Category Archives: Privatisation

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Dec 2017

Posted under

Education (local), Privatisation

Comments

1 Comment

“40,000 children trapped in ‘zombie’ academy schools”

“The government has been urged to review its policy on multi-academy trusts after it was revealed that more than 40,000 children were being educated in “zombie schools” waiting to be transferred to another academy chain.

Department for Education figures, obtained through a freedom of information request, show 64 academy schools are waiting to find a new sponsor after being abandoned by, or stripped from, the trust originally managing them. A calculation using the average number of pupils in state-funded primary and secondary schools in England – 279 and 946, respectively –suggests the 64 schools would contain more than 40,000 students.

The government has encouraged academies to join multi-academy trusts, promoting them as a support for schools that have left local authority control, although some have been criticised for financial mismanagement and a lack of oversight.

Half of the 64 “zombie schools” are waiting to be transferred from two chains: the Education Fellowship Trust and Wakefield City Academies Trust. In March the former became the first trust in England to give up control of its 12 academies – including a school in the prime minister’s Maidenhead constituency – following concerns about educational standards. In September the Wakefield trust said it would divest itself of 21 schools across Yorkshire, as it could not undertake the “rapid improvement our academies need”.

The DfE said it was in the process of securing new academy chains for the schools in both trusts.

Until a new multi-academy trust is found, the schools remain in limbo, often unable to make long-term planning decisions, hire new permanent members of staff or organise pay rises. They do not have the option to return to local authority control. Campaigners say that the government is struggling to find new chains willing and able to take on the schools, many of which have been left in a precarious financial position by their previous sponsor.

“The Tories’ fragmented education system is now creating ‘zombie schools’ caught between academy chains who are under no obligation to take them on, and a government that won’t step in to help them,” said Angela Rayner, Labour’s shadow education secretary. “Even in the prime minister’s own seat it seems there are classrooms of children not getting the education they deserve. … ”

The figures come after it was announced on Thursd

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Privatisation, Transport (local), Utilities

Comments

1 Comment

Two more utility franchises cost taxpayers dear – very, very dear

“
VIRGIN EAST COAST

The East Coast rail franchise will be terminated three years early, avoiding the embarrassment of another private firm handing back the keys to the government but potentially forfeiting hundreds of millions in premiums due to the Treasury.

Under a rail strategy announced by the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, a new partnership model will replace the franchise contract of Virgin Trains East Coast (Vtec).

The train operator, a joint venture led by Stagecoach with Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, had pledged to pay £3.3bn to run the service until 2023 when it was reprivatised in 2015 after six years in public hands.

Instead, Vtec is likely to pay a fraction of that sum, with the bulk of payments due in the final years of the franchise.

The firm signalled that it also expects its payments for the next three years to be cut. In the first full year of operation, it paid £204m. Shares in Stagecoach jumped 12% on the news.

Andy MacDonald, the shadow transport secretary, told the Commons that the strategy announcement was “a total smokescreen”. He said: “The real issue is that the East Coast franchise has failed again and the taxpayer will bail it out.”

Pointing to the share price rise, he said: “Markets don’t lie. The secretary of state has let Stagecoach off the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds. He’s tough on everyone except the private sector.”

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

More questions were raised by a separate decision to give First Group another contract to run Great Western Railway (GWR) up to 2024 after it was controversially allowed to continue running the service, despite dodging £800m due to the government in an original contract.

The franchise, which runs commuter services into London Paddington and long-distance trains to Wales and the south-west, is likely to be broken up, under plans published by the DfT. The biggest commuter franchise, Govia, which operates the Thameslink, Great Northern and troubled Southern services, will also be broken up.

DfT will extend First’s current GWR franchise contract by another year, to April 2020, and then give a direct award for two more years, with an option to double the tenure.

First has run the trains during the botched upgrade of the route by Network Rail, which has seen costs overrun to almost treble the original budget and stretches of the electrification project abandoned to save money.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/29/east-coast-rail-franchise-terminated-three-years-early-virgin-trains

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Economy, Privatisation, Transport (local)

Who benefits from rail changes?

Deutsche Bahn (Germany),  SNCF and Govia (France), Abellio (Netherlands), Renfe (Spain),  First MTR (part-owned Hong Kong), Trenitalia (Italy):

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Privatisation, Utilities

Comments

1 Comment

Two (of many) privatised water scandals

1. SOUTH WEST WATER

“A water firm has been slammed for handing more money to its owners than it spent on upgrading equipment.

South West Water paid a £213.1million dividend to its parent group Pennon last year, while investing £190million in drinking and wastewater operations.

Research group Corporate Watch said that over past ten years, it has paid £1.7billion to its owner and banks, and invested £1.4billion on upgrades.
Last December the firm was fined £1.7million by the regulator Ofwat for missing pollution targets.

Its minor spills increased from 222 to 252 during 2016, according to is latest annual report. The firm says 82m litres of water leak a day, within its target of 84m litres. …

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-5086339/South-West-Water-paid-owner-upgrading.html

THAMES WATER

“Enough has been written about a Conservative government that knows its electoral success depends on Britain remaining a property-owning democracy, yet offers nothing beyond token gestures to stop the young being priced out of home ownership. Enough, too, has been said about graduates being overcharged, pensioners soaking up the largesse of the tax and benefit systems, the failure to upgrade infrastructure, the obesity crisis, and all the other problems that can’t be tackled because of half-thought-through Tory prejudices.

Allow me instead to concentrate on the scandal of the privatised water industry. Journalists and academics have been banging on for what feels like an age about an ‘organised rip-off’, to use the words of the usually sedate Financial Times. Few took notice, and that should not surprise you. Causes can appear marginal for years. Politicians see no need to address them. Then, with no warning to those who haven’t been paying attention, they explode.

Last week Michael Robinson of the BBC presented a superb documentary on what Thames Water had done to London and the southeast. Most infamously, the company poured 1.4 billion litres of sewage into the Thames near Marlow alone, destroying fish and fouling the home lives of river-side residents. The residents were also its customers. Not that Thames Water seemed to care. Water is a private monopoly. Why should it bother itself about the feelings of people who had nowhere else to go? After hearing how managers ignored warnings from workers about persistent equipment failures, Judge Francis Sheridan encapsulated their attitude when he said that the company had presided over ‘a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs’.

As shocking is the way that the former owners of Thames, the Australian bank Macquarie, was able to pass its costs on to the public. Macquarie took on £2.8 billion of debt to buy the company; it then loaded £2 billion of Cayman Islands debt on to Thames Water and its customers, despite giving assurances to the water regulator Ofwat that it would do no such thing. Macquarie has taken its profits. According to Martin Blaiklock, an infrastructure consultant, its investors received returns of 15 to 19 per cent over 11 years — twice the expected level. All it has left behind is a £2 billion debt and a very bad smell.

Now Thames Water is owned by a Kuwaiti investment fund and a Canadian pension fund. Its managers talk the soothing language of customer service and corporate responsibility. But when pressed by the BBC to say that they would not seek to imitate Macquarie and extract rapacious returns from a captive market, they refused to answer the question.

What interest do Kuwaiti and Canadian investment funds, Australian banks and Cayman Islands financiers have in ensuring the quality and affordability of our water? The hopeless regulators have no answers. Since Margaret Thatcher privatised English water companies in 1989, six out of the nine have pulled themselves off the stock market, meaning they do not have to release to their shareholders information that the regulators can scrutinise.

They promised to bring efficiency. Instead they have brought unsustainable levels of debt that, one way or another, the public will have to redeem. Researchers at Greenwich University say that in the past decade, the nine companies have made £18.8 billion of post-tax profits. Far from using the money to make the water system better, they have paid out £18.1 billion in dividends, and financed investment through loading £42 billion of debt on to consumers.

The university estimates the English are paying £2.3 billion more a year in water and sewerage bills than if the utility companies had remained in state ownership. These costs might have been bearable in good times, but as the Brexit-induced fall in the pound pushes real wages back down again, the prices of water, gas and electricity are bound to be political issues. Customers may not be overly keen to subsidise shareholders and lavishly overpaid managers.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives haven’t joined Labour in demanding the renationalisation of the water industry. It would cost about £70 billion, and in any case, Tories don’t nationalise. But why, after the Macquarie shambles, aren’t ministers and the regulators saying that secretive private equity and Middle East funds should not be allowed to control utilities? Why have they allowed Macquarie to move to the National Grid’s gas division? Ofwat is huffing that it has got tough, but it imposes no penalties on managers who break their commitments. After loading Thames Water with debt and flooding the Thames Valley with excrement, its then boss, the unimprovably named Martin Baggs, bagged a 60 per cent pay rise in 2015.

Conservatives claim to believe in the free market. If they did, they would view monopolies as Adam Smith viewed them — as conspiracies against the public interest. They would not care whether the monopolies were public or private. Both give consumers no choice. Both can put their customers’ interests last. But to the Tory mind, a distinction without a difference makes all the difference.

Because water companies are private monopolies, politicians and regulators back away from confronting them with the necessary anger and vigour. If a nationalised industry behaved as Thames Water has, they would be outraged. As it is, the mere fact that the monopolies are private is enough to persuade politicians to stand aside and let a scandal grow. No one will be more surprised than them when it explodes.”

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/even-the-tories-should-admit-that-its-time-to-renationalise-the-water-companies/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Corruption, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality, Privatisation, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Grenfell Tower resident blogged that fire would be result of council’s deliberate neglect – local media refused to take up the story

Local media knew about this for YEARS but refused to take it up or investigate, leaving a lone Grenfell Tower blogger to document the unfolding disaster. One so-called “local” journalist was actually filing copy from Dorset!

“[Edward] Daffarn [a social worker who had lived in Grenfell Tower for 15 years] is understandably emotional when reflecting on the last few months, but more than that he is angry. Angry with the way he feels Grenfell residents were treated by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation – the people who were entrusted to maintain the estate and keep its residents safe. Angry with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council, which was meant to scrutinise the KCTMO. Angry with a society which didn’t seem to care about people like him – people who live on housing estates – until it was too late.

“The reality is if you’re on a housing estate it’s indifference and neglect, two words that sum up everything about the way we were treated,” he says. “They weren’t interested in providing housing services, keeping us safe, maintaining the estate. They were just interested in themselves.”
It wasn’t for us to tell the council what they should be doing we were just trying to raise an alarm.

Edward Daffarn, Grenfell Action Group blog

Daffarn and fellow Grenfell resident Francis O’Connor had been blogging on behalf of the Grenfell Action Group since 2012. They wrote about issues that concerned their tight-knit community – air pollution, the closure of the local public library, and their fears that corners were being cut during the refurbishment of the tower.

“We wanted to record for history how a community on a housing estate in the fifth richest country in the world could be ignored, neglected, treated with indifference. We never thought we could make change. We just wanted to record what was happening,” he says.

Daffarn and O’Connor shared a theory that Kensington and Chelsea – a London borough more widely known for its museums, designer shops and flower shows – actually wanted its council estates to go into decline, so that the residents would leave and expensive flats could be built in this sought-after location. For this they were described as fantasists.

“We weren’t fantasists,” he says, visibly hurt. “We were trying to raise genuine concerns about how our community was being run down.”

The natural consequence, he concluded, would be loss of life. Which is why on 20 November 2016, frustrated and desperate, Edward wrote the blog post KCTMO – Playing with fire!

“It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord.”

A few months earlier a fire had ripped through five floors of a tower block in Shepherd’s Bush, just down the road. Edward was worried that if a fire broke out in his tower block residents wouldn’t know what to do. They had been given no proper fire safety instructions from the KCTMO. There were no instructions on individual floors on how residents should act in the event of a fire, there was only a recent newsletter saying residents should remain in their flats – advice which in the case of the Shepherd’s Bush fire would have led to fatalities.

There’s a lot of abusive behaviour evidenced forensically about what was happening to our community, but it wasn’t sexy so it never got picked up.

In March 2017 the KCTMO installed fire safety instruction notices in the entrance hallway to Grenfell Tower and outside the lifts on every floor of the building, again urging residents to “stay put” unless the fire was “in or affecting your flat”.

It wasn’t the first time the Grenfell blog’s authors had raised concerns about fire safety.

Before the blog began, when a school was built on the only green space the residents had, they wrote to the borough pointing out that access for fire and emergency vehicles had been compromised.

Later they blogged about the blocking of a fire exit with mattresses during the refurbishment and the power surges in 2013 that manifested in flickering lights, computers and stereos blowing up, and entire rooms filling with smoke. These continued for three weeks, Daffarn says.

“We were tenants we weren’t fire safety specialists but we were switched on enough to feel this was important and it was not being dealt with on our estate and that’s why we were blogging. It wasn’t for us to tell the council what they should be doing., We were just trying to raise an alarm.”

An alarm that went unanswered. The November 2016 blog post represented the last moment at which something might have been done to avert the disaster which followed six months later. But why didn’t anyone heed or investigate Daffarn’s claims?

Hidden within the story of the Grenfell blog is another story of the decline of local media. There simply was no local press on the ground in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea scrutinising the authorities and helping to amplify the voice of people like Edward Daffarn.

The last time he had the attention of a local journalist was in 2014 when Camilla Horrox, the reporter for the Kensington and Chelsea Chronicle ran front page stories about Grenfell residents’ concerns regarding the possible presence of asbestos on the site of the new school and about the power surges.

She had met Daffarn several times, and had been concerned about KCTMO’s dealings with the residents of the properties it managed.

But when the newspaper was closed down later that year Horrox was made redundant and all her Grenfell articles disappeared from the web. The Kensington and Chelsea Chronicle was incorporated into a website that reports on 29 west London districts.

Horrox’s replacement was expected to report on three boroughs – Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham – while based in Surrey, an hour’s drive away.

Some residents of the borough might have been under the mistaken impression that they did have a local newspaper. In 2015 a free paper, The Kensington and Chelsea News, was established to fill the gap left by the closing of the Chronicle.

But when I tracked down its reporter he explained that he was the sole reporter working on the paper, and on two other local newspapers – his salary was £500 a week and he did almost all his reporting from home in Dorset, 150 miles away. He made it to the borough only twice in two-and-a-half years, and the one story he ever published about Grenfell was from a council press release about the installation of the new cladding.

Though he always searched for a “good front page splash” for each of the three editions, he also made sure to find two pages of royal stories and two pages of entertainment stories.

Edward Daffarn didn’t take his concerns to the media in November 2016 because he no longer thought anyone would listen. But the blog was out there for everyone to see, he points out, if only they had been looking.

“We’d been blogging for three or four years and you go back over that time there’s a lot of abusive behaviour evidenced forensically about what was happening to our community, but it wasn’t sexy so it never got picked up.”
For Edward, what was going on at Grenfell wasn’t just a local story, but a national one. A story about invisible people in a society that cared more about celebrity and wealth than its most vulnerable residents.

Close to tears, he admonishes the nation’s journalists.

“If you look back now our whole community of North Kensington, the policy that the local authority was taking every public space and privatising it, that that could be missed by the BBC, by Channel Four, by these wider news agencies… The question should be for you, why did you miss it?
“Why aren’t our lives important enough for you?”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42072477

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Privatisation

It’s a mystery

So, the Conservatives get in because, although not enough people voted for them, they could bribe the DUP with £1 billion to prop them up.

They leave it to developers to decide housing policy and the developers get mega-rich while saying they are too poor to build affordable homes and even renting a home is now beyond many (working) people.

They cut public services such as the NHS, education – to the bone.

They privatise anything that can be privatised – including the NHS and education.

What they can’t privatise, they put under the control of unaccountable quangos such as “business led” Local Enterprise Partnerships, which make Walter Mitty claims that they will get “productivity” soaring (by making sure that government money gets funnelled into THEIR companies) and councils roll over for them (they are given no choice).

Public utilities – water, gas, electricity, railways – are now all mostly owned by foreign companies which repatriate profits to their own countries.

They cut benefits whilst allowing tax dodging by rich individuals and powerful companies on a truly breathtaking scale.

They get most of their funds from donors who benefit from privatisation and austerity and tax dodging.

They say they are returning “sovereignty” to the UK but strip MPs of their voting powers.

They refuse to accept that “green energy” is now cheaper than nuclear power and fossil fuels and instead commit to a nuclear white elephant that belongs to the French and Chinese (who are ceasing building massive nuclear power stations at home and investing instead in renewables)

We won’t mention the Brexit omni-omni-mega-no-words-good-enough-for-it shambles. Except that we can, they say, rely on the United States to see us right.

Yet, come the time when it looks like their “leader” is on her last legs and a snap election may be on the horizon they tell people they are going to do “something” about housing and the NHS – as if the mess they are in is not their fault. Perhaps a commission, perhaps a policy paper, perhaps a “consultation” … perhaps.

A little money will be shaken from the magic money tree (soon to be swallowed up by not-so-magic higher prices).

And thousands of people will say “Good enough for me – I’ll vote for them again”.

Truly we live in strange and frightening times.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, Privatisation, Scrutiny, Tax avoidance

“Private equity firm made struggling care home operator take costly loan”

“Britain’s second biggest care home operator was made to borrow money through a very expensive loan from its private equity owner in a deal designed to extract £890m in cash from the struggling business.

The disclosures are likely to raise fresh concerns over the future of Four Seasons Health Care, which operates more than 300 care homes across the UK, and has been drowning in debt.

Described in reports as teetering on the brink of ruin, Four Seasons has been hammered by cuts to council care budgets brought on by years of austerity. This month, its private equity owner, Terra Firma, will plead with lenders to approve a financial rescue package.

However, filings in the tax haven of Luxembourg and data from the Paradise Papers reveal how Terra Firma hoped to make a vast profit from the business after acquiring it in 2012.

Four Seasons was made to borrow £220m from Terra Firma subsidiaries. The repayment terms were huge – 15% interest a year, on a compound basis, over 10 years. By 2022, when it was due to be repaid, Four Seasons would have owed its controlling shareholder four times the original sum.

The debt was later written off because of the financial struggles at Four Seasons. However, the bond stated a nominal repayment value of £890m. The intention seems to have been to extract profits from any future sale of the business largely tax-free – a manoeuvre that will raise concerns about whether buyout groups are suitable owners for businesses that form a key part of Britain’s care infrastructure. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/08/private-equity-terra-firma-care-home-four-seasons-loan

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, Neil Parish, NHS (local), Privatisation, Scrutiny, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton, Spin

Do tors question privatisation – no confidence in contractor Capita

Oh Lord, government says it is “holding Capita’s feet to the fire”. Would that be the same fire that MP Neil Parish said he was holding the CCG’s feet to, just before Honiton and Seaton hospitals closed?

Not much of a fire, feet rather a long way from it.

“Doctors raise alarm about controversial private company’s plans to overhaul cancer screening

GP representatives have raised concerns about the potential risk of delayed or missed cancer diagnosis from a new IT service being developed to administer smear testing for cervical cancer.

The British Medical Association’s GP Committee (GPC) has written to NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens to highlight the continued failures in key back-office functions from paying doctors to registering patients.

The problems all relate to a major contract for primary care “support services” that are essential to the day-to-day running of GP practices, dentists, opticians and pharmacists.

NHS England decided to contract for a single national supplier and awarded a contract to outsourcing giant Capita, starting in September 2015.

The BMA letter says major problems have persisted since NHS England commissioned the service two years ago, changes the letter says are “putting patients at risk”.

But it warns there are more changes planned for next year.

GPC chair Dr Richard Vautrey writes: “We understand that new systems for both cervical screening and GP payments and pensions are due to go live in July of next year.

“We are very concerned that preparations are not sufficiently advanced at this stage of the projects to guarantee a seamless transfer to the new service.”

“We have no confidence in Capita’s ability to deliver this service,” the letter adds.

A spokesperson for Capita told The Independent that a final date had not been set, but did confirm that a July deadline has been discussed.

They added that the new service was being developed alongside NHS England, NHS Digital and Public Health England.

Capita’s support services website shows it is responsible for updating and operating key elements of the National Cervical Screening Programme.

The programme invites women aged 25 and 64 years for a routine smear test every three years, and health chiefs warned earlier this year that screening uptake had hit a 19-year low. …

… A Capita spokesperson said: “This is a major transformation project to modernise a localised and unstandardised service, which inevitably has meant some challenges.

“This letter does not accurately reflect our involvement and responsibilities in PCSE, nor does it reflect our recent correspondence from NHS England who have recognised the improvements and significant progress being made across services in 2017, which has been demonstrated through improved and increasing customer satisfaction.

NHS England said: “We are holding Capita’s ‘feet to the fire’ on needed improvements”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-cancer-screenings-changes-capita-overhaul-doctors-raise-alarm-a8036381.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Economy, NHS (local), Privatisation, Sustainability

Public services are not, and should not be, businesses

“One of the greatest myths of our time is that public services can be made more efficient if we run them as businesses. The commercialisation of our public services has been a manifest failure, and the response offered by the mainstream parties is that we simply haven’t commercialised them enough. What they fail to understand is that a public service and a business are inherently different beasts and asking one to behave as the other is like asking a fish to ride a bicycle.

The primary aim of a public service lies within its name. This service exists to avoid negative social impacts and protect crucial social utilities from the instabilities of capitalism.

Within living memory it was considered basic common sense that essentials like food, water, energy, access to health services, housing, sanitation and sewage, social care and core manufacturing industries were too important to expose to the volatilities of the free market. Aside from this practical view, there were also two core value statements:

Profit should not be sought from a need to eat, heat a homes, drink water, healthcare or have a roof over their head.
2. Access to such necessities should not be based on an ability to pay.

Public services are democratic and accountable at the ballot box. Important matters like wages, pensions and working conditions are the result of negotiation and subject to internal and popular support.

Public services are funded by public money and managed by public representatives working together to deliver social utility. Every penny recycles within the public economy.

Neoliberal Capitalism is inherently unstable, creates inefficiencies and gaps in supply and demand, and does not create full employment. For these three reasons, critical services must be independent of capitalism, commercialisation and profit. In short, they must be universal and eternal.

This is the purpose of a public service.

A business, on the other hand is a commercial entity. The primary responsibility of a business is to create a profit for its shareholders. A corporation may well have other aims, but all must be subservient to this primary aim or the corporation will cease to exist, or be taken over by another corporation.

A business is not a democratic organisation. They are hierarchical, and wages, terms and conditions, are set by the executive and subject to the market forces. This can be mitigated to some degree by collective bargaining through unions, but workers in the private sector has historically delivered lower wages and reduced working conditions for the bulk of its employees.

Of the 23 million UK workers in the private sector, just 3.2 million (13.9%) have a workplace pension. Of the 6 million public sector workers, 5.3 million (88%) have a workplace pension.

Public sector employees are paid on average between 7.7% and 8.8% or £86 a week more than private sector workers. More significantly, this is a twelve year high in the wage gap, as private sector wages continue to fall in real terms.

The pay gap between the private and public sector is nothing compared to the pay gap within the private sector. Unlike the public sector where wages are clustered around a midpoint with a small proportion of very high and very low wages, the private sector has a great wage differential between its lowest and highest earners. Women are also paid a far higher average wage in the public sector, while constituting the bulk of the lowest paid workers in the private sector.

The public purse is picking up the bill for the wage and conditions gap in the form of large increases in state benefits paid to working people. As the current government remove these compensations, the failure of businesses to pay a living wage, together with clear provision for old age and care needs is exposed.

The privatised energy market has provided six energy giants, who dominate the market and have continued to deliver above inflation price rises whilst making record profits each year. The UK now rests at the very bottom of the league tables, with the worst fuel poverty in Western Europe.

The privatised railway is an example par excellence of total lack of accountability for failure to deliver. The rail service is, as always failing to raise sufficient ticket revenues to turn a profit. Ticket prices are rising above the rate of inflation. Train firms give the government £1.17bn in premiums to run their franchises, only for the government to hand them back £4bn in subsidies. So, instead of spending £140m in 1960’s money for a fully nationalised service where costs were kept low. We are now spending almost £3bn a year today simply to fund the profits of private companies. Network Rail profits doubled in 2012, and all rail franchises are running at a profit as the companies prioritise (as they have to, as businesses) making a profit rather than lowering ticket prices or investing in the network. Despite all this, the government are not complaining as they were when the service was nationalised, of a loss making service.

The move away from a social housing policy during the Thatcher government and continued since has been a disaster for housing. We are building 100,000 homes a year less than we need because the housing supply has been almost entirely handed over to the private sector to manage. The National Housing Federation issued a report last year which showed Housing Benefit has doubled in recent years as a direct result of an astronomical increase in housing costs. The report shows an 86% rise in housing benefit claims by working families, with 10,000 new claims coming in per month. House prices are now 300% higher (in real terms) than in 1959. If the price of a dozen eggs had risen as quickly, they would now cost £19. Rents across the UK have risen by an average of 37% in the UK in just the last three years.

The list could continue to include care, employment support services and a litany of other failed attempts to commercialise public services. The project is doomed.

There is No Such Thing as a Loss Making Public Service

If a business fails to recoup the costs of providing its service in money, it is described as running at a loss. This language of business is now being applied to our public services. When Dr Beeching dismantled the railways in 1963, the narrative then and now was that the rail network was losing £140m a year. This is commercial speak. This means the gap between ticket revenue and costs to run the service was £140m. If the railway was a business, this would be a loss. But it was a public service. A well-funded, serviceable, cheap at the point of use railway service was and is an important social utility. We need to be able to get our people around to work, to keep connected to family and friends, to transport goods up and down the country. So we all pitch in taxes and through an economy of scale we run a cooperative service. Unless someone is stealing, defrauding or otherwise ‘disappearing’ public funds, then there is no such thing as a loss making public service. The gap between ticket revenues and running costs in this case could have been entirely expected, since the priority was accessibility and maximum utility of the service. This idea is anathema to business.

[the paper goes on with more examples] …

… We have now reached the stage where enforced accountability of Politicians and those in Public Office is warranted on the grounds that patients are being injured and avoidable mortality is escalating in an NHS that has been engineered to fail. The preservation of Parliamentary Democracy may depend on the ability to make public figures accountable in the Courts.

We need to understand that there is a difference between the provision of healthcare and the causation of personal injury. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 cannot protect the Government from Criminal Negligence and causation of physical harm to patients. There can be no Nuremburg Defence by Government Officials and Agencies in relation to avoidable injuries to patients.”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nhs-trainwreck-funding-public-service-ninian-peckitt/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Nov 2017

Posted under

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

“Jeremy Hunt faces legal action over attempts to ‘Americanise’ the NHS”

“Exclusive: Senior health professionals and campaigners have now come together to take legal action and demand a judicial review

Legal action is being taken against Jeremy Hunt and the Department of Health over their proposals to restructure the NHS, The Independent can reveal.

Plans have been tabled to convert the NHS into a public/private enterprise, which critics say is based upon the US private health insurance-based system.

Senior health professionals and campaigners have now come together to take legal action and demand a judicial review, to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals.

Under NHS England’s new plans, the boundary between health and social care would be dissolved and new systems and structures would allow alternative funding sources, ultimately leading to the creation of new healthcare overseers called Accountable Care Organisations (ACOs).

ACOs would permit commercial, non-NHS bodies to run health and social services. They could be awarded huge contracts to manage and provide whole packages of care, allowing the ACOs to either provide the NHS service themselves or sub-contract it.

Solicitors representing prominent NHS campaigners have now contacted Mr Hunt to inform him that they are seeking a judicial review in an attempt to ensure parliament can fully scrutinise the proposals.

They claim the Department of Health’s consultation process was limited, inadequate and unlawful due to the lack of national consultation or parliamentary approval.

Dr Colin Hutchinson, Professor Allyson Pollock, Professor Sue Richards and Dr Graham Winyard are all working together to put the case to the Department of Health.

Prof Pollock, a BMA council member and co-author of the NHS reinstatement bill, said the proposals were an attempt to Americanise health care in England and that the NHS was progressively being dismantled.

“Our NHS has been an international model for countries around the world for a health system that represents fairness, efficiency and freedom from the fear of illness. It has provided health care for all free at the point of delivery through public funding, public ownership and public accountability,” Prof Pollock told The Independent.

“Its popularity has endured since 1948 and is a symbol of all that is decent about Britain. However it is being starved of funds and progressively dismantled and replaced with corporate structures known as Accountable Care Organisations which will facilitate the introduction of American-style healthcare systems.

“These latest proposals are the tipping point in steps towards the Americanisation of England’s health care.

“We call on everyone to support this legal action against the Secretary of State for health to ensure proper national public consultation and full parliamentary oversight and scrutiny,” she added.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: “It is completely inaccurate to suggest ACOs are a step towards an insurance based system. They have absolutely nothing to do with the funding model of the NHS, which will remain a taxpayer-funded system free at the point of use, and are simply about making care more joined-up between different health and care organisations.

“It is irresponsible to scare vulnerable patients with these type of misleading allegations.”

The news comes as NHS bosses reportedly issued a “cry for help” after years of funding cuts.

NHS and social care leaders have written to Chancellor Philip Hammond to demand an increase in the pace of investment and an end to public sector pay restraint.

The heads of groups representing the entire NHS, medical royal colleges and a host of UK charities have co-signed a letter to the Treasury in advance of the upcoming budget.

It follows assessment from regulator the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which said that front-line services are now in a “precarious condition”.

The letter says: “Even if the Government were only to stick to its current commitment, we believe the remaining £5.2bn should not be reserved for the last two years of the Parliament. It should instead be brought forward now to address significant current challenges.”

Clive Lewis MP has endorsed calls for a judicial review and said the plans were an attempt to “erode and meddle” until a US healthcare style system was in place.

“I, like many, feel increasingly alarmed by what is happening to the NHS. It’s perilously threatened. Jeremy Hunt’s reply to me in health questions indicates that he feels he has the right to change fundamental structures without reference to those who work in, use and care about the NHS, without an Act of Parliament and without explaining properly why these commercial organisations are needed and how they will improve care,” Mr Lewis told The Independent.

“He’s wrong. If we don’t stay vigilant the Tories will erode and meddle until they get the US healthcare system they appear to have planned.

“The Labour party conference voted unanimously to oppose ACOs and we must fight Hunt and Simon Stevens [CEO of NHS England] every step of the way until a Labour government can reinstate the NHS as a publicly provided and funded service,” Mr Lewis added.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-health-department-nhs-legal-action-americanise-privatisation-customers-id-pay-a8033986.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2017

Posted under

Economy, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Privatisation

Comments

1 Comment

“Foreign bidders jostle for £2.8 billion HS2 train deal”

Not one UK company is bidding for the HS2 contract. Bidders are from France, Canada, Japan, Spain and Germany:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/foreign-bidders-jostle-for-28-billion-hs2-train-deal-a3674866.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset Management Group, Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Inequality, Local Enterprise Partnership, Privatisation

“Councils embracing commercialisation, says survey”

Do you agree that your council tax should fund EDDC as a “commercial enterprise”?

Bear in mind as you think about this and read below, its HQ move has gone up from “cost neutral” to the most recent estimate of around £10 million.

And ask yourself: how many of our councillors (town, district and county) would you trust to run your local sweet shop? And is this all academic anyway when increasingly the purse strings are being controlled by our Local Enterprise Partnership?

“Commercialisation has become the most talked about topic in councils this year, with some seeing turnover equivalent to a FTSE 250 company, according to research gathered by Zurich Municipal.

The insurer conducted in-depth interviews with 22 council chiefs across England and Scotland gathering findings into the Why are we here? The 2017 Senior Managers’ Risk Report (link below).

This revealed that many councils are embracing the opportunity to become commercial entities with one council chief interviewed by Zurich admitted to turnover of £1.5bn.

“Commercial income generating projects are the new norm for local government, with some competing against one another to buy and build hotels, harbours, piers, cinemas, university campuses, and science and research parks,” the report – released at the Solace Summit in Manchester yesterday – stated.

Many see the potential for commercially generated revenue to be re-invested in local communities, however, some spoke of the need not to stray to much into private sector disciplines, while others said it should not be pursued at any cost.

However, austerity is still seen as an ongoing challenge, with some councils saying that services cannot be cut any further.

Funding issues are also harming relations with central government, the research revealed.

One council chief executive said: “We need a frank discussion with government. We can’t carry on doing everything we do.”

Rod Penman, head of public services at Zurich Municipal said: “Councils are facing challenges from all sides, and many are employing commercial ventures to mitigate some of the lasting effects of austerity.

“This approach is not without its challenges, however. There is the growing potential for moral and commercial dilemmas at almost every turn, and it is clear that council chiefs are concerned about the long-term relationship between national and local government.”

Another theme to emerge from the study is the perception of councils following the Grenfell fire.

Council chiefs said they felt the tragedy marked a watershed in how local government’s purpose and remit is viewed.

One commented: “The Grenfell Tower disaster means we will take more consideration of community discussions.”

Penman added that councils needed to “improve the narrative” about the choices they take, especially in a more commercial environment.

“Framing decisions in a purely commercial light simply isn’t an option when the social value of public bodies and services has to be factored in,” he said.”

The full report is here:
http://newsandviews.zurich.co.uk/expert-lab/balancing-priorities-are-councils-facing-an-identity-crisis/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Oct 2017

Posted under

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

“Care Closer to Home”: the Torquay experience (not good)

“Concerns that care in the community is failing some Torbay and South Devon residents have been raised by a health campaign body.

Gordon Jennings, chairman of the Community Health and Welfare Alliance, set up at the time of the consultation on the closures of community hospitals in Torbay and South Devon, said they feared the consequences of the closure of at least 74 beds across Torbay alone. One of the main providers of care in the area Mears Care was recently taken out of special measures by Government inspectors but they still rated it as ‘requiring improvement.’

It comes after Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust marked the second anniversary of the launch of the pioneering integrated care organisation in the area.

Mr Jennings said: “We are concerned as we have a high proportion of over 80s in the population, we should be making sure there are suitable arrangements for those people. The integrated care organisation’s argument is that the alternative to community hospitals is care at home. But they haven’t got the staff for home care. How are you going to get quality of care? Changes usually mean improvement, but it’s arguable that under the Devon NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) this is not always the case and is a series of cuts – including the loss of 100 hospital beds.

“Evidence is being gathered on experiences under ‘Care in the Home’, but we would implore Torbay communities to become involved and share your experiences with Healthwatch Torbay, Paignton Library, who are conducting ‘have your voice heard today’ consultation on this and other health subjects.

“We need to remind ourselves that South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group admitted at the consultation meetings in regards the lack of staff in this area. With your help it is our intention, not only to seek a meeting with the CCG, with these findings, but also Torbay Council Health and Well Being Board, who have a responsibility in this area.

“We have been seeking evidence that it isn’t working and we have had some cases come forward but we are looking for more. If people can write to us with their concerns we can take it up with the right people.”

Dr Kevin Dixon, chairman of Torbay’s independent consumer champion for health and social care, Healthwatch Torbay, said: “Healthwatch Torbay regularly shares an extensive variety of local feedback from Torbay residents on hospital discharge and community care with both Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust and the Care Quality Commission, along with relevant providers and health commissioners, in order to contribute to their intelligence reports and prompt them into any relevant action.

“Although we have heard public concerns with both discharge and community care, we have also received praise for both.

“The findings of the CQC report into Mears Care Ltd. were reflected in the feedback we have gathered from those people who shared their experiences with us, which indicated that although there was some improvement in the quality of care Mears have provided since the original CQC report in 2016, a number of issues still exist.

“We remain committed to escalating any public complaints and concerns directly with Mears Care Ltd. and continue to monitor the quality of care they provide. Healthwatch Torbay will carry on gathering local public feedback and sharing it with key decision-makers to ensure the public voice is listened to at a commissioning level.”

Michael Rennolds of Coombe Road, Preston, has muscular dystrophy and Muscular Dystrophy UK say the condition is a progressive and life limiting muscular wasting condition for which there is no cure and no effective treatment. That means he has high needs.

Joel Rackham, care and information advocacy officer has written to Torbay and South Devon Healthcare Trust saying Michael required constant individualised care and intervention over each 24- hour period including regular physiotherapy, support with food and drink, toileting and bathing needs.

They say it is critical an up-to-date care plan is in place. But they say he has lost out on several respite days as well as his care hours were reduced from 84 hours a week to 41 which the charity say is ‘insufficient to meet his care needs’ .

At the same time £16,200 was taken out of his bank account which would have been used to pay for care. The charity has asked for the money to be reinstated and say it is ‘not fair’ to expect his mother, who works part time to be expected to care for him as her health is being affected and she cannot be expected to handle Mr Rennolds on her own.

The charity has asked for a minimum of 98 hours of care per week, more than double the amount budgeted for.

Nic Bungay, director of Campaigns, Care and Information at Muscular Dystrophy UK told Devon Live: “Without the right support in place, the difficult job of helping Michael to get out of bed, get dressed, eat his meals and live his life will fall on his mother Susan. The severe and progressive nature of Duchenne muscular dystrophy means that any reduction in care is wrong, but cutting the hours in half and leaving an entire day without any provision is unthinkable. His hours need to rise to the recommended 98 hours a week immediately.”

Mrs Rennolds said the money has still not been reinstated and she had been told the consideration of her complaint had again been adjourned.

“The NHS have taken the £16,200 out of Michael’s bank account, because he wouldn’t sign some papers that were in dispute. Only an idiot would sign some papers they disputed. The charity has written stating that money has to be put back. Michael is really down about this.”

A Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust spokesman, said: “We are currently in the process of responding directly to Mr Rennolds’ complaint. “We are fully committed to providing our clients with the best possible care. We work hard to ensure that people stay as healthy and independent as possible and that those who would be at risk of injury, illness or isolation are cared for as a priority. Each client will have their individual needs professionally assessed on a regular basis and our health and care professionals will work with them to identify the best way for their needs to be met. This means we can be sure we continue to meet individual’s changing needs.

“Whilst we cannot discuss individual client cases, when clients have their needs and care plans reassessed, we always do this working in partnership with the person and jointly agree the outcome.

Direct payments are made to meet an individual’s specific care needs. In addition, as part of the national guidelines, all recipients of Direct Payments sign an agreement that states that we reserve the right to reclaim money that is not being used. If people in receipt of direct payments accumulate a significant amount of money saved from their direct payments, in line with these national guidelines, we will recover a proportion of this money which will then go towards providing care for other vulnerable people. When monies are recovered, we will always ensure a significant proportion still remains in their Direct Payment account to cover their own care costs as well as a contingency for any unexpected expenditure.”

Marilyn and Ivor Martin, of Salisbury Avenue, Torquay say they are struggling with the level of care offered at home after Ivor, 68, had a serious stroke.

Marilyn said he had a stroke out of the blue one lunchtime which has left him affected all down the left side and incontinent. She said: “I cannot fault the hospital staff at all, the ambulance staff they were incredible. He was moved to Newton Abbot and his care there was wonderful, impeccable. Then I had a visit from occupational therapy from Newton Abbot who said he was coming home. I said my house isn’t suitable.

“I have steps in my garden, I was told there was no money to do that. I have a corner bath and they said there were no aids to get him in and out of the bath so he would have to strip wash and he would need to for the rest of his life if needs be. If I wanted adaptations I would have to pay for it myself. I was offered handrails which would take six to eight weeks to install after he got home. He couldn’t get upstairs and I said I was not having him home if it was not safe. They said I would have to put a bed in the dining room. I don’t have a single bed but was told I would have to buy or borrow one. They put a rail on my bed upstairs, a commode, a rail around the toilet so he could get himself up.

“I was told if I don’t have him home he would have to go in a care home. That would cost hundreds of pounds, money which should be put into caring for people in the community. We had him home and within three days he had a hospital appointment at 12noon. I was told there would be transport but it would come at anytime between 9.30am and 11.30am, and they would pick him up any time between 1pm and 4pm. He’s incontinent, he would be sat at the hospital all that time without food. I was told ‘that’s the way it is’. We had three appointments in one week for the heart and lung department, but they said they couldn’t arrange for them all on one day so we had to get him up there three times. I took him up with my son’s girlfriend who helped, but I am lifting him in and out the car and I had open heart surgery last year. There is no thought about the carers.

“They said that while I was at work, there could be someone coming in the morning to dress him and someone to give him a sandwich at lunchtime. They said they could come any time between 7.30pm to 10.30am. He wouldn’t stay in bed that late, he’d be getting himself up and falling. I can’t have that. Then they could be back at 11am and 2pm getting him lunch. It’s ludicrous.

“I had help filling out the forms for attendance allowance but you can’t have that until they have been ill for six months. I have spent nearly £4,000 on having a ramp put in the garden and shower unit changed and putting in a second hand stairlift. The physios have been fantastic but suddenly they were told they weren’t coming again until October. His arm isn’t working at all and his hand is swollen. It’s not right. Having the physio in really boosts his morale as well. If you are going to have care in the community you have to the people to do it. Ivor could go swimming at Plainmoor Pool but there’s no way to get help taking him there, I have got to do it. If someone doesn’t have someone at home to help how do they get there?

“There needs to be an organisation that sets up a package and says you will need this, this and this and get it organised for you. In hospital they were fantastic every single nurse and doctor, but if you are going to do care in the community you need to set up what people need before you throw them out there. Nobody is helping us. “

Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, the integrated care organisation responsible for social care in Torbay, said they could not comment as they had not had a direct complaint from the Martins. On the question of a shortage of carers a trust spokesman said: “We recognise that, like other places in the country, having enough people with the right skills and training to provide domiciliary care for people to be able to continue to be supported at home is a challenge. And there are a number of things we are doing to ensure the right level of care can be provided including supporting the campaign ‘Loving to Care’ to encourage more people to enter this very rewarding career.

A key part of how we are addressing the challenge is our partnership with a national provider of domiciliary care, Mears, This partnership helps to ensure enough carers are recruited, trained and supported to develop their skills. We extend our training and support so that carers working for all care providers are able to benefit from our training provision. This is an incredibly worthwhile profession and by supporting providers to be able to offer increased opportunities for development of their staff they are not only gaining important skills they also benefit from greater job satisfaction and are more likely to want stay in the caring profession.

“In addition to this support we also offer alternatives for people , such as direct payments which enables people to employ their own support assistant directly.”

Torbay residents can share their experiences by calling Healthwatch free on 08000 520 029, visiting upstairs at Paignton library, or even by rating and reviewing a local health and social care service online via http://www.healthwatchtorbay.org.uk. If you have a case write to Mr G Jennings, c/o Acorn Centre, Lummaton Cross, Torquay, TQ2 8ET.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/south-devons-pioneering-care-community-708511

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Privatisation, Rural communications

The free market – free to whom and for what? Not broadband!

“BT could face a legal challenge over proposals to spend up to £600 million connecting a million homes in rural areas with faster broadband, amid criticism that an offer it has made to government represents a “backroom deal” will tighten its monopoly grip on the sector.

Rivals including Talktalk, Sky, Hyperoptic and Gigaclear oppose BT’s proposal for a “voluntary” deal to connect every home in Britain with a minimum speed of ten megabits a second, fast enough to stream movies or browse the web.

While they support proposed upgrades to a minimum national standard, a so-called universal service obligation (USO), they support a different model to carry out and fund them.

An industry source said that several companies had taken legal advice about a potential legal challenge if the government accepted BT’s offer to make the improvements on its own and to pass on the costs to rivals.

The source said: “The law is very clear on how a USO should be delivered. BT and government can’t simply call the USO something else and hope the law doesn’t apply. If BT persuades the government to ignore the legal framework, they could face years in court. That would derail the process and leave customers waiting even longer for the fast broadband they deserve.”

Matthew Hare, chief executive of Gigaclear, a rural broadband specialist, said: “If the government were to go with BT’s voluntary deal, this would effectively stifle competition.”

He said that Gigaclear had not yet considered legal action, “but we strongly believe that a regulated universal service obligation is the only way to guarantee a competitive marketplace. Competition is vital, not only to give consumers choice and access to high-quality broadband, but also to secure the future of this country’s digital economy.”

A government consultation concluded this month, with a final decision on how to proceed likely to be made by Christmas.

Most of BT’s competitors favour a regulated model, in which all broadband operators would invest, with costs recovered from consumers via a levy on profits or another funding mechanism. BT is pressing for an alternative, under which it would make the improvements itself, with the costs of up to £600 million passed on to its wholesale customers, who protest that they would have no control over how the money was spent or the technology used.

Sharon White, chief executive of Ofcom, said that in the event of a voluntary deal, the regulator would apply a “very, very careful approach” to ensure BT would not pocket any difference.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Health and Social Care (local), Privatisation

Comments

1 Comment

The perils of private enterprise and social care – an impossible relationship

Guardian Letters:

“As long as social care is provided almost entirely by the private sector (under 10% remains in public hands) it will be impossible both to plan strategically and operate efficiently.

The private sector plays no effective collaborative role in the strategic planning of service provision (the duty of national and local government) modelled on expected demographic change over future decades. Indeed, private providers are essentially disparate and short-term focused – even handing back contracts mid-term when they prove or are predicted to be unprofitable. Moreover, they have no interest in providing care as a public good.

The private sector, in the market as it is currently structured, will always follow the money (that is, affluent old people who can pay for care out of their own pockets, and who are then placed in the position of cross-subsidising those who are paid for by cash-strapped councils, themselves unable to pay the full going rate as set by the providers).

Depressingly, this does not even address the issues around quality that are shown to arise time and time again in services that have been outsourced (which is essentially what the private provision of social care is really all about) – just look at the parlous state of many of our privately provided (but publicly funded) prisons, immigration centres, probation services and primary healthcare services.

The only difference is that social care is a hybrid form of outsourcing – private payers and publicly supported clients coexisting side-by-side within the same privately provided service.
Gillian Dalley
London

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Oct 2017

Posted under

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

A hint as to where Devon’s “health service” could be headed

No more prescriptions, instead:

“We are all used to going to the doctor and have them write a prescription for medicine. But what we are less used to is the idea that the doctor or nurse or social worker might give us a prescription for a walking group, soup and sandwiches in the local village hall, an Age UK befriending service.”

Patricia Hewitt, ex-New Labour Blairite MP, privatisation enthusiast and now chair of the Norfolk & Waveney Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP)

https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/2017/10/16/ex-labour-health-secretary-wants-take-medication-away-patients-save-money/

Needless to say, the walking classes which would likely be volunteer run for free, soup and sandwiches in the village hall perhaps provided by the food bank and befriending by an already overstretched and underfunded charity – definitely NOT by her STP!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Oct 2017

Posted under

Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, DCC, Economy, Privatisation

Comments

1 Comment

How much do PFI contracts cost DCC?

“A Labour pledge to bring “wasteful” PFI contracts back in the public sector would cost a massive £671m in Devon, it has been revealed.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell told the annual party conference last month the contracts were set to cost the taxpayer £200bn over coming decades and private companies were making “huge profits”.

The cost to the county for all the buildings, such as schools, hospitals armed forces’ accommodation, funded by private finance initiatives was estimated to be around £2.4bn just four years ago.

Newly released figures by the county council show that Exeter Schools would cost £210m to buy out with £322m for an energy for waste (EFW) plant and £139m for a Devonport EFW scheme. …

… Private companies carry out the construction work and maintenance, in exchange for regular payments from the taxpayer.

It has proved controversial with criticisms that it is overly generous to the private contractors.

Some schools, including in Exeter, have said the quality of parts of their new buildings have been poor.

Other public bodies, such as hospitals, have complained that large debt repayments, over long periods of time, make it difficult for them to balance their books.

However, defenders of PFI said it provided new infrastructure which would otherwise be unaffordable.

The biggest margin on a project in Devon came with a deal for new accommodation for services’ personnel at Devonport Naval Base in Plymouth.

Its estimated cost of £554m, which will also include service and maintenance charges, is more than 12 times the initial building price. …

… Devon County Council said it could not “accurately” estimate the cost of terminating contracts without going into negotiations.

Cabinet member for finance John Clatworthy said the schools PFI contract in 2005/6 was £348m.

He wrote: “Set against this was a grant of £248m that would be received from central government – of the balance, £75m would be met from the delegated schools budget and the remainder (£75m) would be met by the council.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/cost-labour-pledge-cancel-pfi-583063

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Privatisation, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

The free market – where you are free to walk away from responsibility for your actions

“The boss of Monarch was setting-up his own firm as the stricken airline was going to the wall, it has emerged.

Andrew Swaffield insisted he was “heart broken” by the firm’s collapse, with the loss of more than 1,800 jobs. Yet as Monarch was for fighting for survival, polo playing Mr Swaffield found time to get a new firm for himself off the ground.

Records show electronic paperwork to establish Alcedo Consulting Services was received by Companies House last Friday. The two directors are Mr Swaffield and his partner William Low, 51. The company was formally incorporated on Monday – the same day Monarch plunged into administration.

Stefan Stern, director of the High Pay Centre, branded the timing “shocking”. He said: “He appears to have been planning his escape route before the passengers or crew. “It used to be women and children first, now it seems to be chief executive first. “It’s such bad taste and, frankly, stupid, to do this now.”

The firm is named after Mr Swaffield’s polo team, Alcedo, which recently won several trophies at the Cowdray Park Polo Club in West Sussex.

In a message seen by the Mirror, he insisted Monday’s collapse of Monarch was “the hardest day of my entire career. “Seeing the end of the company and 1,800 people losinzg their jobs has been heart breaking.’

Mr Swaffield previously ran a consultancy firm, CST Consulting, after losing his job at British Airways in 2005. He said: “I have done the same again today knowing that I am leaving, so that I can start the process of planning my future and if I manage to secure any work I will have a company through which to process it. “It can take up to a year to secure chief executive level roles and consulting is a good stop gap.”

Records show Mr Swaffield became chief executive of another company, Shelfco 2017, that was set-up on September 25. The other directors include Nils Christy, Monarch’s chief operating officer, and Christopher Bennett, its finance director. It is registered at Monarch’s Luton Airport headquarters.

It came as millions of holidaymakers and bank customers are set to pick-up the bill for Monarch’s rescue flights.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boss-monarch-set-up-new-11282103

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Oct 2017

Posted under

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

The NHS: one doctor’s story

“An open letter to Prof Ted Baker, following his attack on the NHS
Dear Professor Baker,

It seems like only yesterday that another Professor – Stephen Hawking – felt compelled to raise concerns in the press about the current state of the NHS. If you recall, Hawking’s critique of Jeremy Hunt’s predilection for statistical cherry-picking prompted an extraordinary barrage of tweets from the Health Secretary, admonishing one of the world’s greatest scientists for his cluelessness on the matter of, well, scientific methodology.

Professor Baker, your interestingly-timed intervention today has prompted quite the barrage of headlines itself, hasn’t it? An NHS ‘unfit for the 21st century’, indeed? And that picture you paint of A&E departments’ disgraceful ‘unsafe practices’ – our ‘wholly unsatisfactory’ arrangements that ‘endanger patients, as well as denying them basic privacy and dignity’. It’s almost as if you think we’re somehow choosing to ‘keep piling patients into corridors where staff cannot even see them’ or to force patients to queue, hour upon hour, in ambulances outside log-jammed hospitals. Actually, you go further, don’t you? You directly blame us for the hellish conditions that patients and staff alike endured last winter, condemning our culture of ‘learned helplessness’ that leaves our patients abandoned, unmonitored, without even essentials like oxygen.

There’s just so much blame in your interview, isn’t there? Previous NHS staff, current NHS staff, ‘archaic’ NHS systems, bad managers, bad previous governments. Blimey. No-one, it seems, is immune from your blame. Except, that is, the one glaring exception. The one cherry you chose not to pick, so to speak.

Nowhere in your remarkable blame riff is there any mention of the funding climate in which frontline staff and managers alike are struggling – fighting tooth and nail, frankly – to keep on delivering a halfway decent standard of care for our patients. We are trying so unbelievably hard, Professor Baker. But we already have one of the lowest numbers of beds per capita of any country in Europe, as well as being one of the most under-doctored. And, of course, we have a government, currently, who has chosen to subject the NHS to the most draconian and sustained funding squeeze in NHS history. Right now, the NHS in my region is having to cut even more beds, hundreds of them. It simply cannot afford to do otherwise – like every acute Trust in the country. That’s not really going to help the patients stranded, bedless, in corridors about which you care so deeply, is it?

Of course NHS reform is needed. Of course we need greater community capacity and better integration between hospitals and primary care. But in omitting to mention the political context to your argument – the political choice to provide the NHS with inadequate resources safely to manage not only winter, but all-year-round rising demand – you come across, I’m afraid, as an oddly partisan chief inspector of hospitals. Why the omission, Professor Baker? Why blame the NHS and its dog, yet fall so shy and silent when it comes to acknowledging the political choices to underfund and understaff the NHS into a skeleton service in place of excellence?

Do you really think your admonishing letter to Trust CEOs, telling them to jolly well stop leaving patients in corridors, is going to do anything other than incense us all? Where else would you suggest we put them? Toilets? Broom cupboards? I believe Jeremy Hunt’s new toilet is rather lavish – perhaps we could squeeze one or two in there?

Anyone would think you were giving the Department of Health comms team a helping hand in the pre-emptive deflection of blame for the looming winter crisis away from the government and onto anyone else but Theresa and Jeremy. I thought nothing could surpass for sheer stupidity last week’s news that NHS staff were forced by NHS bosses to chant “we can do it” as an approach to managing ED winter pressures. But you, Professor Baker, have managed to out-Brent even that David Brent of a spectacle: instead of empty exhortation, you have apparently plumped for his more bullying style of management, through the medium of tetchy, head-masterly letters saying ‘you can and will pull your socks up – or else’. In all those years you’ve worked in the NHS since 1972, have you never noticed that nothing good ever comes from a caning?

Let me remind you what blame culture achieves, Professor Baker. First, it demoralises and undermines frontline staff. Then, it makes us feel hopeless and impotent. We stop trying to speak out, we become cowed and silent. And now, all that bullying and blame has managed to make the NHS less safe, not more, by allowing a culture to flourish in which no-one feels they can change anything, let alone risk speaking out for the sake of our patients.

In your interview, you’ve just achieved all of the above. I’m a hard-working NHS hospital doctor, and you’ve made me feel angry, demoralised, hopeless and incredulous – all in the same moment. That is not leadership, Professor Baker, and it is certainly not conducive to high standards of patient care. It serves only to present you to the public and NHS staff alike as a hospital chief inspector who seems to care more about playing a political game than the vital matter of patient safety.

How incredibly, bitterly disappointing.

Incidentally, please consider this letter my raising of safety concerns on behalf of NHS patients nationwide, as my duty of candour demands me to do.

Dr Rachel Clarke

Oxford”

An open letter to Prof Ted Baker, following his attack on the NHS

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Oct 2017

Posted under

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

Playing politics with peoples’ lives

“Labour has called for an inquiry after the collapse of a private ambulance firm that has contracts with the NHS and other private health organisations.

Private Ambulance Service, which the trade union Unison described as running an “abysmal” operation, was issued a winding-up notice by the Inland Revenue on Friday. The firm is expected to stop trading on 9 October.

The company has been employed in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire as non-urgent patient transport service. It worked for hospitals including Watford General and Bedford hospital.

Labour MP Justin Madders, the shadow health minister, said: “It is still staggering that under the Tories so many parts of the NHS are being packaged up and sold off to companies who are unable to run the services properly.

“Several hundreds of staff and thousands of patients are now faced with huge uncertainty because of the failings of another private ambulance firm, and it’s not the first time this has happened.”

Madders called for an inquiry into what went wrong, saying the government should place “an immediate halt” on issuing other patient transport contracts until “lessons have been learned”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/02/labour-calls-for-inquiry-after-private-ambulance-firm-folds