Has the NHS already been privatised? Of course it has!

People are confused when the Government says “The NHS has not been privatised” thinking: “Well, it’s still free so it can’t be private”. THIS IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK. The reality is that many services have already been privatised. So, why don’t we pay for them? WE DO! The private companies (eg Virgin, which already has more than £1 billion of NHS contracts) charge the NHS for their services, adding on their cut for profits (directors salaries, perks and pensions) and their rewards to shareholders by way of dividends. This ADDS to the cost of the NHS which allows Jeremy Hunt to say we cannot afford it!

Of course we can’t if we are already paying private companies over the odds

And see the letter below this image:

For example:

Guardian letters:

“The problem with the King’s Fund’s latest analysis (NHS privatisation would be ‘political suicide’ says thinktank, theguardian.com, 1 February) is that it ignores the fact some privatisation has already taken place. Of course it would be madness for any government to hand over the whole NHS to insurance companies, or privatise it in the way that Margaret Thatcher privatised British Gas. There is not even a majority for this among Tory party members. But only a handful of people seriously believe that’s the plan: the private sector doesn’t want most of the NHS – care, complex care, treatment of chronic illness, most mental health services. No matter how wealthy you are, you can’t buy any private equivalent to NHS emergency services, maternity, or many others.

Instead private firms want to take over services that they see as potentially profitable – especially the provision of simple elective surgery – the bread and butter of Britain’s tiny private hospitals (average size 50 beds). But the lack of any public support for privatisation has not stopped commissioners giving contracts to Virgin and other private companies for work previously done by NHS trusts. This, by any reasonable definition, is privatisation. In 2015-16, 7.6% of NHS spending was on private providers.

Reshaping the law to allow this piecemeal privatisation was the aim of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which compels CCGs to put services out to tender. The King’s Fund lends weight to disingenuous government denials that they have been privatising services. They would do better to endorse demands for the repeal of the 2012 act and the reinstatement of the NHS as a publicly owned and publicly provided service.
Dr John Lister
Co-chair, Keep Our NHS Public”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/risks-of-outsourcing-and-privatisation-laid-bare

“Two Freemasons’ lodges operating secretly at Westminster”

Expect to see a comment from Owl’s East Devon Freemason’s spokesperson on this one!

“Two Freemasons’ lodges set up for members of parliament and political journalists are continuing to operate secretly at Westminster, the Guardian has learned.

New Welcome Lodge, which recruits MPs, peers and parliamentary staff, and Gallery Lodge, established for members of the political press corps known as the lobby, both remain active, according to Freemasonry records.

A third lodge called the Alfred Robbins Lodge, which was also set up for journalists, also continues to meet regularly in London.

The identities of the members of these three lodges remain unknown outside the world of Freemasonry, however, and so discreet are the members of Gallery Lodge that few journalists working in the lobby appear to be aware of its existence.

One current member of New Welcome told the Guardian that its members keep Gallery Lodge masons at arm’s length, on the grounds that while they are fellow members of the brotherhood, they are still journalists, and “they wouldn’t want journalists listening to their conversations”.

David Staples, the chief executive of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the governing body for Freemasons in England and Wales, said there was no contradiction between the practice of journalism and membership of Freemasonry.

“Contrary to populist perception, being a Freemason helps those members in roles serving society in the broader sense, including journalists, politicians, policemen and lawyers, to be better in those jobs by encouraging them to act as better people themselves. Their membership is a positive for both them as individuals, and for society at large,” he said.

More Freemasons would declare their membership, he added, if they did not fear prejudice and discrimination: “There should be no conflict between an individual choosing whether to declare their membership or not with that individual’s ability to do their job well. But there is, because some choose to believe otherwise, and some of our detractors are doing so based on nothing other than blind prejudice.”

The disclosure that both political journalists and politicians are Freemasons comes after the outgoing chair of the Police Federation alleged that Freemasons were blocking reforms in policing and thwarting the progress of women and officers from black and minority ethnic communities.

After three years as the chair of the Police Federation, Steve White said: “I found that there were people who were fundamentally against any kind of change and any kind of progress, and they always happened to be Freemasons.”

The charge brought an angry denial from the UGLE. In a letter to the press, Staples said: “We are quietly proud that throughout history, when people have suffered discrimination both in public and social life, Freemasonry has welcomed them into our lodges as equals.” He added that many Freemasons chose to keep their membership secret in order to avoid being discriminated against.

At Westminster, MPs and peers are not obliged to declare their membership of the Freemasons, although the Commons authorities say they can disclose this information voluntarily on the registers of members’ and Lords’ financial interests. None currently do so.

Nor do any political journalists declare their membership of the Freemasons on the register of journalists’ interests, which is maintained by parliament.

The three lodges each meet four times a year at Freemasons’ Hall, the UGLE’s headquarters in Covent Garden, London.

The UGLE said Gallery Lodge currently has 45 members and Alfred Robbins Lodge – which is named after a former newspaperman and prominent mason – has 18 members.

“None of the members who have joined either of these two lodges since 2000 have their occupation recorded as journalist or anything obviously linked to the newspaper industry,” the spokesman said.

It is unclear how many of their members joined before that year, however, and UGLE will not identify the lodges’ members.

The Guardian understands past members of Gallery Lodge have included former journalists at the Times, the Daily Express, the Scotsman, and several Hansard reporters.

While the New Welcome lodge has about 30 to 40 members, the Guardian understands only about four of the current members are MPs, and that none are peers. Most of the members of the lodge are former MPs, parliamentary staff or police officers who have served at Westminster. MPs who are Freemasons are members of other lodges, however.

Although New Welcome lodge was set up following the 1926 general strike, to admit Labour politicians who had previously been refused entry to Freemasonry, the Guardian understands that none of its current members are Labour MPs.

Many are said to have left the Freemasons in the 1980s, fearing they would lose their seats if they were questioned about membership while reapplying for the Labour party’s nomination in between general elections, which had become a requirement at the start of that decade.

At least one Labour MP is said to have left New Welcome Lodge when facing reselection at this time, and arranged for his membership to be held in abeyance so that he could be quietly readmitted once he knew his parliamentary seat was secure.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/two-freemasons-lodges-operating-secretly-at-westminster

“Why money still rules the roost in British Politics” and why the very, very few control the not so many in the Tory Party

Electoral Reform Society:

If ever there was a story which revealed the disproportionate influence exerted by big party donors, it was the on the front page of The Times on Tuesday.

The article set out what has been described as a ‘donors’ revolt’ over Theresa May’s leadership, based on an account of a fundraising event held last week.

At the event it was reported that “about a quarter of the 50 donors present were said to have demanded her resignation.”

The story reflects the nature of power in the UK: a handful of wealthy individuals can buy access to government Ministers – and with it, the ability to ensure their views are heard on the front pages.

What distinguishes these individuals from most other people, of course, is the fact they are bankrolling the Conservative Party led by Mrs May.

But should that fact alone – particularly when very few people can afford to make significant donations to a political party – entitle them to have such a domineering voice on their leader’s credentials?

In a 21st century democracy, the answer should be a clear ‘no’. The Prime Minister and the government should be accountable to all citizens – regardless of how much money they have.

But the problem of big money in politics is not a new one. Senior politicians from a variety of different parties have been held to ransom by those with the deepest pockets – a fact which has led to scandal after scandal over the years: from Labour’s ‘cash for honours’ crisis, to the Liberal Democrats being caught arranging a private meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for a potentially illegal donor.

As we noted in our report, ‘Deal or No Deal: How to Put an End to Party Funding Scandals’, there is an expectation that comes with donations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life interviewed several of the major party donors in 2011, throwing up some uncomfortable if wholly logical conclusions about the relationship between donations, policy influence and honors.

Donor Stuart Wheeler suggested it was ‘natural’ and unobjectionable that donors would gain policy influence: “If it is influence in the sense of being able to put their views on what is best for the country and how the country should be run, I do not see any objection to that.”

House of Lords appointee Michael Farmer suggested that many donors would expect an honour in return for their finance:

“You cannot get away from the fact that the word ‘peerage’ is connected to large donations, so if you are giving a large donation there is a part of your mind somewhere that every now and then thinks about it”

The problem with the UK’s big-donor culture, even when the donations are legitimate, is that it gives those with the most money a disproportionately large say.

The story this week concerned just a handful of very rich individuals. Compare that to the 12.4 million people who voted for the Conservative party at last year’s election.

It highlights once again that the system of party funding in this country is broken and skews politics away from ordinary people who should be at the forefront of politicians’ minds when they are making decisions.

The ability to purchase political influence is damaging to trust and confidence in our democratic institutions. It is time we had a fairer model for funding our politics – one which put voters at the centre.”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/why-money-still-rules-the-roost-in-british-politics/

Scrutiny and Privatisation don’t go together like a horse and carriage

“A leading Capita shareholder has attacked the embattled outsourcing giant for flouting corporate governance rules, and claimed its current crisis was “preventable”.

Royal London Asset Management said it had been “privately raising concerns about Capita’s weak governance for a number of years” and had repeatedly voted against pay deals.

Shares in Capita crashed 55% last week after its new chief executive Jon Lewis said it would need a £700m rights issue, suspended its dividend and launched a fire sale of assets. Lewis, the former chief executive of oil services company Amec Foster Wheeler, plans to simplify the outsourcing behemoth, which has contracts ranging from army recruitment to Tesco Bank’s call centres.

The broadside by Royal London, a 0.4% shareholder, said the new board must “ensure that Capita does not repeat the mistakes of the past”. Royal London’s corporate governance chief, Ashley Hamilton Claxton, said: “Until recently, Capita’s board flouted one of the basic rules of the corporate governance code, with a small board primarily comprised of management insiders. The result was a board that lacked the independent spirit to rigorously assess whether the company was making the right long-term decisions.”

She added that Capita’s pay policy “left something to be desired” — citing big losses in 2013 that were excluded from the calculations on executives’ pay.”

Source: Sunday Times (paywall)

And another wobbly privatisation domino: Virgin Care

“IF Carillion was a financial wreck that had to be fed ever more contracts to keep going until it was too late, something similar can be seen in the UK’s outsourced health services.

The company now winning the most NHS contracts is Virgin Care, which provides everything from children’s services in Devon to urgent care in Croydon and adult social care in Somerset. Yet it has a balance sheet that makes Carillion’s look like a picture of health.

On a total turnover of £252m up to March 2017, Virgin Care companies recorded losses of £15.9m last year. Set against this, income from several joint venture partnerships with local GPs totalling £4.2m still left the group with an eight-figure loss. Having been in the business several years now, the fact that Virgin can’t make a profit on its healthcare contracts raises the awkward question of whether it, like Carillion, has been bidding too low for them – and in the process elbowing out the NHS organisations with which it often competes. (When it loses, recent legal action against health commissioners in Surrey showed, those elbows are pretty sharp – see Eyes 1439 & 1440).

Liabilities exceeding assets

The years of loss-making have left the Virgin Care companies, mainly Virgin Care Ltd and Virgin Care Services Ltd, with liabilities exceeding assets by around £28m, and most of what assets the companies do have are in the “intangible” form of technology Virgin Care has developed. The losses are replenished by loans from unknown sources within the wider Virgin group. Since its accounts also show that it doesn’t expect profits for the “foreseeable future” – which again questions the wisdom of low-balling bids – these will have to keep rolling in for some time yet.

The business is spared from insolvency by ultimate owner Sir Richard Branson promising from his bolt-hole in the British Virgin Islands to continue to provide support, allowing Virgin Care’s directors and its auditor KPMG (which checked the Carillion numbers!) to declare that the companies are “going concerns”.

So long as Beardie continues to plough cash into the healthcare companies, the contracts carry on rolling in (a record £1bn worth last year), and other parts of the business such as his rail group secure large taxpayer bailouts, all remains well. But relying on the kindness of strangers, ie taxpayers, and a proprietor with who-knows-what long-term plans to provide stable public services looks about as sensible as it was to rely on Carillion.”

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1462/news

Claire Wright and Martin Shaw fighting heroically for our NHS

Thank heavens we have Claire Wright and Martin Shaw fighting so hard for our NHS on a daily basis and don’t have to leave the fight to Swire, Diviani, Sarah Randall-Johnson and East Devon Tories – or there would be no fight at all!!!

Holding NHS Property Services to account:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/nhs_property_services_and_nhs_managers_requested_to_fully_engage_over_commu

Getting those winter performance figures that Randall-Johnson was happy to wait months for:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/new_devon_ccg_to_provide_performance_winter_pressures_reports_within_days

Social care not working:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/latest_devon_social_care_survey_reveals_concerns_among_people_about_service

Ambulance service under intense pressure due to cost-cutting:
http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/devon_county_council_health_scrutiny_committee_records_its_concerns_over_am

Decisions on community hospitals:
Health Scrutiny hears there will be no precipitate decisions on community hospitals – local conversations with CCG and RD&E offer chance to shape ‘place-based health systems’ around towns

Declining performance:
Devon’s health system’s declining performance over last 12 months – and Health Scrutiny still waiting for winter crisis evidence

“Watchdog launches review of local government ethical standards”

The call for evidence closes at 5 pm on 18 May 2018. Owl is fairly sure that there will be LOTS of evidence in East Devon!

“The Committee on Standards in Public Life has launched a review of local government ethical standards with a call for evidence.

The terms of reference for the review are to:

examine the structures, processes and practices in local government in England for:

– maintaining codes of conduct for local councillors
– investigating alleged breaches fairly and with due process
– enforcing codes and imposing sanctions for misconduct
– declaring interests and managing conflicts of interest
– whistleblowing

assess whether the existing structures, processes and practices are conducive to high standards of conduct in local government

make any recommendations for how they can be improved

note any evidence of intimidation of councillors, and make recommendations for any measures that could be put in place to prevent and address such intimidation

The review will consider all levels of local government in England, including town and parish councils, principal authorities, combined authorities (including Metro Mayors) and the Greater London Authority (including the Mayor of London).

The review will be led by committee member Dr Jane Martin CBE. She said: “Robust arrangements to support ethical standards are needed to safeguard local democracy and facilitate the representative process, but also to ensure high standards of conduct by councillors. The Committee considers it is timely to undertake a health check of local government so the public can have confidence that the standards arrangements supporting local democracy are working effectively.

“The Committee has maintained a longstanding interest in local government ethical standards, and regularly receives correspondence from members of the public expressing their concern about this issue.”

Dr Martin added: “We are keen to hear first-hand how effective councils’ standards arrangements are, in light of the substantial changes in the standards landscape for local government over the last ten years.

“We are interested in how local authorities have designed their complaints handling, scrutiny and sanctions regimes in order to maintain excellent ethical standards and how members, local government officials and the public experience them.

“The Committee would like to hear from councils and individuals who can help us understand how ethical standards issues are dealt with by local authorities.”

The call for evidence closes at 5 pm on 18 May 2018.

The CSPL said that, based on the submissions to the review and meetings with key stakeholders, it intended to publish its findings and recommendations late in 2018.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Tory ex-Ministers hawk their influence for cash

Owl says: Does this disgraceful behaviour go top down, bottom up – or both? Owlis of the opinion it is the latter!

Former cabinet ministers have been exposed attempting to profit from a new cash for Brexit gravy train in Westminster, following an undercover investigation.

Lord Lansley, the former health secretary, was secretly filmed offering to use his knowledge and connections from within West­minster to provide “intelligence” on Brexit to a Chinese company offering him tens of thousands of pounds.

The peer, who has previously been accused of “ripping the heart” out of a bill to regulate lobby­ing, showed he was willing to pick up information from a key Brexit cabinet minister. He advised how the deal could be kept secret from the authorities by employing him through his wife’s company.

Peter Lilley, the former deputy Conservative Party leader, was also willing to approach key ministers on the Chinese company’s behalf. As part of his pitch for the job he described how he attended two advisory groups with influence over the Brexit minis­ters, one of which has never previously been revealed.

A third former minister, Andrew Mitchell MP, also appeared happy to give paid Brexit advice to the Chinese company. He charges £6,000 a day and disclosed that he was looking to work up to 10 weeks a year for private clients despite being paid £74,962 as an MP. “My constituents don’t mind what I’m paid,” he said.

The three men were secretly filmed as part of a joint undercover investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches into politicians improperly making money from Britain’s negotiations to leave the European Union. …”

[there follows several pages of sleazy revelations]

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

Who holds academies (and every other privatised service) to account?

” An Observer piece questions the growth of academy schools, warning that: “There is no evidence that, on average, academy chains do any better at managing schools than the local authorities they replaced. Instead, the reforms have created a structural mess, opening up profound gaps in accountability and governance.” The paper also reports that six out of 10 of the biggest academy trusts have raised “warnings over pressures on pay, staffing levels, building maintenance and mounting deficits”, which “raises the spectre of what would happen if a major academy chain were to go bust”.

The Observer, Page: 46

 

“Tories refuse to publish official report on doomed Carillion’s performance because it’s ‘commercially sensitive’ “

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed it commissioned an independent review into prison maintenance, millions of pounds of which was outsourced to the stricken giant, early last year.

The review was carried out after prisons minister Sam Gyimah said he was “not impressed” by Carillion’s maintenance work and the firm was sent a formal warning in September 2016. Despite the row, the firm went on to win another £40million in Ministry of Justice contracts last year – before collapsing leaving 20,000 jobs in the balance. Yet ministers say the report – together with other reports on Carillion’s effectiveness including an “improvement plan” – will not be handed to the independent House of Commons Library.

Justice minister Rory Stewart wrote: “There are no plans to place the information in the library as the report contains commercially sensitive information.”

Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon said: “It’s outrageous that the govenrment is now refusing to publish this or any other reports that the Ministry of Justice has done into Carillion’s performance in our prisons.

“What has it got to hide?

“All too often with deals signed with private companies in our justice system, there is a lack of transparency and openness.

“This makes it incredibly difficult to hold the private sector to account and to ensure that companies are working in the public interest and not their own.”

A string of parliamentary questions by Mr Burgon revealed the Ministry of Justice spent £11.4million over three years on its 97-strong team of officials whose job it was to monitor contracts. But ministers admitted an “underestimation of the historical costs” meant some contracts did not achieve the savings they promised.

Mr Stewart said the independent report in early 2017 was “used to support several improvement initiatives.”

He added the department had meetings with Carillion at various levels “at least weekly” to discuss “specific issues”. He was unable to name the total number of meetings.

The minister told Mr Burgon: “A formal letter of concern was issued in 2016 to advise Carillion of performance failures.

“A performance action plan was put in place to address these failings and some improvements were made.”

It came as the government tonight said it has saved 1,000 Carillion prisons jobs by setting up its own facilities management firm. The staff in 52 jails who previously employed by the giant will move to the new company, Gov Facility Services Limited, with their terms and conditions preserved. Their work includes cleaning, maintenance and building repair.

Justice Secretary David Gauke said: “I want to reassure staff that their jobs are secure and essential to making prisons safer and more decent.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-refuse-publish-official-report-11920351

“Top Tories face embarrassment over relationships with sleaze ball ‘fixer’ David Meller”

Ooooohhh … David Cameron … top Tories close to him involved with sleazeball … oooohhh … need more information!

“A SERIES of top Tories faced deep embarrassment last night as the depths of their relationships with disgraced sleaze ball “fixer” David Meller are revealed.

The party donor – who quit the board of the Department for Education after organising the seedy President’s Ball – held a secret peace summit between warring No10 staff last year at his Mayfair home.

It was attended by senior No10 aides, Ministers and MPs in a bid to bring Theresa May’s team closer to ex-PM David Cameron’s supporters.

And Mr Meller paid the legal costs for a minister at the centre of a sex scandal row, The Sun can reveal.

When Ex-Education Minister Robert Halfon owned up to a relationship with a junior party aide at a posh London club in 2015, Mr Meller’s family company paid for expensive lawyers to advise how he could get through the scandal.

Mr Halfon declared the £1,800 bill in Commons anti-sleaze registers in line with strict rules.

Mr Meller, who was made a CBE in the New Year honours list, has donated at least £68,000 to the Conservatives since 2012.

And his role at the President’s Club was well known in Government circles.

When he was made Chair of the National Apprenticeship Ambassadors Network in 2014, his charity fundraising skills were included in a press release as a key qualification for the job.

Last night Mr Meller was suspended from his family’s own education charity.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5426528/top-tories-face-embarrassment-over-relationships-with-sleaze-ball-fixer-david-meller/

Parliamentary committee heavily criticises regulatory system for move between public and private jobs

“The Government is failing to take the faults in the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACoBA) seriously, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) states in its fourth special report.

ACoBA remains part of an ineffectual system for regulating the ‘revolving door’ between the public and private sector and the Government appears not to take the matter seriously.

The Committee’s original report published in April last year stated that the regulatory system for scrutinising the post public employment of former Ministers and civil servants is ineffectual and does not inspire public confidence or respect. The situation had got worse since the Committee had last looked at the issue in 2012.

The Government has responded to each of the report’s recommendations but the Committee considers that they are inadequate given the seriousness of the issues raised in the report and their potential to undermine public confidence.

The Committee inquiry revealed numerous gaps in ACoBA’s monitoring process with insufficient attention paid to the principles that should govern business appointments. The failures of governments in this regard have damaged public trust in politics and public institutions and led to repeated scandals.

The Committee have decided to relaunch the inquiry at a future date.”

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2017/acoba-government-response-special-report-published-17-19/

Councillor planning conflicts ghost raises its head … in Torbay this time

Owl says: the story below the link seems disturbingly familiar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

Unfortunately this government seems not to worry about any of these things.

“Opposition Liberal Democrats on Torbay Council have made a formal complaint about a Conservative councillor, claiming he shouldn’t be advertising his elected position on his business website.

Thomas Winfield is a director of a firm of chartered surveyors.

On the firm’s website it states that he has the “benefit” of being elected as a local councillor for Torbay, and that he is on the Torbay Planning Committee.

The Lib Dems say this is inappropriate, because of a perceived conflict of interest.

However, Mr Winfield has told the BBC that he works in finance for commercial lending, as opposed to planning work.

Mr Winfield called the Lib Dems “small minded” for making an issue of it.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42730712

What Swire thinks of NHS: likes dementia tax, tax on pensioner perks and Hunt “open to all options”

Owl says: “Hunt open to all options” sends a chill through my wings. It not only means he has NO plans but also that the option to keep the NHS a public service is doomed.

“A political consensus is emerging here at Westminster about what has to be done to save the NHS, which we all know is in crisis.

The main cause that has been targeted is social care, which has been created by an ageing population and yes, cuts to local Government.

Jeremy Hunt has now persuaded the Prime Minister to bring social care into the NHS, which is a good thing, but in my books the budget, which currently sits at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government also needs to be transferred.

The NHS rather than councils should be in charge of commissioning social care.

As we all know, old age is a condition lottery; one person might require £100,000 of 
care, another £20,000. Is it not a fairer solution to pool the risk between as many people as we can so that everyone loses something but nobody loses everything?

In my view, the so called ‘dementia tax’ was a good manifesto pledge because it suggested those who own their homes contribute to their own care rather than allowing our children and grandchildren, who are finding it difficult to get on the property ladder themselves, to pay for it. But it was flawed because it didn’t have a cap, which meant it failed to pool that risk.

Just how should we pay for it? Anyone I speak to seems to suggest that they wouldn’t 
mind paying a bit more in tax to sort it out. But how? Take 
money out of peoples’ estates after they die? Labour tried
that, and it was quickly dubbed, by my side, as being a ‘death tax’.

Maybe the Government could raise tax by means-testing pensioners benefits such as winter fuel allowances and ending the pension triple lock, but again whenever this has 
been floated there has been opposition to it, most recently by the DUP.

Another idea floating around Parliament is turning national insurance into a ring-fenced health tax. Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chairwoman of the Health Select Committee believes national insurance should also be extended to those beyond retirement age who are presently exempt.

I have spoken to Jeremy 
Hunt many times about social care and the truth is he is not wedded to any one idea, he is ‘open to all options’, including a dedicated tax, because he knows more money must be found and fast.

What is needed is courage and leadership to drive forward solutions, but integrating social and health care must be the right place to start.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/how-can-we-save-the-nhs-1-5366945

DCC Councillor Claire Wright: “NHS REFUSES TO PROVIDE WINTER PRESSURES INFORMATION FOR DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL HEALTH SCRUTINY COUNCILLORS”

I am really disappointed to report that despite me asking at the beginning of January for the winter pressures information to be available at the 25 January Health and Adult Care Scrutiny meeting, it is not going to be provided.

Given the avalanche of very worrying “NHS in Crisis” press stories I sent several emails to committee chair, Sara Randall Johnson, at the beginning of January asking for information such as delayed discharges, A&E waits, levels of norovirus, staff vacancies and various other pieces of information.

I was told it would be published as part of the performance review. However, when the agenda papers were published last week, the performance review charts gave information until the end of November only.

I have since been told by the committee chair that a representative from the NEW Devon CCG claimed that they weren’t in a position to provide the information because it would give councillors an incomplete picture.
If this isn’t infuriating enough, winter pressures data is updated on a daily basis and circulated to NHS and social care managers. They have the information. And it’s as up to date as today.

The health scrutiny committee chair indicated during a phone call with me on Saturday that she thought this was acceptable and that this data not being provided until the March meeting was fine!

When I asked (as per the email below) for the data to be provided under ‘urgent items’ I was told the issue wasn’t urgent and there wasn’t time to get the paperwork out in any case.

The refusal to supply this information, is in my view, a deliberate obfuscation. An attempt to interfere with the democratic and legitimate process of scrutiny and the NHS should have been pressed to provide it for this meeting.

Here’s my email to chair, Sara Randall Johnson, sent last Wednesday (17 January):

Dear Sara

I am very disappointed that there will be no specific written report on winter pressures at next week’s meeting.

I think that most people, given that ongoing national crisis that the NHS is experiencing right now, would find it inconceivable that our committee did not have this important information to assess how our major hospitals are managing during winter.

I see that there is an agenda item for urgent items at the beginning of the meeting.

Can I ask that this information as I previously asked for, is included in the form of written reports from the four NHS acute trusts, as an urgent agenda item. This to include delayed discharges for the winter period and up until next week, A&E waits and numbers, staffing vacancies, levels of norovirus and all the other standard winter pressures reporting that the trusts do on a daily basis for their managers.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes
Claire”

“Key figures in Devon and Somerset devolution deal meet to thrash out a way forward”

Owl says: Translation of headline – “A few rich businesspeople with vested interests and a few power hungry but rather uninformed councillors with their eye on the future panic because they risk having their fingers extracted from lucrative pies and will make unsustainable promises if that’s what it takes to keep them in”.

And as for that “productivity strategy”:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/04/dcc-corporate-infrastructure-and-regulatory-services-scrutiny-committee-savages-hotsw-growth-strategy/

“Moves to shift more power and cash to the Westcountry took an important step forward this week when key players met civil servants to thrash out the way forward. The Westcountry has been pushing to join former Chancellor George Osborne’s “devolution revolution”, which would take powers away from London and put it into the hands of local people.

The first meeting in Whitehall last week included discussions on transport infrastructure, broadband access, home building and support for business growth.

The bid for devolution is led by the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership, which includes leaders from business and councils across Somerset and Devon, including Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter.

A delegation has now met representatives from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to discuss devolution proposals.

The group claims that additional decision making and budget powers could have huge benefits for the Westcountry, including higher productivity, better paid jobs, improved transport links and more affordable homes.

Devon and Somerset are lagging behind the rest of the country. By November 2016, 11 regions had already reached devolution agreements.

Heart of the South West submitted its first proposal in February 2016, but has yet to reach a concrete deal.

An earlier stumbling block, the election of a regional mayor, has already been removed by the Government.

The issue had threatened to split the partnership.

But now civil servants have agreed to hold regular meetings on the issue, according to the region’s leaders involved in the bid.

Plymouth Council leader Ian Bowyer said: “Creating a strong economy, which means jobs, stability and strong prospects for our young people as well as families is vital for the future of Plymouth and the region as a whole. We are already working together across so many areas to deliver growth.

“This was a really positive meeting and sets the scene for closer working that will benefit all our residents.”

A total of 23 partnership organisations from across the region, which also includes clinical commissioning groups and national parks, are involved in the plans.

A joint committee for the Heart of the South West economic region is now being set up to move the discussions forward.

Cllr David Fothergill, chair of the Heart of the South West shadow joint committee, said of last week’s meeting: “We explained our vision for the area and how to help it become more prosperous.

“We discussed skills, transport infrastructure, broadband access, ways to provide more homes where they are needed and support for businesses to grow, innovate and export more. We also talked about the specific challenges faced by rural communities.”

The group said its first meeting will be in March, where it will agree a productivity strategy.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/key-figures-devon-somerset-devolution-1106519

Is Jeremy Hunt an NHS troll?

“Jeremy Hunt’s latest tweet will have the majority of Britain asking whether the widely-hated Health Secretary is just uncompromisingly incompetent, or whether he’s actively trolling the entire country.

The tweet is so inexplicably inept that it will have the entirety of Britain asking if Hunt is sticking two fingers up at every single doctor and nurse across the country, whilst simultaneously mocking the Prime Minister, who was too weak to sack him during her botched reshuffle, and who ended up giving the provably disastrous Health Secretary even more responsibility instead despite his many, many catastrophic failures.

The Tory Health Secretary just tweeted an NHS rota, in his words, as an example of a ‘really clever use of technology’ that NHS staff in Ipswich are using to ‘ensure safe staffing levels are maintained throughout the day.’

It seems Jeremy Hunt and his team either failed to actually look at what the rota was saying, or they just think dangerously low staffing levels are absolutely fine and definitely not a massive risk to patient safety. Let’s take a closer look at that rota:

Yes, like probably everybody else with even the faintest idea of what different colours mean on a rota, you’ve probably already guessed the problem: RED MEANS BAD!

Every red box on the rota Hunt tweeted means that staffing levels during that particular time of day, and on the corresponding ward, are considered at high risk due to understaffing.

For instance, on the early shift, the rota appears to show there are only two wards in the entire hospital that have adequate staff numbers and therefore a low risk level, whilst a staggering 11 wards have an inadequate number of nurses leading to these wards being labelled ‘high risk’.

It would appear that Hunt either wants to normalise this type of chronic and dangerously risky understaffing, or he simply hasn’t got a clue what the hell he’s doing.

[The article continues with some response tweets pointing this out]

And just remember, the person running the country just gave this man – a man whose professional history is littered with a catalogue of disastrous failures, missed targets and literal deaths as a result of his incredibly obvious incompetence – the task of ‘improving’ social care in Britain as well.

How people can actually justify voting for these people really is beyond me.”

https://evolvepolitics.com/jeremy-hunts-latest-tweet-is-so-outrageously-incompetent-people-think-hes-actually-trolling-nhs-staff/

“Crown representatives” are directors of other companies and Tory donors

“Labour has warned that the crown representatives who are supposed to police public sector suppliers such as the failed construction company Carillion face potential conflicts of interest, as its own research showed that several hold external directorships and one was a Tory donor.

A dossier produced by the party showed that the former admiral Sir Robert Walmsley, who is responsible to the taxpayer for monitoring the outsourcing multinational Serco, also sits on the board as senior independent director of two defence contractors, Ultra Electronics and Cohort plc.

Daniel Green, the crown representative for the energy sector, is a Conservative donor who has given £330,000 to the party and £15,000 to Theresa May’s successful leadership campaign in 2016. His profile on the LinkedIn network says he is the chief executive of a private equity firm, Liquid Business.

Jon Trickett, the shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, said such relationships amounted to “an astonishing conflict of interest and yet other example of the chumocracy”. Some of the crown representatives, he added “turn out to be people who actually work for companies that have contracts with the government”.

The crown representative system was introduced under the coalition in 2011. They are supposed to work across government on a part-time basis to act as a focal point for key companies or groups of companies who supply the public sector. When a company is in trouble, or deemed high risk, a crown representative is supposed to work with that company to develop an improvement plan.

The system has come into acute focus after Carillion’s liquidation. Julie Scattergood, the crown representative responsible for Carillion, retired last summer and was not replaced until autumn – by then the company had delivered profit warnings in July and September.

Sean Collins, the crown representative for Vodafone and the telecoms infrastructure provider Arqiva, is a non-executive director at JT Group, providing telecoms expertise in the Channel Islands. William Priest, the representative for technology services companies IBM and DXC, is a non-executive director at Connexin, a wireless broadband company.

Carillion collapsed a week ago leaving 28,000 staff facing uncertain futures as the government and private sector companies scrambled to take on its contracts. It had a £900m deficit in its pension fund at the time of collapse and it is unclear if employee pensions can be paid out in full.

The chief secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, said on Sunday that the government did not know how much the closure would cost the taxpayer. When Truss was asked on ITV’s Peston on Sunday if it would cost “hundreds of millions”, she said: “Well, it will be a significant amount of money, it’s been a serious issue.”

A government white paper designed to give regulators greater powers to block or place conditions on takeovers that are deemed to put pension schemes at risk is also being drawn up for publication in March.

The Cabinet Office did not respond to a request for comment.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/21/conflict-of-interests-rampant-in-firms-such-as-carillion-warns-labour

Next meeting of DCC Health Scrutiny meeting: SOHS suggests action

SOHS suggests the following action following receipt of a letter from Martin Shaw Independent East Devon Alliance Cllr for Seaton and Colyton.

SOHS:

Please email the councillors on the Devon Adult Care Scrutiny Committee insisting that they discuss this and vote to stop implementation due on 1 April.

sara.randalljohnson@devon.gov.uk
nick.way@devon.gov.uk
hilary.ackland@devon.gov.uk
john.berry@devon.gov.uk
paul.crabb@devon.gov.uk
rufus.gilbert@devon.gov.uk
brian.greenslade@devon.gov.uk
ron.peart@devon.gov.uk
sylvia.russell@devon.gov.uk
philip.sanders@devon.gov.uk
richard.scott@devon.gov.uk
jeff.trail@devon.gov.uk
phil.twiss@devon.gov.uk
carol.whitton@devon.gov.uk
claire.wright@devon.gov.uk
jeremy.yabsley@devon.gov.uk
pdiviani@eastdevon.gov.uk

“Devon’s two Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are pushing ahead with far-reaching, highly controversial changes to the NHS in the County from 1st April – without alerting the public or even the public watchdog, the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee at Devon County Council.

“The changes will turn the Sustainability and Transformation Plan – which itself grew out of the misnamed ‘Success Regime’ which closed our community hospital beds – into a more permanent Devon Accountable Care System. The first phase, in the first part of the financial year 2017-18, will develop integrated delivery systems, with a single ‘strategic commissioner’ for the whole county.

However the real concern is the next phase, which will lead to the establishment of Accountable Care Organisations. These will lead to services being permanently financially constrained, limiting NHS patients’ options for non-acute conditions, and pushing better-off patients even more towards private practice.

“Large chunks of our NHS will be contracted out for long periods, probably to private providers. The ‘toolkit’ for this fundamental change talks about ensuring ‘that there are alternative providers available in the event of provider failure’. In the aftermath of Carillion, do we really want most of our NHS contracted out to private firms?

“Devon’s public are not being consulted about this change – unlike in Cornwall where the Council has launched a public consultation – and there is no reason to believe that they want a privatised, two-tier health system.
“Devon’s CCGs have pushed the change through without publicity, and it is only because I have put it on the agenda that Health Scrutiny will have a chance to discuss in advance of April 1st. I have written a 7-page paper for the Committee outlining what we know about the ACS and posing eight questions which they should ask about it.”

Council 2018-2019 budget – many elephants in the room!

Recent comment on “pay to pee” article (below):

“Notice the contradiction here: one councillor says the idea is not being looked at, another group of councillors say town and … [quote from original article]

Might I suggest that there is fake news (or misdirection).

Instead of concentrating on the big savings – the biggest costs/budgets under management, we are being misdirected to something we actually understand (don’t forget the seaside towns are over endowed with the elderly, whose needs include lavatories) so that we can gain a small ‘win’ by demanding the facilities, so that we forget the elephants in the room. And there are several of them.

A gallery that only Councillor’s want.
A move of headquarters that only Councillors want.
A drastic reduction in healthcare services, that only Councillors want.
Seafront developments that only Councillors want.

William of Occam would say I have over-made the point.

Do you suppose there is a picture developing here?

I could add the absolutely fantastic budget demand coming from a Police body that has a management cost out of all proportion to its actual size. You could make significant savings by firing the bosses and not lose any quality of service?

And what about getting rid of the LLP [LEP] which, in my view, has achieved precisely nothing since it was created (except increase the salaries of the leaders although they have yet to achieve any results). That would make some tidy savings.

Maybe we can afford a health service after all!”