven-s-despair-fly-tipping-epidemic.html

University Vice-Chancellors in the butter, students paying for it

“Another MP has resigned from his role at the University of Bath in protest against its vice-chancellor’s £451,000 pay package.

Darren Jones, Labour MP for Bristol North West, became the fourth politician to step down from the university’s court, a statutory body representing the interests of the university stakeholders, in protest over Dame Glynis Breakwell’s pay deal. His resignation on Tuesday afternoon follows those of two Labour colleagues Kerry McCarthy, MP for Bristol East, and David Drew, MP for Stroud,. as well as Andrew Murrison, Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire.

As the mounting resignations prompted former Labour education minister Andrew Adonis to call for Breakwell to stand down, Jones said: “Students in my constituency are paying increasingly high tuition fees, with many families helping their children out with the costs associated with going to university.

“Vice-chancellors pay needs to be set within the context of value for money. And students take on excessive debt to get a good education, not to pay bloated executive pay.”

The issue of pay was raised by Lord Adonis in an article for the Guardian earlier this month.

University vice-chancellors are paid too much, says Lord Adonis
Murrison resigned from the university court last week, saying university bosses were “looking increasingly like a self-serving cartel”.

The series of resignations also puts the squeeze on a government already facing pressure to investigate the high salaries awarded to vice-chancellors, amid mounting accusations that students’ tuition fees are being used to inflate the pay packets of senior management.

McCarthy and Drew said Breakwell’s salary, as well as those of senior staff, could not be justified when students were taking on debts of £60,000 to pay fees.

McCarthy said her resignation was about “sending out a signal”.

She said: “I’ve been concerned for quite some time about the level of vice-chancellors’ pay; it’s the fact it’s now coupled with increasing pressures on students. It’s not just that student fees have gone up to £9,000 a year, but the interest they’re being charged on those has gone up to about 6%.

“And I know that ordinary academic staff who are on pretty modest incomes have generally had their pay held back to a 1% pay rise. We’ve got it at local government level, where you’ve got chief executives that are on several hundred thousand a year, quite a few of their senior officers are on more than the prime minister, and yet you’re holding back pay rises for the bin men.

“I think it sends out a very poor signal to the students if the impression they’re given is they are the ones bearing the financial burden.”

Subsequent to the resignations, Adonis said a pay reduction for Breakwell would not be enough to solve the problem.

“The crisis at the university of Bath can only now be resolved one way, which is by the resignation of the vice-chancellor,” he told the Guardian. “It’s clear that she’s progressively losing the support of her court and council, and for very good reason. Her pay and conduct has been unacceptable.”

The peer has previously called for an inquiry in the House of Lords and criticised the “serious controversy” of salary increases awarded to Breakwell, along with benefits such as “a large house in the historic centre of Bath”, and non-executive directorships she holds.

Jones said on Tuesday that he agreed with Adonis that government should undertake an inquiry into public sector executive pay. “I have therefore resigned from my ex officio position on the court of Bath University as a sign of my support for such a review,” he said.

While Breakwell is top of the salary list, the controversy is not unique to Bath. Vice-chancellors received an average salary package of £277,834 in the last academic year, more than six times the average pay of university staff.

A report released by University and College Union (UCU) in February revealed that 23 British universities had increased the pay packages of their vice-chancellors by 10% or more in 2015-16. Fifty-five universities paid their heads more than £300,000, with 11 vice-chancellors earning more than £400,000 a year.

Breakwell’s package was an 11% rise on the previous year, despite a 1.1% cap on pay for non-managerial staff across the higher education sector.

The Higher Education and Funding council for England (‌Hefce), the universities charities watchdog, has been asked to examine whether Breakwell’s salary is in line with charitable duties and responsibilities. It has said it would investigate “governance in relation to the remuneration committee of the university”.

Jo Johnson, the universities minister, has told universities that in future they will have to justify exceptionally high salaries.

A University of Bath spokesperson said: “We are providing Hefce with all the information they have requested including in relation to meetings of university court. The university does not intend to comment further on these matters until such time as Hefce have concluded their investigation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/22/two-more-mps-quit-bath-university-roles-over-vice-chancellors-pay

The erosion of democracy to serve the cult of celebrity and business

From an article about how Boris Johnsom frittered away nearly a billion pounds on projects that came to nothing while he was London mayor – echoes of the East Devon Business Forum, the Local Enterprise Partnership, Greater Exeter …

“… Still, Johnson merely highlights a number of problems. He shows what happens when our celebrity culture, in which he has a starring role, fuses with an era of denuded press and desiccated politics. This is the age of the administrative monarch. We are encouraged to place power and trust in individuals of purported unparalleled wisdom, vision and probity. Mayors, metro mayors, police commissioners, superheads; we outsource to individuals, increasing their power in the belief they will get things done, unencumbered by faint hearts and red tape.

By this thinking, democratic checks and balances are a bother. There can, in this political calibration, be some light-touch monitoring, but the monarch must have all the power. True democracy can be such a millstone.

This is a philosophy tilted towards business in its many lucrative interactions with the public sector, for it sends a message that the special individual talents of the market do not need the democratic or collective checks and balances that might save us from folly. We saw this in the framing of the London mayoralty, where the initial hope was that a Richard Branson or a Greg Dyke would seize the sceptre. That didn’t work out. Instead of an industry titan, the befuddled lawmakers ended up with Ken Livingstone, the very antithesis of their hopes, and then Johnson.

But the thinking endures that true progress needs turbo-empowered individuals in whom we endow complete trust, as we might for a pilot or a brain surgeon, because their knowledge and drive and networking prowess surpasses our understanding. Theresa May sought that sort of unquestioning trust when she implored us not to worry our pretty little heads and to give her complete and personal authority to do as she pleased in Brussels. The country eventually called her out on that, but isn’t it time to question that philosophy everywhere?

Isn’t it time to reassess the extent to which we have loosened the regulatory structures? The Tory-led coalition scrapped the audit commission and with it a level of scrutiny that once gave the reckless pause. The Standards Board for England, responsible for monitoring ethical standards in local government, was doused in ministerial petrol and thrown on to the same so-called bonfire of the quangos.

At the same time, the right or expectation that local councillors, representing their communities, should sit on the boards of organisations in receipt of public funds – such as schools, housing associations and private firms delivering communal services – has been steadily eroded.

Our system is a largely a centralised one, but still the canny determined mayor can disengage the handbrake knowing that no one can, in real time, reapply it. Voters can assert their authority at some point on the journey, but it may be some way down the road. By that point the vehicle, recklessly driven, may have crashed. And by the time the authorities arrive, the driver may well have legged it.

So these leaders may never be held to account. Maybe they have already left office. The heat turns down, the world moves on. The protection of celebrity deflects the glare. Isn’t that what’s happened in the case of the garden bridge and all of the wasteful, ill-conceived Johnsonian follies?

But isn’t it also – in terms of the public’s apparent inability to bring poor and reckless administrators to account – what’s happened in universities up and down the country? Vice-chancellors on grotesquely bloated salaries charge £9,000-plus tuition fees without any improvement in the offer to students. And in notorious academy schools, deified super-heads have taken advantage of huge pay cheques and light public supervision to provide pupils with a substandard education.

We have grown scornful of the mundanities of democracy. The celebrity-as-saviour populist version excites. But the dull, traditional, sometimes tortuous structures – with checks and balances and inquests and punishments – existed for a reason. With them grand projects took longer, consensus was required, and foolhardy stewardship carried risks. But without them we spend millions on the dream of a flowery bridge while services atrophy, food banks flourish, and the designers of that outrage move onwards and upwards.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/boris-johnson-940-million-system-to-blame

Coverage of Seaton hospital bed closures

Owl still thinks THIS is the real reason for the hurried closure:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/08/20/is-this-why-there-is-a-dangerous-rush-to-close-community-hospital-beds/

“Protesters waved banners and shouted ‘shame’ outside Seaton Hospital today (Monday, August 21) as health chiefs began implementing their in-patient bed closure plans.

A similar vigil will take place outside Honiton Hospital next Monday when the cuts are due to begin there.

Yesterday’s gathering was addressed by Seaton’s county councillor Martin Shaw who said the town had been badly let down, and town mayor Jack Rowland, who said that while they may have lost the fight to save the beds the battle would now begin to save the actual hospital.

The dates for the closure of in-patient beds in East Devon was announced by health officials last week.

In a statement the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust said: “The NHS has given details of how it intends to implement its ‘Your Future Care’ plans to improve patient care across Eastern Devon, including creating new nursing, therapist and support roles.

“Your Future Care” set out proposals to move away from the existing bed-based model of care. Instead it proposed a model of care focused on proactively averting health crises and promoting independence and wellbeing.

“The plans were subject to a 13-week public consultation that closed earlier this year, following which the NHS NEW Devon CCG approved a way forward which enhanced community services to support more home-based care by redirecting and reinvesting some existing bed-based resources. The net result would mean an increase of over 50 community-based staff to support out of hospital care and a reduction in community inpatient beds across the Eastern locality of Devon.

“Detailed operational work began in this area with the introduction of the Community Connect out-of-hospital service in March which has already led to a reduction in demand for community inpatient beds.

“In order to achieve this transition safely, implementation will take a phased approach to redeploy and recruit staff to the additional nursing, therapy, care workers and pharmacist roles which will enhance community services in Exeter, East Devon and Mid Devon.

This will enable the reduction in inpatient beds – moving from seven community inpatient units to three.

The timetable for implementation is:

• Seaton Community Hospital week commencing 21 August 2017

• Okehampton Community Hospital week commencing 21 August 2017

• Honiton Community Hospital week commencing 28 August 2017

• Exeter Community Hospital week commencing 4 September 2017.

“The provision of inpatient services at these locations will cease from these dates. All other services at these hospitals will continue as normal. Patients in these areas in medical need of a community inpatient bed will be accommodated at either Tiverton, Sidmouth or Exmouth hospitals, depending on where they live.

“Over the past couple of weeks it has become apparent that the schedule for the closure of the in-patient units needs to be brought forward. This is due to the increasing pressures on safely staffing the current configuration of seven community inpatient units. Furthermore, now that the workforce HR consultation has been completed, 170 staff can be redeployed into the enhanced community teams and our hospitals to provide extra capacity and resilience to meet the demand for care for the people of Eastern Devon.”

Adel Jones, Integration Director at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust said: “It is acknowledged that getting to this point in the process has not been without its challenges and I would like to thank all who have contributed to the development of the implementation plans.”

Dr Anthony Hemsley, Associate Medical Director at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital said: “Although the decision to reduce inpatient beds will only affect a small number of patients per week, we, with the support of the clinical assurance panel, are confident that our plans to provide more care at home are safe and ultimately will help more people to be independent.

“At the point of implementation, we will be able to redirect some of the existing bed-based resource into local community teams. Additional staff including community nurses, therapists and personal support workers will be there to provide greater provision and access to care and support. However, we know that there is still much more work to be done, particularly around prevention, wellbeing, recruitment of staff and availability of domiciliary care. This can only be done in partnership with communities and we at the RD&E look forward to continuing this work.”

Rob Sainsbury, chief operating officer for NEW Devon CCG, said: “Reallocating resources away from hospital bed-based care into more home-based and community care will really make a positive difference to people’s lives.

“It will ensure that everyone who needs the service in our community has the best access to good quality and sustainable health services and help people to stay independent for longer, with the benefit of being cared for closer to family and friends.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/protest-over-seaton-hospital-bed-closures-1-5157377

RIP Seaton Community Hospital beds – vigil, noon today

The town with the largest catchment area for elderly people – its community hospital closes the doors on its beds today.

Built by public subscription, funded by a hard-working League of Friends, only its outpatient services will remain – for now.

The heart of a community stops beating today.

Thanks to the vote of East Devon District Leader (Paul Diviani – who voted at EDDC against his own district recommendation) and former Leader and Chair of DCC Health and Social Care Committee Sarah Randall-Johnson, who voted along with all other Conservatives on that committee not to refer the closures of Seaton and Honiton (next Monday) to the Secretary of State.

This will leave the whole of the eastern side of the district with no community beds at all – the few remaining beds to be (for the time being) in Sidmouth and Exmouth, closer to Exeter and Cranbrook.

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/

“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/

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/

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