EDDC wants us to donate to Sidmouth beach protection!

Presumably so their £10 million vanity relocation doesn’t have to be cut! Note: only Sidmouth beach management plan is being dealt with this way (so far) – no other town. We pay council tax – now we are expected to make donations! Though perhaps they will soon install a “make donations to our relocation” boxes in the Knowle reception!

“East Devon District Council is asking you to help fund a multi-million pound plan to protect the beach in Sidmouth. The council is appealing to residents and visitors to Sidmouth to help contribute financially to the town’s beach management scheme via a donation box on the seafront.

A £5.7million grant from central government will go towards delivering a scheme to protect the coastline. But a further £3.3m of partnership funding is required for the scheme.

A donation box and its accompanying explanatory sign has been designed to help visitors understand the role of the beach in flooding and coastal erosion and has been placed on Sidmouth seafront, and the public are being asked to donate to help fund it.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/donation-box-installed-on-sidmouth-seafront-to-help-raise-3-3million-for-coastal-protection-scheme-1-4984794

NHS: were Swire and Parish’s “talks” with Jeremy Hunt worthless?

It appears Jeremy Hunt may be for the chop if Mrs May get her way with the next government.

Swire and Parish boasted that they had “conversations” with Hunt over local hospital bed closures – such talks seemingly preferable to actually voting against them in Parliament.

Now it seems that Hunt is not one of Mrs May’s favourite people – and we also know that she is not always disposed to take the advice of people she doesn’t rate.

So how useful were these talks?

Given that Hunt contributed to a book on how to privatise hospital services, even if he gets his old job back – would he listen anyway?

Lympstone primary school amalgamates classes due toeducation cuts

An East Devon primary school has taken a drastic and controversial decision to teach children from different year groups together due to funding cuts.

Lympstone Church of England Primary School has told parents details about new class structures which it will introduce this September at a meeting on Wednesday afternoon. Parents have been told that despite attempts to bring fairer funding to Devon’s schools, Lympstone will be losing around £62,000 due to national cuts to education funding.

While other schools in similar situations have announced staff redundancies, mostly among admin and teaching assistant posts, Lympstone primary is opting to no longer teach children in set age group classes from reception to Year 6.

The decision has sparked much anger among parents who believe their children’s education and happiness will suffer. It is believed some are even threatening to pull their children out of the school if the changes go ahead. …

The school currently has around 188 pupils who are taught in seven classes. Its budget has lost close to £30,000 this financial year, but with inflation and rising costs, the hit to the school is closer to double that, parents have been informed.

It has resulted in a decision to amalgamate year groups into six classes from seven to prevent a deficit which it is not allowed to have. The school previously went from having six mixed year group classes to seven in 2011. …

http://www.devonlive.com/devon-primary-school-merges-year-groups-to-save-money/story-30283949-detail/story.html

“Exclusive: £8,000 for a blind, £2,000 for a tap; the true cost of PFI”

Owl says: although this is about schools, it applies to the NHS too. Why is Tiverton hospital staying open when others are closing – it is a PFI- funded hospital and closing it or even reducing beds, even if that is a right decision, is not an option.

“Schools are paying thousands of pounds more than they should for everyday items because they are locked into PFI contracts they have no control over, a Tes investigation has revealed.

In what are dubbed “life-cycle costs”, schools are charged over the duration of PFI contracts, which results in even modest monthly payments mounting up over the years.

One teacher, who asks not to be named, cites an example: “We are a PFI school with an annual PFI bill of £132,478. We have been paying £88 [a year] for the installation of a new sink for 14 years now. With nine years left on the PFI contact, that sink will cost £2,024.”

At Bristol Metropolitan Academy, a single blind for a room will end up costing £8,154 under PFI. Oasis Academy Brislington, also in the Bristol area, will pay £2,211 for an external water tap over the course of a contract.

Stella Creasy, Labour MP for Walthamstow, in north-east London, told Tes that the companies that profit from financing PFI deals were the “legal loan sharks of the public sector”. She wants an inquiry into PFI “before even more schools and hospitals are saddled with debts they can’t pay”.

For some schools, even getting the gates open to allow children to use the toilet before a school trip is a costly exercise.

One secondary in Oldham – Newman RC College – was charged £48 after security opened the school to allow pupils to visit the lavatory. The same school had to pay more than £400 for caretakers to fit some notice boards.

Such charges are not unusual. Tim Gilson, the head at Malmesbury School, in Wiltshire, said: “We had some benching put in the canteen, just along one wall, about 20 yards. We have to pay about £40 a month for the facilities management cost of that bench, on top of the cost of putting that bench in and all the materials. It’s a monthly charge that continues for the length of the contract.”

With 13 years left on his school’s PFI contract, the secondary will be charged £6,240 just for the management of the bench.” …

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-ps8k-a-blind-ps2k-a-tap-true-cost-pfi

“Public services pressures the next government can’t ignore”

Emily Andrews, Institute of Government writes:

“As the general election campaign gets going, politicians must not duck the issue of serious pressures in the public sector

It is no secret that the Conservative government has struggled to implement the promises of their last manifesto, particularly those around spending controls. As our Performance Tracker report shows, the short-term belt-tightening measures which produced efficiencies in the early part of the last Parliament – staff cuts and wage control – are no longer working.

In the last six months, the government has twice been forced into emergency action to stabilise services at or on the brink of failure: with emergency cash injections announced for 2,500 new prison officers at the end of 2016, and £2bn for social care at the March Budget.

The biggest pressures

The data makes it clear where the biggest pressures facing the incoming government lie.

The last time the UK went to the polls (in a general election at least) 91% of people were seen at A&E within four hours. This is shy of the government’s 95% target, which had not been hit since the end of 2012. Since then, despite record overspends and a cash injection at the last spending review, the number of people being seen within this targeted time has continued to fall, down to 81% at the end of last year.

Despite growing numbers of older people, and working-age adults with long-term conditions, adult social care received a 6% spending cut between 2009/10 and 2015/16. This includes a funding boost from the Better Care Fund last year.

Yet delayed transfers of care – where people who are deemed medically fit for discharge remain in a hospital bed – have continued to rise. The number of days delayed due to issues in social care has risen 51% since August 2015.

The extra £2bn provided to the adult social care in the March budget may help tackle this immediate problem, but the prime minister herself has admitted that the government does not currently have a long-term solution to put the struggling sector on a sustainable footing.

Schools have continued to be comparatively well-funded but deeper problems are starting to appear. Last year, the government’s target for teachers entering training was missed by 15%. Meanwhile the number of teachers leaving state secondary schools has outstripped the number entering them, at a time when the number of secondary school pupils is set to rise. Schools will have to tackle these problems at the same time as a 6.5% reduction in per pupil funding (up to 2019/20).

It is no secret that the Conservative government has struggled to implement the promises of their last manifesto, particularly those around spending controls. As our Performance Tracker report shows, the short-term belt-tightening measures which produced efficiencies in the early part of the last Parliament – staff cuts and wage control – are no longer working.

In the last six months, the government has twice been forced into emergency action to stabilise services at or on the brink of failure: with emergency cash injections announced for 2,500 new prison officers at the end of 2016, and £2bn for social care at the March Budget.

Waiting times IfG

Despite growing numbers of older people, and working-age adults with long-term conditions, adult social care received a 6% spending cut between 2009/10 and 2015/16. This includes a funding boost from the Better Care Fund last year.

Yet delayed transfers of care – where people who are deemed medically fit for discharge remain in a hospital bed – have continued to rise. The number of days delayed due to issues in social care has risen 51% since August 2015.

The extra £2bn provided to the adult social care in the March budget may help tackle this immediate problem, but the prime minister herself has admitted that the government does not currently have a long-term solution to put the struggling sector on a sustainable footing.

Facing up to the issues

So what are the options facing the current crop of ministers and aspiring ministers, as their election campaigns kick into gear?

Vague promises of efficiency and reform will not cut it this time round after another two years of intensifying pressures in public services.

Vote-winning cash injection promises – softening the blow of the new schools’ funding formula perhaps – may look appealing. But failure to match the cash to genuine solutions could end up wasting money which the next government, whatever their colour, will not be able to spare. And we know the ‘crisis, cash, repeat’ pattern of the last two years is unsustainable – financially and politically.

To square these circles – of demographic ageing, issues with the schools workforce, and a hefty Brexit implementation bill – the next government will have to make difficult decisions.

All politicians owe it to the electorate to make it clear what those are. It will be pretty obvious whether this is happening. It will mean, for example, putting some specifics behind promises of ‘long-term strategy’ for social care – for example, do the parties intend to implement the recommendations of the Dilnot Commission, and if so how do they intend to pay for it?

Even better, parties should commit to submitting their spending plans to independent scrutiny through an ‘OBR for public spending’, to assess their realism. In a ‘post-truth’ age, it is vital that the public can trust that politicians’ claims about what they can achieve are reliable.

Politicians should use this election to gain a political mandate for specific, challenging reforms to tackle these pressures – or risk failing services and intensifying public mistrust.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2017/04/public-services-pressures-next-government-cant-ignore

Claire Wright asks for “army of helpers” for bid to challenge sitting MP

An army of helpers are required if I am to run as a parliamentary candidate again!

I am seriously considering putting my hat in the ring as an Independent candidate in the 8 June General Election.

I have been for many years, deeply concerned at this government’s attitude towards public services, especially the NHS, social care and education, all of which are underfunded and hugely struggling, especially in Devon.

Devon County Council has seen over half its budgets disappear due to austerity measures. Many services have been cut back, or lost as a result.

I am also concerned about the effect of Brexit on the vast amount of land and species currently highly protected under EU legislation. This is at risk of not being properly protected as we leave the EU.

In Devon alone, there are 122 sites across 115,000 hectares, including at Woodbury and Aylesbeare Commons.

The transfer of this EU legislation to UK law needs carefully monitoring.

Since Tuesday morning I have received hundreds of messages of support and offers of help if I decide to run again, which has been touching and inspiring. This has forced me to consider my options carefully.

To run a successful campaign at such short notice, however, I need an army of leafleters and helpers.

If enough people come forward to offer practical help, I will be able to run.

If you are able to help, please contact me at

claire@claire-wright.org

stating relevant skills you have and how you can help.

Thank you.

NHS a major concern for voters

“Health is always discussed on the doorsteps in general election campaigns.
Labour has long seen the NHS as its defining electoral issue.

The Conservatives have tried hard to demonstrate their commitment with pledges in recent years of above-inflation investment.

But how much difference will it make this time in a campaign that is sure to be dominated by Brexit?

Polling suggests the state of the NHS is high on people’s list of concerns.
An Ipsos/Mori survey in January in association with the Economist showed that 49% of respondents considered it to be one of the biggest issues facing Britain, up nine percentage points since December and the highest level recorded since April 2003.

This was slightly ahead of the proportion (41%) seeing the EU and Brexit as a major issue. Immigration was next on the list, though lower than in December.

The same survey just before the general election in May 2015 had the economy, the NHS and immigration bunched quite closely together as issues of the highest public concern.

The latest snapshot has the NHS pulling ahead of both. But the key question is whether what people tell the pollsters are key issues translates into voting intentions.

The King’s Fund think tank recently analysed the British Social Attitudes survey taken across England, Scotland and Wales and found that public satisfaction with the NHS was high at 63%, little changed from 2015.
It is worth pointing out, though, that this polling was carried out in the summer and early autumn of 2016 before the latest bout of winter pressures.
The general election health debate will be about England as governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland run their health services and they have no elections this time.

Labour made health a central plank of its 2015 election campaign. Andy Burnham, then the party’s health spokesman, spoke out forcefully about the pressures on hospitals over the preceding winter. He also accused the Conservatives of encouraging privatisation of the NHS, which they in turn denied.

But this failed to cut through, as the Tories achieved a majority.
This time Labour is stressing that health will again be central to its campaigning effort.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39640624

A tactical voting guide

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19_yf4RL133fBKscvSbID4eRKwztzY9KSI_2BMaI1bU8/htmlview?sle=true#

Can we afford to starve education of funding?

“BRITAIN is facing a chronic skills shortage as the country’s teens languish among the worst in the western World at reading and maths.

A devastating new report last night claimed England and Northern Ireland together are rated in the bottom four “of the international class” for literacy and numeracy.

And they’re the UK’s 16 to 24 year-olds are dead last in an OECD classification of 19 countries for computer problem-solving skills.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) slammed ministers past and present for “two decades” of failing the nation’s youth.

And it urged the Government to use a further £2 billion from the Apprenticeship Levy to pay for more skills training.

Lizzie Crowley, CIPD skills adviser, said the country was “sleepwalking into a low-value, low-skills economy”.

She said: “Our report should serve as a real wake-up call for the Government to break with the past past two decades of failed skills policy and set the UK on a new course that delivers the right results for individuals, organisations and the economy as a whole.”

She added: “We can either take the high road as a nation or we can keep doing what we’ve always done and get the same mediocre results.”

The CIPD said it was the first time the OECD had arranged the statistics in this way.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3359236/britains-teens-among-the-worst-in-the-world-at-reading-maths-and-even-computer-skills/

Is Brexit your only concern in East Devon for the next General Election?

If so, Tories or UKIP will undoubtedly satisfy you.

However, if you are equally (or more) concerned about the underfunding of the NHS, school, adult social care and child services, non-existent affordable housing, then that will not be the party for you.

Think carefully. Brexit will go ahead however you vote, underfunding of local services (and the constant financing of vanity projects) will continue if you vote Conservative and they form a majority government.

What to do if you value local services and an MP who will (a) be here and (b) fight these cuts is: in a safe or marginal seat which a Conservative might win – vote for whoever is most likely to come second, except UKIP, whose local policies veer between the very vague and the crazy – in Somerset a UKIP county candidate believes all problems in the NHS are caused by having too many women doctors and he has not been contradicted or thrown out by their national party.

In East Devon this is certainly local Independent Claire Wright ( presuming she stands again); in Honiton and Tiverton it is, perhaps surprisingly, Labour, though much depends on who else stands there in June.

You really do have one chance this year to make local issues count.

“The big NHS sell-off”

“A ‘business-case’ for the NHS has now been set, and its the biggest NHS Sell-Off event Ever!

If anyone is in any doubt as to the sheer scale of the privatisation of our NHS, look no further than the Health and Care Conference announced for June.

The conference 28-29 June 2017 at ExCeL London, brings together all STP leads, health trust and CCG chief executives and other delegates from the private sector claims the event is” Europe’s largest integrated health and social care event, building relationships between commissioners, providers and suppliers”.

Their brochure states “IT’S THE ONLY PLATFORM FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS, PROVIDERS AND SUPPLIERS. IT’S ALSO THE LARGEST GATHERING OF STP LEADERS EVER ASSEMBLED. AND LET’S FACE IT, AS THEY’LL BE LOOKING FOR YOU AT HEALTH AND CARE, CAN YOU AFFORD TO NOT SEE 5,500 CUSTOMERS YOU HAVEN’T MET YET.

The objective of the expo conference is to accelerate ‘Transformation’ of the NHS by introducing delegates to hundreds of private healthcare sector companies along with other STP leads.

To anyone wishing to retain a universal healthcare system, the Health and Care conference is a shameful collection of people openly betraying the principles of the NHS. Such events would have been taboo 20 years ago, but now the SALE OF OUR NHS is openly broadcast and in public. There’s even a ‘transformation’ awards event for those who so far have managed to cut NHS services and transform them in line with private healthcare sector values.

It’s a no holds barred event with Labour and Lib Dem politicians thrown in for good measure…

Here’s a brief list of those hosting some of the events with many sessions openly ‘sponsored’ by private companies..

Opening and Welcome to Health+Care 2017
Chair: Dame Ruth Carnall,
Managing Partner, Carnall Farar Ltd [and lead officer for Devon CCG]
Cross-Party Debate: NHS and Social Care Funding – is it time to ask the public?
Jonathan Ashworth MP, Labour Shadow Secretary of State for Health

And another Labour Peer…
■ Delivering the £5bn operational productivity challenge
Patrick Carter, Lord Carter of Coles, founded Westminster Health Care Ltd in1985 which he built into a leading health care provider which he sold in 1999. The Labour peer is a private investor and director of public and private companies in the fields of insurance, healthcare and information technology.

Local Authority Trading Company – The benefits and opportunities and challenges
Alison Waller, Managing Director, Tricuro Limited

■ Improving quality with creative leadership
Chris Gage, Managing Director, Ladder to the Moon
Dr Al Mulley, Managing Director for Global HealthCare Delivery Science, The Dartmouth Institute

Dr Rupert Dunbar-Rees, Founder and CEO, Outcomes Based Healthcare [research company]

Antony Tiernan, Director of Engagement and Communication, New Care Models Programme – Five Year Forward View

James Sanderson, Director of Personalisation and Choice, NHS England

Sir Bruce Keogh, Medical Director, NHS England

Professor Matthew Cripps, National Director, NHS RightCare

Jacob West, National Care Model Lead – Acute Care Collaboration and Primary and Acute Care
Systems (PACS), New Care Models Programme

The Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell, Chair, NHS Confederation and former Secretary of State for Health

Matthew Swindells, National Director: Operations and Information, NHS England

GP Regulation: Professor Steve Field, Chief Inspector of General Practice, CQC

Challenges facing the NHS provider sector: Chris Hopson, Chief Executive, NHS Providers

Dominique Kent, Chief Operating Officer, The Good Care Group Ltd”

http://mavericksunite.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/the-biggest-nhs-sell-off-event-ever.html

If you value your NHS don’t vote Tory in Seaton, vote Independent East Devon Alliance

Mrs Parr, the Colyton Tory candidate, was a passive presence at recent protests about the closure of beds at Seaton Hospital. On the other hand, EDA candidates Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton) and Paul Hayward (Axminster) were then and are now vocal opponents of the plan.

“In her election leaflet, the official Conservative candidate for Seaton and Colyton, Helen Parr, confirms her support for the East Devon Tory policy of accepting ‘bed-less hospitals’. Mrs Parr acknowledges that the decision to close in-patient services at Seaton Hospital is ‘a huge blow for the town and wider area’. But her leaflet adds, ‘Helen will do everything possible to get the best role for Seaton hospital for the future’, and will insist that the CCG are ‘delivering the services they are promising before any beds are closed’. So NOT supporting the Town Council’s fight to STOP the bed closures. You have been warned.

Conservative candidate confirms her support for ‘bed-less’ hospital

“When will the anger over the NHS reach political tipping point”

“Thatcher, Major and Blair all bent in the face of NHS crisis – yet through lack of opposition, May and Hammond remain iron-clad adamant: no more money.

There is an ebb and flow in reporting on the NHS as Trump, Syria and Brexit dominate front pages. But the pressure-cooker state of the entire service still worsens. This morning’s latest figures are just a snapshot of deterioration – but every target is missed: for A&E, ambulance response times, for treating psychosis within a week, for cancer waiting times, blocked beds and diagnostic tests.

“Demand” is rising, the government says, as if serious illness were a choice, though the pressure comes from well-predicted, rapidly increasing numbers of old, sick people: this February’s A&E figures are, as ever, better than deepest winter January, but worse than February last year, as this crisis ratchets up.

Major A&E centres are treating 81.2% of patients within four hours, against a target of 95%, which used to be hit before 2010. The government likes to blame frivolous users of A&E, but those are easily triaged to on-site GPs. Serious delays are because of very ill people needing to be admitted with no empty beds: bed occupancy is at dangerous levels, as Chris Hopson of NHS providers warns, where doctors often have to decide “one in, one out”, discharging those who still need more care too early.

Take the temperature in virtually every part of the NHS and the wonder is how the heroically overstretched staff keep the wheels on the trolley. Take this week alone: the Royal College of Physicians says 84% of doctors have to cope with staff shortages and gaps in rotas.

GPs? Two years after a government promise of 5,000 more GPs, numbers are still falling. They dropped by 400 just in the last three months of last year: as doctors find the workload unmanageable some escape abroad, take earlier retirement or become locums. Too few new doctors want the burden of running a GP partnership, so 92 practices closed last year, tipping hundreds of thousands more patients on to already overloaded neighbouring GP lists.

Today the Royal College of Nursing, traditionally most reluctant of unions to take action, starts consulting its members on whether to hold a strike ballot. But with public sector pay frozen yet again at 1%, when inflation will shortly hit 3%, nurses are departing – as are doctors – for less stressful, better-paid work. Recruitment from the EU is plummeting, as predicted.

As everyone firefights, hand to mouth, all the preventative services are being cut that might help keep patients from needing a crisis bed. The government has lines to take but no answers, and some of those “lines” are fictions. No, the NHS has not had £10bn, as Theresa May keeps claiming: it’s more like £4.5bn over four years, says the Kings Fund.

No, the £2bn given to social care will not ease the beds crisis, for all the exhortations to councils to use every penny of it in releasing bed-blocking patients with new care packages at home. NHS Providers, representing NHS hospitals, mental and community trusts, says councils are using that money to stem the collapse of existing care services and care homes, as the higher minimum wage and rising costs cause multiple closures. Cuts leave at least half a million old people getting no care, who would have done – and that risks falls, neglect and extra hospital visits. The care crisis is seeing 900 care workers a day leaving underpaid and overworked jobs.

Money, you might think, comes last in hospital managers’ priorities. But they are being severely harried and punished by NHS England to rein in ballooning debt by plundering capital funds and selling bits of land to cover running costs, in one-off moves that many say they can’t repeat this year. An NHS England-commissioned report says £10bn is needed to cover this depleted capital: that’s not for grand new projects, but for basics such as worn-out dialysis machines.

A chair of a leading teaching hospital tells me “heroic assumptions” are being made by most trusts agreeing their “control totals”, their spending limits for this year. Debts will swell again. This year the NHS gets just a 1% increase, next year an unprecedented zero.

One of Labour’s NHS triumphs was to cut waiting times for operations from 18 months to 18 weeks – but now that totemic 18-week limit has been abandoned. However, that only adds to hospitals’ financial woes as they rely on income from elective surgery, while every extra emergency costs them money.

Two in five GPs in south-west of England plan to quit, survey finds
This is the dismal background to the reorganisation that the head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, is attempting, almost undercover. His state-of-play review of his five-year forward plan passed hardly noticed, announcing a first tranche of England’s 44 STPs, (sustainability and transformation plans) to reconnect local services fragmented by the Lansley 2012 act.

Most observers think it the right way to go, putting the NHS and social care under a united structure with one finance hub, ending destructive and expensive competition and tendering of services. But hardly anyone thinks this can be done with no new money: every STP calls for capital for new beds and units. Virtually all involve closures and mergers stirring a local political outcry.

Jeremy Hunt, who always presented himself as the patient’s ally, rooting out poor quality, wallowing in the Labour disaster at Mid-Staffs, has fallen uncharacteristically quiet. He has nothing much to say about patient safety in A&Es or elderly patients turned out of beds too soon. Not even deaths on trolleys in A&E corridors in Worcester roused his usual righteous ire.

Concern about the NHS has risen high in recent polling: what no one knows is when public anger will reach a political tipping point. Theresa May and Philip Hammond stay iron-clad adamant: all this is NHS shroud-waving and there will be no more money. Lack of any opposition helps, but can they really tough it out where Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair all bent in the face of NHS crises?”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/13/public-anger-nhs-political-tipping-point-may-hammond

Swire says it’s positive to close Ottery’s “geriatric home” hospital

Venner’s earlier remarks here:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/04/06/tory-dcc-candidate-in-ottery-thinks-hospital-closure-is-progress-and-it-was-just-a-geriatric-home/

Swire’s agreement here:

So, if you think it is positive and right to close your community hospital because it’s just a “geriatric home” – Venner and Swire are your (negative!) candidates and heaven help you when you.

It used to be that geriatric was defined as anyone over 60 – so Mr Swire is nearing that age and Mr Venner looks like he might qualify too – let’s hope neither of them finds the need for NHS geriatric care any time soon as, given local NHS plans, there won’t be any – though, of course, there will be luxury geriatric care for those who can afford it (perhaps at the Knowle in Sidmouth)!

Meanwhile remember that Independent candidate Claire Wright has campaigned tirelessly for a better, more secure NHS, wants to protect your environment – and isn’t geriatric but is willing to fight for anyone in that corner too!

And this information might be helpful for Messrs Swire and Venner:

“Data gathered by the charity Skills for Care, shows that in 2015-16 there were more than 1.3 million people employed in the adult social care sector in England.

Analysing the data, BBC News has found that:

An estimated 338,520 adult social care workers left their roles in 2015-16. That is equivalent to 928 people leaving their job every day.

60% of those leaving a job left working in the adult social care sector altogether

The average full-time frontline care worker earned £7.69 an hour, or £14,800 a year.

One in every four social care workers was employed on a zero hours contract.
There was an estimated shortage of 84,320 care workers, meaning around one in every 20 care roles remained vacant.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39507859

No staff austerity cuts for EDDC – on the contrary!

The number of employees at EDDC continues to rise – up by 8 between September and December 2016. As these are full-time equivalent jobs, the cost of those extra 8 staff will likely be around £300,000 per annum.

Mysteriously, the employee statistics, which are normally published monthly, are now three months out of date …

Relocation: the sums just don’t add up

So Mark Williams says that ‘We have an asset that will appreciate in value’.

First of all, it may not, but more importantly, the increasing value of the Knowle as an asset has always been excluded from EDDC’s calculations.

Finally, after seven or eight years, EDDC have recognised that the Knowle is a capital asset that is likely to increase in value.

Even when the figures were manipulated to show the move as ‘cost neutral’, that façade was only maintained because the value of the Knowle (at least £7.5 million) was equated to the value of the new HQ at Honiton (valued by JLL at £2-3 million). Since then, of course, ‘cost neutral’ has gone out of the window.

So we now have the proceeds of sale = £7.5 million – possibly, assuming in these trying times a sale is even possible.

Cost of replacement buildings = £10 million (Honiton) + Exmouth £1.7 million + Manstone £1 million = £12.7 million.

Net loss £5.2 million.

Plus new road at Honiton = £225,000.

Plus admin costs to date = £2 million.

Plus costs of moving = say £3 million. (New equipment, staff compensation, etc.

Plus loss of asset value = £7.5 million – £2.5 million = £5 million.

Total loss is now in this scenario about £15.5 million.

This is all to achieve gains in running costs. However, estimates for Manstone were never included. The cost of running three HQs rather than one will be higher because of increased travelling, and commuting between sites.

Were Option 3 to be pursued, and the modern buildings improved at a cost of £1 million to £1.5 million, then the ‘new’ Knowle would be a very cheaply run building.

The £2 million already spent on admin cannot be recovered, so that is a sunk cost.

So pursuing Option 3 would cost £12 million less, and almost certainly reduce running costs. And leave EDDC with a far nicer building than a cheap and uninspiring shed of offices on an industrial estate at Honiton.

The above assumes that EDDC’s numbers are correct, but we all know that the cost of relocating will rise as the scheme is pursued, and we no longer have the guarantee of Pegasus money coming through. Plus, of course, EDDC may feel the need to employ even more consultants!

So, we will not see any change out of £20 million. And there will be no savings as to running costs compared to Option 3.

All this at a time of local government reorganisation.

Real numbers: not EDDC’s strongest point …

Supping with the devil – NHS talks to hedge funds to borrow £10 billion

The NHS is in talks with hedge funds about borrowing up to £10 billion to repair hospitals and beef up GP care.

Health chiefs believe that low interest rates mean the NHS has a “golden opportunity” to raise money for infrastructure without relying on the chancellor.

The Times has learnt that health officials have reached the outline of an agreement with one or two hedge funds, as well as other investment companies. However, no deal can be signed without Treasury approval.
Jim Mackey, chief executive of the financial regulator NHS Improvement, is to meet Treasury officials today to urge them to sign off a round of private borrowing to create a central NHS infrastructure fund to which local services can apply.

Health unions called the discussions a “cry for help” from managers. Hedge funds are investment companies, some of which are known for aggressive strategies. Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England, has agreed not to ask for more day-to-day funding after a spat with Downing Street this year, and negotiations in Whitehall now centre on cash for infrastructure.

Billions of pounds is needed for buildings, equipment and IT systems to implement Mr Stevens’s vision of tests and specialist care at GP surgeries, rapid-response teams to keep elderly people out of hospital and quicker and better treatment for cancer and mental illness. He warned last month that a lack of cash to get such services up and running was one of the “significant risks” to his plan.

A £5 billion maintenance backlog also needs to be cleared after years of raiding repair budgets to cover hospital overspending. “We have to be realistic because we are not going to get a £10 billion cheque to pay for all the transformation under way and the massive maintenance backlog, so we need to think long and hard about another way,” Mr Mackey said.

“Historically low interest rates are a golden opportunity for the NHS but we are constrained by rigid rules around borrowing that prevent us from taking action. An NHS fund could power the improvement needed to sort out problems at our hospitals and to drive the change required to get the NHS ready for future challenges.”

Ministers have accepted the need for some private cash after an official review concluded that £10 billion was required to boost an “insufficient” NHS infrastructure budget. However, they expect public money and land sales to provide most of it.

Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said: “It’s shocking that NHS leaders are in secret negotiations with hedge fund bosses . . . Theresa May has refused to respond to the needs of crumbling hospitals, ageing equipment or provide the necessary investment in community facilities.”

The NHS could expect to receive similar interest rates to the 1.1 per cent available to the government for ten-year loans. Concerns about how the borrowing would show up on government balance sheets must be overcome, as must Treasury scepticism about NHS financial acumen.

Mark Porter, head of the British Medical Association, said that while the Stevens plan “could have offered a chance to deal with some of the problems that the NHS is facing, this move shows how desperately the health service needs more funding. The government must take heed.”

Analysis: Proposals will scare Treasury

A new front has been opened in the NHS campaign for cash. The service’s leaders have largely accepted that there will be no more money until nearer to a general election but now the focus is on raising infrastructure funds.
There are two good cases for a one-off injection.

First, capital budgets have been raided to the tune of about £2 billion in two years to bail out struggling hospitals. Second, this has come at exactly the time the NHS needs money to set up the better local services that underpin its five-year plan. Cash spent now on therapists, equipment and computer systems to keep people well will pay off many times over in hospital visits avoided in future, the argument runs. Philip Hammond accepted the logic in last month’s budget, allocating £325 million for the most advanced transformation plans, describing it as a down-payment on a package to be negotiated this summer.

Today’s revelation raises the stakes in talks, which were already looking delicate. The Treasury tends to have a very poor opinion of NHS financial management skills and the prospect of the health service negotiating terms with seasoned hedge fund bosses is likely to cause palpitations in Whitehall. Then there is the spectre of the Blair-era private finance initiative. Although this helped dozens of shiny new hospitals to get built, many believed that they would have been cheaper in the public sector. The NHS is still paying £2 billion a year under PFI deals, with some hospitals claiming that they have had to cut other services to meet inflexible repayments.

Ministers do not want to say no to private funding if that will increase pressure to find more public money. Most likely is a compromise where less eye-catching ways to raise private capital are matched by taxpayers’ cash. If not, the winter row over NHS funding will erupt in a new form over the summer.”

Times – paywall

“Sale of Knowle set to be ‘uncoupled’ from EDDC’s £10million relocation”

DANGEROUS! DANGEROUS! DANGEROUS!

If/when it all goes pear-shaped, WE the council tax payers will not only foot the bill but see services cut – as interest payments on a loan will take precedence over services.

AND what happens when (as seems almost certain) “Greater Exeter” or Devon becomes a unitary authority? There will be no need for vanity project buildings which will be expensive white elephants as a glut of un-needed council properties hit the market.

Basically, EDDC is squandering OUR money. Disgraceful.

AND WHERE ARE THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL AUDITORS REPORTS ON THIS HIGH-RISK STRATEGY? Is EDDC ploughing ahead yet again with incomplete legal and financial information?

“Sidmouth representatives slammed the ‘cavalier’ decision to borrow money to fund the move to Honiton and Exmouth – but East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) top officers said there is greater risk in standing still.

Cabinet members were given the options of borrowing cash to ‘go now’, waiting for the outcome of developer PegasusLife’s planning appeal after it offered £7.5million for Knowle, or staying put and modernising the former hotel or its offices, together with a refurbished Exmouth Town Hall.

Speaking at Wednesday’s meeting, Sidmouth councillor Cathy Gardner said: “If you commit to borrowing a large amount of money at taxpayers’ expense, you aren’t in control. You are in more control when you know the outcome of the planning appeal.

“These figures aren’t certain. These are just estimates based on assumptions.”

She questioned if the officers had costed staying at Knowle, selling off part of the site and marketing its Heathpark plot in Honiton to another developer.

Councillor Marianne Rixson, who also represents Sidmouth, said EDDC was taking a ‘cavalier approach’ to spending taxpayers’ money, adding: “Any future developer will know you are desperate and will not match the price offered by PegasusLife.”

EDDC originally promised the relocation would be ‘cost neutral’, it would not borrow money and the project would not progress before Knowle was sold.

But chief executive Mark Williams disagreed, saying the ‘go now’ option ‘derisks planning’, while delaying ‘increases risk’. He added “We have an asset [Knowle] that will appreciate in value.”

Officers said pressing ahead with the relocation to Honiton’s Heathpark and Exmouth Town Hall is the most cost-effective option and could make EDDC £1.4million better off over 20 years.

If it chooses to delay the project so planning permission for Knowle can be secured, it could be £400,000 better off than it is now.

In contrast, members were told if they chose the ‘go minimum’ option – giving up on the new-build Honiton HQ, completing the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall and modernising a section of Knowle for £11.3million or £5.9million – they would be £4.5million worse off. There is no capital receipt to fund the modernisation.

Cllr Tom Wright said: “There has been a lot of talk about uncertainty. This building is unfit for purpose. Moving is not a vanity project. It’s to improve what we can do. If we stay here, it’s money down the drain. This building is useless for the 21st Century. This land isn’t going to lose value.”

The ‘go now’ option won the support of cabinet members but is now set to be considered by a joint meeting of the overview, scrutiny and audit and governance committees on April 18.

It will then go before the full council.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sale-of-knowle-set-to-be-uncoupled-from-eddc-s-10million-relocation-1-4966674

You want to know the (deliberately deprived) state of our NHS and Social Care?

Read these articles:

Cuts = more sick people:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/05/public-health-cuts-will-lead-to-more-sick-people-report-warns

Cut “pensioner perks” to pay for social care:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cut-pensioner-perks-to-fund-social-care-8wk9c83kc

Paupers funerals soar:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dickensian-style-paupers-funerals-soared-10180956

NHS: condition critical:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news-review/the-nhs-condition-critical-dfzxsknrh

“The great town hall property buying spree” full text

“After a career as an investment manager at HBOS, the bank that had to be bailed out by Lloyds during the financial crisis, Donna Jones became leader of Portsmouth city council in 2014. It was a time of belt-tightening, with the prospect of government funding for local authorities drying up altogether by 2020.

“It was clear to me we had to start running councils like businesses,” said the 39-year-old Conservative councillor. “To survive during the austerity programme, the only way to protect high-quality public services was to go out and generate income. We’re not moving to fortnightly bin collections or closing any libraries, swimming pools or museums.”

She has been true to her word. The council is now selling back-office facilities, such as human resources and IT support, to charities and smaller councils. It has leased the naming rights to the Spinnaker Tower, the city’s 560ft-high landmark, to Emirates airline.

Portsmouth’s local authority has also amassed a commercial property portfolio — most of it many miles away from Fratton Park football stadium, HMS Victory and Southsea Castle.

Using £110m of debt, Portsmouth has so far bought properties including a DHL distribution centre near Birmingham, a Waitrose store in Somerset and a Matalan warehouse in Swindon. In December, it sold a long lease on the Wightlink ferry terminal to the insurer Canada Life for £73m. The proceeds will be used to raise the portfolio’s size to more than £180m.

Jones said the deals were already producing £4.9m of annual income after interest. Combined with other measures, that means only £900,000 of the £9m budget cuts that Portsmouth must implement in the coming year will have to be passed on to residents through service reductions, she said.

Across England, other councils are doing the same. Empowered by the 2011 Localism Act and funded by cheap loans from an obscure subsidiary of the Treasury, 49 local authorities went on a £1.3bn property buying spree last year — spending far more than the £142m recorded in 2015.

However, there are growing concerns in the private sector and parts of Westminster that government grant cuts, coupled with generous lending by the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), are encouraging councils to take risks they do not properly understand — in an asset class that is more volatile than many realise. Most of the property deals have been 100% funded with debt, leaving both councils and the Treasury exposed to immediate losses if values fall.

William Hill, the former head of property at the fund manager Schroders, warned in January that councils were “behaving like hedge funds exploiting a financial arbitrage”. He questioned why the government was lending to local authorities “to buy real estate on terms that make bank lending to the property sector before the [great financial crisis] look positively conservative”.

Sam Resouly, a partner at the investment firm Trinova Real Estate, said the trend had caused “distortion” in the market, with the PWLB giving councils an advantage over other bidders. He added: “If they buy 10 years’ income, they have to accept that as 10 years goes to zero, they’re going to get a rapid deterioration in the value of that asset. At some point they’re going to have to spend money to get it up to standard, and what happens to councils’ accounts then?”

One management consultant, who did not want to be named, said: “It’s hard to see why councils aren’t just the dumb money in the property market.”

The borough council of Spelthorne, a patch of the Surrey commuter belt that is home to 95,000 people, had the dubious honour of doing Britain’s biggest local authority property deal last year. It boasted of outbidding “national and international” investors to buy BP’s Sunbury office campus for £360m. The complex has been leased back to the oil major for 20 years, yet Spelthorne financed its purchase with a 50-year fixed-rate loan from the PWLB.

Although the council is paying down the loan year-by-year — unlike most other PWLB borrowers, which pay interest only — the mismatch raises the possibility that Spelthorne will be on the hook for repayments on an empty building in 20 years, when BP’s lease runs out.

Terry Collier, deputy chief executive of the authority, said it had taken out a 50-year loan because “it was just the way the financing worked best for us”.

He said BP had been on the site for 100 years, and was an important local employer, but added: “We wanted to secure a key site within the borough which was 3½ miles from [Heathrow] Terminal 5. Regardless of what BP do long term, that’s a valuable site, and we obviously did our options analysis around various scenarios.”

Spelthorne took confidence from the fact it was advised by Cushman & Wakefield, a well-known property agent. Cushman, however, is likely to have received a seven-figure fee, based on typical industry contracts, meaning it was hardly incentivised to advise against the deal.

Of the 76 council property transactions last year, 58 involved authorities buying within their own geographic area, according to a report by the consultancy CBRE. Spelthorne’s purchase added £3m a year to its annual £13m income after interest costs, but also gave the council control of what it called a “strategic” local site. Similarly, Canterbury council in Kent spent £79m on 50% of the city’s Whitefriars shopping centre, with the dual aim of generating income and improving the mall, and Surrey Heath bought up a chunk of Camberley town centre for regeneration.

There were 18 instances of councils venturing beyond their boundaries for deals, apparently driven entirely by the hunt for investment yield. Tony Martin, a director at CBRE, played down the significance of this, saying there was “only a very small number who will do it”, but the trend among the likes of Portsmouth seems to be accelerating. Some are even considering going overseas.

East Hampshire is one. It was the only authority in England to announce a council tax cut this month. The council leader, Ferris Cowper, a former director of the confectionery giant Mars, believes the authority could scrap the tax altogether within five years despite the loss of central government grants.

As well as making money selling services such as planning and regeneration advice, Cowper has built a £24m property portfolio that produces more than £2m a year after costs.

He is in the process of negotiating £200m of new loans, at least half of them from the PWLB, to ramp up East Hampshire’s activities. Those borrowings would amount to eight times East Hampshire’s annual budget of £25m. “That will be for opportunities nationally and, depending on the yield and risk profile, internationally too,” said Cowper, who plans to remain a cabinet member to oversee the strategy.

At the heart of this property boom is the PWLB, a body set up in 1793 to lend councils money for sanitation works. It now gives them access to cash from the National Loans Fund for “capital projects” — in theory, building and infrastructure — and has a balance sheet of more than £65bn.

The PWLB allows authorities to raise finance at sovereign prices: according to its website last week, £100m from the PWLB over 20 years would cost a council just 2.2% annually. The equivalent private sector rate would be 4% to 5%.

The process is surprisingly simple. Since Sir Eric Pickles, the former communities secretary, abolished the Audit Commission, councils have set their own borrowing levels based on the Chartered Institute of Public Finance’s prudential code for capital finance without close supervision by the government.

Provided a council can assure the PWLB it is operating within its limit, which is agreed every year by the cabinet and signed off by its finance director, it can borrow as much as it likes without telling the PWLB the purpose of the loan. The PWLB lends to the council without taking security over the asset.

Councils’ interest payments must be paid ahead of their other commitments, such as spending on services, although the current spread between the PWLB’s rates and property yields means they can service the debt and keep a profit.
A parliamentary report last year noted that changes to the PWLB’s early repayment charges meant that fewer councils were paying off loans early.
Henry Stannard, an associate partner at the strategy consultancy OC&C, said councils were exploiting a loophole. He suggested they were using a legal but circuitous route to “launder” money ring-fenced for capital projects into the separate part of their budgets set aside for spending on services such as adult care.

“This is not what the PWLB was set up for, and it’s not what it’s been funding for the past 200 years,” he said. “There has to be a better way of funding local government than these sorts of cheats.”

The Treasury is absorbing the PWLB and taking over its functions, although it said local authorities would “continue to be able to access loans as before”, and that interest rates would “continue to be the responsibility of the Treasury”.

For now, the multibillion- pound property gamble is set to roll on. In the words of Tony Travers, local government expert at the London School of Economics, councils’ attempts to make profits are an “intended consequence” of Downing Street’s plan to cut local authority grants by 2020 while protecting spending on defence, the NHS and pensions.

The next property market crash will test the wisdom of that policy.

Are you being served?

Councils spent £1.3bn on commercial property last year as they sought ways of generating income to make up for central government grant cuts. They are doing this with cheap loans from an arcane branch of the Treasury that is supposed to help pay for infrastructure investment.

MPs raised the alarm over the trend in November. The public accounts committee, chaired by Labour’s Meg Hillier, said the Department for Communities and Local Government appeared complacent about the risks from councils “increasingly acting as property developers and commercial landlords with the primary aim of generating income”.

The report noted that:

• councils’ spending power on services, based on government grants and council tax, fell by more than a quarter from 2010-11 to 2015-16, and is set to drop another 7.8% by 2019-20;
• councils’ spending on capital projects ­— building and infrastructure, but also property investment — rose by 13.6% from 2010-11 to 2015-16; and
• a “significant” number were already having to use more than 10% of the money meant for services to meet interest payments on debts.

The MPs said the department did “not have good enough information” on the pattern of property investment. They pointed out that three-quarters of councils’ capital spending was grouped under one category — hiding the shift from building libraries and museums to investing in office blocks and supermarkets for yield.

The Tory MP Richard Bacon questioned councils’ ability to build portfolios. “We all know plenty of examples of local authorities that could not run a bath or organise their way out of a paper bag,” he said, referring to the early 1990s interest-rate swaps fiasco in Hammersmith & Fulham, west London. The council amassed £6.2bn of risky derivatives bets and was saved only when the House of Lords ruled them void.

Last week, Moira Gibson, leader of Surrey Heath council, accused critics of “underestimating councils”. She said her authority used outside advisers, including Montagu Evans, to help run its £130m portfolio.”

Times Newspapers (paywall)