Category Archives: Austerity cuts

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, East Devon Tories, General Election

Comments

1 Comment

Just how much can you rip voters off before they reject you?

“Ask any returning or new MP what the big issues were during the election campaign and I bet most would have school cuts and police cuts top of the list. Indeed, at the beginning of the campaign, before the manifestos which changed the course of the election, I felt our school gates campaign was our strongest card and it would only be a matter of time before the Tories closed it down, as they did in 2015 on the NHS, with a promise to meet the shortfall.

Yet, with the arrogance and complacency that became the hallmark of their campaign, the Tories continued with their defensive line that school budgets were protected in cash terms (not real terms).

The Tories then adopted a similar (and wrong) strategy when police numbers took centre stage in the wake of the Manchester and London terror attacks, with Theresa May completely unable to say she’d “give the police the resources they need.”

In today’s Daily Mail, Tory MPs complain that headteachers lost them the election. Wrong. It was their own policies (and inability to change) which lost them the election. Polls after the election estimated that over three quarters of a million people changed the way they voted because of school funding cuts.

It wasn’t the fault of headteachers, nor the Chief Constables of the Met Police and Greater Manchester Police who also cited resource pressures, it was the Tory government’s own record on these issues.

The public can cope with a certain amount of “efficiencies” and necessary cost-cutting, but when their kids are in oversized classes without text books, and their hot lunches are being scrapped for a cold breakfast, or when our streets and communities become unsafe because of unsustainable cuts to the police, that’s when people get rightly very concerned.

The Tories failure to get this, is the biggest failure of their campaign and their government. It made Theresa May look remote and shifty on the campaign trail, unable to answer a straight question with a straight answer.

The Queen’s Speech shows that they’ve completely failed to learn the lessons of their election losses with no new money for schools or the police.

What an irony then that their own “magic money tree” has produced £1billion for their grubby deal with the DUP. This same billion pounds used at the start of the campaign to meet the shortfall in schools’ budgets and to give the police the resources they need with extra police officers, could have won them a majority, probably quite comfortably. Instead they are now going to have to find at least another £1billion to deal with the ever growing, and legitimate, calls of senior police officers and head teachers for adequate resources. The NUT has estimated that if English schools were given the same proportion of funding under this bung to the DUP as Northern Irish schools head teachers would receive over half a billion pounds.

The Tories key lines against Labour so effectively used in 2015 now all look in tatters, for the long term. It’s a common view that this election was a disaster for them, their dodgy deal with the DUP will only lead to more pain unless they learn the lessons of the election campaign.

Lucy Powell is the Labour and Co-operative MP for Manchester Central”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lucy-powell/general-election-2017-public-services_b_17304168.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2017

Posted under

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

Properties sold and future disposals by NHS Property Services

Make sure you check the second tab of “Future Disposals” which goes not yet include East Devon community hospitals – but you can bet it soon will.

http://www.property.nhs.uk/wpdm-package/disposals-2017/?wpdmdl=11292

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2017

Posted under

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

NHS Property Services – a very rich gravy train

 

And you don’t even have to work for the money!

How much longer can these “free market” obscenities go on?

And yet another hidden money tree.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jun 2017

Posted under

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

“Doctors’ union accuses government of privatising NHS”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Times (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jun 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts

Islington wins landmark appeal on affordable housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Jun 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

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

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

and

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

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

Source: The Times (paywall)

and

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Regeneration, Scrutiny, Standards Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts

Comments

1 Comment

New York Times explains the Grenfell Tower fire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2017

Posted under

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Nursing is not just a fill-in job.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, General Election

Guardian letters on regulation, health and safety and austerity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, General Election

Comments

2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Claire Wright, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

Comments

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are legal reasons for referral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And who carried out the survey?

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

Other councillors asked questions and made their own points.

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

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

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

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

But the chair refused to take a vote.

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

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

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

She refused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The committee voted in favour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

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

“Be prepared to defend hospital closures in court”

“NHS leaders looking to deliver change and transformation in their local health economy should be prepared to defend their plans in court, rather than pretending that the likelihood of legal action will never happen, Rob Webster, CEO at South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS FT, has warned.

Chairing a session entitled ‘Saving Our Services – Why are local campaigns fighting to save the NHS from transformation?’, at last week’s NHS Confed17, Webster, who is also the lead for West Yorkshire and Harrogate STP, said that even if the health service does “harness the power of communities, you can bet we will still have a fight with some people about change”.

“One of the lessons I’ve learnt,” said the former NHS Confed boss, “is so long as you have engaged with people throughout the process and have done it in the right way, and so long as you have some clinical and public voices behind the changes you want to make, and as long as you’re prepared to go to court, if and when you have to, and win, then the change will happen.

“Somebody will refer you either to the secretary of state or to a judicial review. Get ready for it, and work through it, rather than pretending it’ll never happen or thinking that if it happens it is the worst thing in the world. Get yourself ready and it will work.”

During the session, Webster asked panel members what they thought should be the priorities with regards to the STP and change agenda for the new government.

David Lock QC, former MP and legal advisor to the NHS, said: “STPs were an object lesson in how not to do public engagement.”

The idea that the NHS needed space to have honest conversations with itself before going out to the public created a huge deficit in public trust, he argued.

“The process and the constraints put on those running the process, and not to be public about what they were doing, was enormously damaging,” stated Lock. “If the ministers want to keep the STP process going on, they are going to have to do an awful lot more emphasis on bringing the public with them. In the end, you cannot deliver public services in the face of public opposition.”

Cllr Robert Smart, an advisor to the ‘Save the DGH campaign’ in Eastbourne, stated that the health secretary needs to slow down the process of the STPs “and make them into a proper 10-year strategic view”.

“And if that takes a couple of years to produce, then it takes a couple of years to produce,” he told the audience of delegates. “It isn’t a question of suddenly saying, ‘in three months’ time, we’re going to convert 40% of acute spending into community spending’.”

The following day, Jeremy Hunt admitted that, given the result of the latest general election and with the negotiations around Brexit starting just a couple of days ago, it is now unlikely that the government will be able to introduce legislation for STPs in the next few years – if at all.

Imelda Redmond, national director of Healthwatch England, also called on Hunt to “reward, and encourage, engagement with the public” on the STPs.
“It is number one on people’s agenda of what they love about the country, and what they care about,” she said. “Why would you not harness that, and get the best care we can?”

And Jeremy Taylor, CEO of National Voices, stated that the government must give the health and care system the resources it needs, and give it the time it needs to make change.

“There may be legal requirements on consultation, but there are also psychological requirements: you need time to build trust and relationships,” he reflected. “If you are doing this at breakneck speed it is just not possible to do it.”

However, NHS Improvement boss Jim Mackey also told the conference that it is possible to get “90% of the way there” with accountable care systems and accountable care organisations within the current legislative framework – “but we need to prove it”.

NHS England’s Simon Stevens later confirmed the nine areas that will officially form part of the first wave of ACSs.

Webster concluded by agreeing that time and resources are really important. “It sounds like you need to plan in the medium term and understand the money you have to do that. You could call it a sustainability and transformation partnership trying to bring everyone together,” he joked.

“I think it’s good that we have an audience that thinks it is not right to be dishonest or patronising. What we need to do is be honest and get alongside people and harness the power of communities.”

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/webster-be-prepared-to-defend-transformational-change-in-court?utm_source=National+Health+Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8412033_Newsletter+Jun+17+Week+3&dm_i=IJV%2C50ARL%2COIIF3N%2CJ36W7%2C1

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Police (local), Sleaze

Meet and question Police and Crime Commissioner Hernandez in Exmouth

“Police commissioner to attend meeting in Exmouth

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall is to answer questions from the public at an event in Exmouth.

Alison Hernandez will attend an open meeting which will take place at Exmouth Community College’s Telfer Centre on July 5, at 7pm.

Residents from Exmouth and the surrounding area will be able to question her on local issues.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/police-commissioner-to-attend-meeting-in-exmouth-1-5075147

QUESTIONS SUCH AS:

Why do you need a deputy.
Why did you appoint a “good friend” to be your deputy?
Did you consult the Police and Crime Panel?
How many people did you interview for the post of deputy?
Do you really believe people with guns should supplement police?

and

What exactly are you FOR?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2017

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Business Rates, Economy, EDDC

Oh, oh – no business rates devolution? Where’s the lost income coming from?

“Councils demand ‘clarity’ over funding after business rates devolution is dropped.

A steering group which spent the last 15 months consulting on how 100% business rates retention would work has been disbanded after the exclusion of local government finance legislation in this week’s Queen’s Speech.

Parliamentary time to consider the Local Government Finance Bill in the last Parliament ran out before Theresa May called this month’s General Election. However, the sector was stunned this week when the government made it clear that it would not revive the process for at least two years.

Room151 has seen a letter sent to members of the steering group from Anne Stuart, the newly-installed civil servant leading the business rates retention process.

It said: “I’m sorry this should be my first communication, but I am emailing because as you will have no doubt seen, the Queen’s Speech did not include a new Local Government Finance Bill and so it will not form part of the Parliamentary timetable for this session.”

In her letter, she thanked members of the steering group but said she would only be in touch “once we are in a position to resume working with you on the future of local government finance reform.”

However, she said that ministers remain committed to local government taking greater control of its income. “We are engaging ministers on the options for future reform without an immediate Bill…,” she said.

Ministers have reaffirmed their commitment to a thorough, evidence-based review and that work will continue with local government on that issue, Stuart said.

One steering group member told Room151: “This is more than a year’s work down the drain.

“If the government is planning to introduce any reform by executive order, it needs to make sure they take the sector with them.”

Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association, said that the failure to move on with business rates devolution was “hugely concerning”.

He said: “While negotiating Brexit will be a huge challenge for the government, it cannot be a distraction from the challenges facing our public services. The day-to-day concerns of our communities go far beyond Brexit.

“Only with adequate funding and the right powers can local government help the government tackle the challenges facing our nation now and in the future.”

Jo Miller, Solace president and chief executive of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, said: “I am disappointed that key legislation—absolutely fundamental to ensuring the future sustainability of local government—has now been dropped.

“Local government urgently needs clarity around our future funding—at present we simply face a cliff edge from 2020. This must urgently be resolved.”

A DCLG statement said: “The government is committed to delivering the manifesto pledge to help local authorities to control more of the money they raise and will work closely with local government to agree the best way to achieve this.”

The steering group to guide the process of business rates devolution was created in March last year after George Osborne announced that primary legislation would be introduced to allow councils to keep 100% of growth in business rates—up from the current 50%.”

http://www.room151.co.uk/funding/councils-demand-clarity-over-funding-after-business-rates-devolution-is-dropped/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

“Spending watchdog condemns ‘risky and expensive’ Hinkley Point”

Owl says: abd still our Local Enterprise Partnership sleepwalks into disaster with OUR money.

“Generations of British consumers have been locked into a “risky and expensive” project by the UK’s subsidy deal for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset, according to a damning report by the spending watchdog.

The National Audit Office said the contract sealed by ministers last September with EDF to construct the country’s first new atomic reactors in two decades would provide “uncertain strategic and economic benefits”.

Further, Brexit and Theresa May’s decision to quit an EU nuclear treaty could make the situation even worse, by triggering taxpayer compensation for EDF or a more generous deal for the French state-controlled company.

The watchdog condemned the past two governments for failing to look at alternative ways of financing the power station, such as taking a stake in the construction.

Observers labelled the report “deeply worrying”, a “strong reprimand” and a vindication of Hinkley Point C’s critics, who had argued it was too costly and advocated alternatives such as wind and solar power.

Under the terms of the 35-year contract, EDF is guaranteed a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour it generates, twice the wholesale price.

The subsidy is paid through energy bills, which the government estimates will translate to a £10 to £15 chunk of the average household bill by 2030.

At the heart of the spending watchdog’s criticism is the coalition government’s failure to look at any alternative financing model, such as taking an upfront stake in the £18bn project.

Instead, the Lib Dems and Tories decided all the construction risk for the plant must lay with EDF and its partner, Chinese state-owned CGN, to keep the project off the government’s books.

Taking a stake would have posed its own risks because of delays to projects with the same reactor design in Finland and France, the NAO admitted. “But our analysis suggests alternative approaches could have reduced the total project cost,” it added.

If the government had taken a 50% equity stake in the construction it could have almost halved the guarantee power price to as low as £48.50 per megawatt hour, according to the NAO.

The auditors were critical of ministers’ decision to negotiate bilaterally with EDF, rather than waiting for other new-build nuclear consortia to compete – an approach that the NAO noted had brought prices down on similar subsidy deals for windfarms.

The government’s case for the contract also weakened after the commercial terms of the deal were agreed by the then prime minister, David Cameron, in 2013, the watchdog said.

Delays to Hinkley and falling wholesale prices, caused by a two-year oil price slump, meant the total costs to consumers for the 35-year deal ballooned from £6bn in 2013 to £30bn now.

That number may rise even higher after new figures on power price expectations are released by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) next month.

Brexit could make matters worse still, the spending watchdog warned. In January, the government said it would quit a nuclear cooperation treaty as part of the process of leaving the EU.

That withdrawal from Euratom, the NAO said, “might be interpreted as a change of law” resulting in an adjustment of the £92.50 price promised to EDF, or even trigger a one-off payment for EDF through a compensation clause in the contract.

While the NAO concluded “it will not be known for decades whether Hinkley Point C will be value for money”, the usually conservative watchdog was strongly critical of the government for not assessing alternative finance models.

However, it said the report should not be taken as a recommendation that the government takes a stake in future nuclear projects – but the idea should be explored. Such an approach has been discussed by the Japanese and UK governments for a Japanese-backed plant in Wales.

Unions, industry experts and green groups said the report showed lessons must be learned for any future nuclear subsidy deals.

Commentators also raised questions over whether Hinkley would look cheap compared with alternatives such as wind and solar, which the government had argued would cost more.

Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union, which represents nuclear workers, said: “This is a deeply worrying report that highlights the lack of accountability and leadership in British nuclear policy.”

Dr Robert Gross of Imperial College called the report a “strong reprimand” of the past two governments.

A “slavish devotion” to free markets that ruled out taking a stake and failure to wait for other nuclear projects to bring competition were to blame, he said. “Renewables will become cheap, and this was not anticipated at all. It now looks likely that by the time it is built Hinkley will seem expensive compared to new solar and wind projects.”

Nina Schrank, energy campaigner at Greenpeace UK, called the report a damning indictment of the government’s agreement. “This year’s school leavers will still be paying for Hinkley when they approach their pension age, so it is concerning that the National Audit Office is suggesting it may not be worth their money,” she said.

Jim Skea, president of the Energy Institute, which represents energy professionals, said the report held “clear messages on the steps needed to protect consumers and taxpayers in the future, including possibly radical changes to nuclear policy”.

An EDF spokesman said: “Today’s report shows that Hinkley Point C remains good value for consumers compared with alternative choices. Consumers won’t pay a penny until the power station is operating and it is EDF Energy and CGN who will take the risk and responsibility of delivering it.”

A BEIS spokesman said: “Hinkley Point C will be the first new nuclear plant in a generation. This was an important strategic decision to ensure that nuclear is part of a diverse energy mix.

“Consumers won’t pay a penny until Hinkley is built; it will provide clean, reliable electricity powering homes and creating more than 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships in the process.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/spending-watchdog-condemns-risky-expensive-hinkley-point-c-nuclear

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Claire Wright, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Hugo Swire, Martin Shaw (Seaton), Neil Parish, NHS (local)

STPs may not be introduced till after Brexit – but are ‘Success Regimes’ similarly doomed or not?

Owl has had to resort to CAPITALS it is so mad!

OWL DOESN’T UNDERSTAND: IF STPs WON’T BE LEGISLATED FOR TILL AFTER BREXIT – WHY ARE LOCAL COMMUNITY HOSPITALS AND MATERNITY SERVICES CLOSED OR BEING CLOSED?

HONITON AND SEATON COMMUNITY HOSPITALS ARE ALREADY BEING WOUND DOWN FOR CLOSURE LATER THIS YEAR – IS HUNT SAYING THIS IS NOT LEGAL?

OUR DOCTORS AND OUR COMMUNITIES ARE AGAINST THESE PLANS, WHICH HUNT SAYS NEED LOCAL SUPPORT, SO IS OUR CCG ACTING ILLEGALLY?

TIME FOR THAT REFERRAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND A JUDICIAL REVIEW. THIS POWER-MAD, ARROGANT CCG NEEDS TO BE TAMED OR, BETTER STILL, DISSOLVED.

BUT YOU CAN BET OUR TWO MPs WON’T TOUCH THIS HOT POTATO! AND THAT MS RANDALL-JOHNSON WILL BE DEAF TO IT, AND DCC TORIES SPINELESS TOO.

THANK HEAVEN FOR PEOPLE LIKE CLAIRE WRIGHT, MARTIN SHAW AND ROGER GILES!

What Hunt said yesterday:

“Given the result of the latest general election and with the negotiations around Brexit due to start later this month, it is now unlikely that the government will be able to introduce legislation for sustainability and transformation plans (STPs) in the next few years – if at all.

Speaking at NHS Confederation yesterday, health secretary Jeremy Hunt argued that the legislative landscape has changed after a hung Parliament was declared last week. Because of this, it is unrealistic to expect the government to enact legislative health changes before the Brexit process is finished.

“We said [in our manifesto] that we would legislate to give STPs a statutory underpinning if that was felt to be necessary,” he said. “To be clear, we’re expecting to be in power until 2022 and deliver a stable government to make that possible.

“But obviously, the legislative landscape has changed, and that means that legislation of this nature is only going to be possible if there is a consensus across all political parties that it’s necessary. I don’t think that is in any way impossible, but it’s realistically not something we would do while the Brexit process was carrying on.”

Post-Brexit, he added, the government will have “a lot better understanding” of the legislative changes required by STPs. But even then, changing the law would require cross-party support – a much greater challenge now that the Conservatives no longer hold the majority in the House of Commons.

Responding to audience questions after his keynote speech, Hunt – who survived Theresa May’s recent political reshuffle – also hinted that the NHS could be in line to receive some more transformation funding.

Asked by a West Hampshire GP about the possibility of supporting transformation with ringfenced investment in order to enable new models of care elsewhere in the country, the health secretary argued “that is what the STP plans are about”.

But the biggest risk to pouring in more capital funding, he noted, is “if we don’t maintain the financial rigour and discipline that we started to see coming back into the system in the last year”.

“That was really what slowed down this process in the 2015-16 financial year, when we would’ve liked to put a lot more money into transformation,” the health secretary said. “But I think now we’re in a much, much better position to do that. We absolutely want to make sure that money is not an impediment to the rolling out of the STPs, because they are central to our vision.”

In fact, the recent NHS response to the horrific terrorist attack in Manchester, which saw staff working around the clock to cope with the unexpected demand, is a “very good reason for exactly what we’re trying to achieve with the STP process”, Hunt argued.

“The interesting lesson for me about the response in Manchester was how joined-up it was as a result of the terrific progress, under Jon Rouse’s leadership, that trusts have made in coming together as part of their STP,” he added. “I think they’ve probably gone further and faster than anywhere else in the country. I know it’s not been easy to do that, but it was extremely streamlined and effective.”

He also suggested that the government would be prepared to boost the region’s cash pot “if there are specific aspects of the response to those terrible events where there have been unexpected costs that the NHS incurred that wouldn’t be part of its normal response to emergency situations”.

STPs need local support
Asked by another audience member to explain the importance of bringing all local communities together into designing and delivering change, Hunt emphasised that the reasoning behind STPs is to bring about “fantastically beneficial” changes for patients.

“It’s a transformation that is wholly positive for the public,” the secretary of state said. “But people are passionate about their NHS and they obviously worry about any change that happens, and that’s why we have a responsibility to communicate that change. And that change is usually best not communicated by politicians, but by clinicians, because frankly you guys are trusted a lot more than we are.

“That’s why I think it’s really important to have that local engagement, and that’s why, when it comes to the big transformation plans, Simon Stevens and I are supporting them with every fibre in our bodies at a national level.
“But at a local level, we need you to be making the arguments. The evidence is that when you do that, even with potentially controversial changes, it’s quite possible to win the case to do them. But it does involve a lot of local engagement and I think that’s going to be one of the central challenges for the next few years.”

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/election-result-means-stp-legislation-now-due-only-after-brexit#.WUvMkaIufac.email

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

“Health and safety professionals urge deregulation rethink”

But it goes hand-in-glove with the Tory policy of the smaller state and the hands-off approach to development and developers!

“The government has been urged to rethink the deregulation of health and safety legislation in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, which is believed to have killed at least 79 people.

In an open letter to prime minister Theresa May, more than 70 leading organisations and figures from the UK’s health and safety professions have called for a change in attitude to health and safety regulation and fire risk management.

The signatories have also called on the government to complete its review of Part B of the Building Regulations 2010, which cover fire safety within and around buildings in England, as a matter of urgency.

The letter, whose signatories include the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), Park Health & Safety, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the British Safety Council, states: “We believe it is totally unacceptable for residents, members of the public and our emergency services to be exposed to this level of preventable risk in modern-day Britain.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/06/health-and-safety-professionals-urge-deregulation-rethink

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, East Devon Alliance, Health and Social Care (local), Martin Shaw (Seaton), Midweek Herald, NHS (local)

Oooh – Midweek Herald gets political – and on its front page!

Well, it’s a start.  But, of course, it won’t offend EDDC as it is a DCC responsibility!