Bend those rules till they break, Mrs May – get YOUR cronies into top jobs

“Theresa May’s government has been accused of changing the rules on public appointments to make it easier in future for ministers to pick their political allies for senior jobs at the BBC and regulators such as Ofsted.

The new code on public appointments will give ministers greater powers over who oversees a raft of agencies, watchdogs and advisory committees, while weakening the involvement of the independent commissioner for public appointments, who scrutinises the system.

Labour said the changes, which will come into force on 1 January, represent a “power grab” by ministers and risk returning to the days of patronage and cronyism in public life.

Ministers have always had the final say over appointments to senior public sector jobs, advised by a panel that shortlists “appointable” people. However, independent assessors, chosen by the commissioner to oversee the most important competitions, will be abolished in favour of independent senior panel members picked by ministers.

Labour warns of return to cronyism amid public appointments review
The members will have to be independent of the departments and not currently politically active, but the commissioner will only have a consultative role.

Ministers will also be able to overrule the panel by choosing candidates not deemed to be appointable and have the right to dispense with an open competition without the permission of the commissioner, although they will have to consult with the watchdog and openly justify the decision. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/government-accused-power-grab-new-public-appointment-rules-bbc-ofsted

Government’s 32 advisers cost only 4 times more than those at EDDC

“The pay bill for the Conservative party’s special advisers will total an estimated £7.9 million this year, Government records show.

Theresa May will keep 32 advisers in Downing Street, the same number as David Cameron, but has reduced the number across Government from 95 to 83.

The lower number of “Spads” means the total bill for their salaries has fallen by £500,000 from its level of £8.4 million under David Cameron.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/special-advisors-spads-pay-theresa-may-wages-bill-total-labour-a7489221.html

Budleigh Salterton “Health Hub” – the “hospital” with no beds

A commentary moved to post:

So the Budleigh Hospital opens as a Hub – the first hospital in Devon to have no beds.

“A Hub, according to its website, is a term used to describe a place where many different services and organisations are based. This usually has a focus on a building, but can be virtual – internet or literature based.” [I don’t think they mean Jane Austen – just bumf].

“[At the Budleigh “health hub”] It is anticipated that a range of activities, such as arts, sport, dances and other social events will provide opportunities for people to socialise. There will also be an internet café, public WiFi and cinema space screening educational productions as well as films.”

“Staff at the centre will be able to refer people onto other services if required, meaning that waiting times are reduced, and you will be able to access support as and when you need it.”

According to the Oxford Dictionary a hospital is an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care for ill or injured people. Welcome to the brave new post truth world where words mean what you choose them to mean (Alice in Wonderland). [I bet “access support” doesn’t mean what you think either].

Oh and another thing – the Friends are reported to be donating c. £200K to pay the rent to NHS Property Services (a private limited company currently 100% owned by the S of S for Health) who are now charging economic rents for the property. But remember where this property came from. The Budleigh Hospital, like many others, started as a charity but was absorbed into the NHS in 1948. Looks like donors are having to pay twice over!

EDDC Leader’s (post truth?) Christmas message

Owl will not be passing on Leader Diviani’s full-blown Christmas message, just the most choice ten phrases from it so you can add your own comments.

And this is the picture that the Communications Department chose to go with the press release, just in case anyone has forgotten what he looks like:

3619eb05-3b22-4bfa-90f2-959cf05d60d8-3741-0000032ccb274029_tmp

1. Relocation and evolution of efficient, innovative services remains a priority for district council …

2. Improving and we will continue to improve …

3. We will continue to face financial pressures …

4. How we can deliver our services in new and innovative ways.

5. We must evolve from being service providers and instead become enablers …

6. Support communities to come together so they can do more for themselves …

7. We will also be focusing on a more commercial approach to delivering our services …

8. We must deliver the £2.6m savings that central government require us to make …

9. Outstanding council, which works together with local people to create great value services and an outstanding community, economy and environment for East Devon, both now and for future generations.

10. Everything we do is aimed at making East Devon a place where people want to live and work, as well as a top destination for visitors.

“Save our Hospital Services” calls for abolitition of “Success Regime”

ON THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY

The ‘Success Regime’/STP Team in Devon

Save Our Hospital Services Devon (SOHS) is today calling for the abolition of NHS England’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Wider Devon and the suspension of the so-called Success Regime for North, East and West Devon that is now an integral part.

“These two programmes are false, flawed and fraudulent,” says Dave Clinch, a spokesperson for SOHS in North Devon. “They are riddled with public-private, professional-personal conflicts of interest.”

SOHS Devon points out that the Case for Change document on which both the Success Regime and the STP are based was produced by a private-owned health service consultancy, Carnall Farrar. One of the consultancy’s founding partners, Dame Ruth Carnall, is now the ‘Independent’ Chair of the Success Regime pushing through the STP in Devon.

“SOHS Devon believes that there is a pre-determined agenda in Devon to cut services, limit access and reduce demand by redefining medical need to ensure that government cuts are carried out. How can Ms Carnall, who produced the blueprint for the STP, be considered remotely independent in assessing our needs or services to meet them?” asks Mr Clinch.

SOHS Devon points out that to push their agenda for cuts to NHS services and staff, the Success Regime/STP team will have been allocated £7.4 million between 2015 and 2017. Some of this funding has been used to recruit senior staff from those same services they plan to cut; for example, Andy Robinson, who left his role as Director of Finance at the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust to join the Success Regime in Exeter. What is more, Mr Robinson happens to be the partner of the Chief Executive of the Trust, Alison Diamond.

“Professional or personal? How can this relationship avoid directly impacting on the life-and-death decisions now being made?” says Mr Clinch.

Meanwhile, the proposed relocation to Exeter of acute services based at North Devon District Hospital (NDDH) is being overseen by the Success Regime’s Lead Chief Executive Angela Pedder, the former CEO of the Royal Devon & Exeter Foundation Trust.

“How can she be considered unbiased given her former role?” says Mr Clinch. It’s no coincidence that RD&E needs to cover a much bigger deficit than NDDH in Barnstaple.”

On top of this, the two leads on the STP’s Acute Services Review programme are both from hospitals in South Devon, namely Derriford in Plymouth and Torbay in Torquay. SOHS Devon can find no evidence that they are talking to the clinicians working in acute services at NDDH. And the fact is, if the proposed acute services cuts go ahead, people here in North Devon will suffer and die.

ENDS

The great LEP scandal – part 3: Government says LEPs should investigate themselves!

“Officials should be banned from taking cash from any public bodies they run following a Daily Mail investigation, Dame Margaret Hodge declared last night.

The former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said the law must be changed to stop board members benefiting from grants.

Her intervention came amid fury over the Daily Mail’s revelations that officials responsible for billions of pounds have been handing money to their colleagues’ firms.

The Commons Business Committee last night said it was investigating the ‘extremely serious issues’ – after the Public Accounts Committee also launched a major probe.

Officials oversaw the payments after getting places on boards called Local Enterprise Partnerships – or LEPs – which consist of business bosses and council chiefs and were put in charge of £7.3billion meant to kick-start economic growth.

Reporters found LEPs have made at least 276 payments to their own board members, their companies, or projects from which they stand to benefit. One received £1million for his call centre, while another got £13,000 of payments towards events at his family castle.

‘There is a quite clear and simple answer to all this – you outlaw it,’ Dame Margaret said last night. ‘Where you’ve got a conflict of interest, you have to choose – you either are a member of the board or you want to make money out of it.’

Last night the Government insisted LEPs should investigate any suspect payments themselves – and that this was not the Government’s job.

But MPs said this was ‘simply not good enough.’ Dame Margaret criticised the Government for failing to properly scrutinise LEP spending.

‘It is your money and my money that they are spending,’ she added.
‘When Government sets up these fragmented structures it always fails to put in place proper regulatory systems. It’s because the Government doesn’t care. What the Mail has uncovered doesn’t surprise me, what it does is depress me.’

Incredibly, there are currently no rules to prevent LEP officials from using the money they have received to award grants for their firms’ benefit, or to make decisions in secret.

LEPs have failed to account for at least £3.7billion of the cash they have been given by the Government, in their responses to Freedom of Information requests by the Mail.

The revelations are a major embarrassment for Chancellor Philip Hammond, who handed LEPs another £1.8billion in last month’s Autumn Statement. Meg Hillier, Public Accounts Committee chairman, has vowed a major probe into the payments and the ‘utterly unacceptable’ lack of transparency. She said the boards were acting like ‘a cosy little club’.

Iain Wright, chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committee, said last night: ‘These are extremely serious allegations. LEPs have been given stewardship of massive amounts of public money. There appears to have been some appalling failings in accountability at some LEPs. We will want to know how they are spending public money and who is checking that they are spending it responsibly.’

Tory MP Philip Hollobone represents Kettering in Northamptonshire, the county where a banker on the LEP board received nearly £13,000 for his family’s Norman castle. He added: ‘The Daily Mail has played a crucial role in bringing these issues to national attention and is providing much needed scrutiny about how this money is being spent.

‘But it shouldn’t have been up to the Daily Mail. It is clear when LEPs were set up proper systems for scrutiny were not established. I would welcome further investigations from organisations like the PAC.’

The TaxPayers’ Alliance accused Government of ‘frittering away taxpayers’ hard-earned money’. Chief executive John O’Connell added: ‘Many of these cases quite frankly do not pass the smell test.’

Downing Street insisted it was ‘for those councils and partnerships’ to investigate ‘individual allegations’. But every council contacted by the Mail over suspect LEP payments has refused to investigate them.

Many councils and LEPs share the same staff, and when contacted by the Mail many councils offered joint statements with the LEP – apparently failing to understand they were supposed to be carrying out independent scrutiny.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘We expect these partnerships to maintain the highest possible standards.’

She said that after the Mail contacted the Government with its concerns it had taken action.

‘We strengthened the rules to make sure there was greater transparency,’ she added. ‘We have been very clear that we won’t hesitate to act if any LEP fails to comply with the new tougher standards.’

MORE CASE STUDIES

BRISTOL

A former Mayor took £48,000 for his ‘beer factory’ – and another £14,000 for his brewing firm – from the LEP board he sat on.

The grants were handed to enterprises owned by George Ferguson while he sat on the board. He was Mayor of Bristol until earlier this year.
But no minutes exist on how the decisions were taken and no documents indicating his interest in the factory and brewing firm appear to have been published by the LEP.

The £48,000 grant for Mr Ferguson’s Bristol Beer Factory was supposed to be to support local jobs, but there is also no publicly available record of why his other beer firm – the Bristol Brewing Company – received two other payments totalling £14,499.

Neither the LEP nor Mr Ferguson would explain the payments.

While on the board, another company the Mayor was a director of – Destination Bristol – was also paid £10,000 in consultants’ fees by the West of England LEP.

Five other payments – worth just over £92,000 – were made to a company owned by one of Mr Ferguson’s political donors, Alasdair Sawday. The former Mayor said he had ‘properly declared all his known interests’ and ‘studiously avoided being involved in any decision relating to my own or family interests’.

West of England LEP said Mr Ferguson ‘played no part’ in the funding decisions but would not comment on why no registers of interest were available for former members or why minutes of key funding decisions before 2014 did not exist.

LEICESTERSHIRE
A zoo was given a £550,000 grant for ape enclosures after its chief executive joined the LEP board.

Sharon Redrobe said securing the funding had been her finest achievement. And after the grant was handed out, her pay went from £85,000 to £94,000, a rise linked to the zoo’s improved financial performance.

Dr Redrobe, 47, became CEO of Twycross Zoo in October 2013 and joined LEP board the following summer. Less than a year later, a panel on which two of her LEP colleagues sat approved a £558,000 grant to help the zoo refurbish animal enclosures.

Twycross Zoo denied Dr Redrobe’s pay rise was linked to the LEP grant. A spokesman said: ‘There is no conflict of interest. Dr Redrobe played no part in the grant decision.

Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership also said Dr Redrobe had no role in the decision to grant the funds.

BRIGHTON
… fashion boss Susie Cave was handed a £53,000 taxpayer-funded grant from her Local Enterprise Partnership.

She was given the money after telling the LEP Coast to Capital she wanted to launch a designer collection but her business didn’t have enough cash.
By then, Mrs Cave’s designer clothes line – which she makes from the comfort of her home – had already been worn by celebrities such as Cate Blanchett and model Daisy Lowe.

But she told the board she needed more money to hire staff and launch a full collection for women ‘with money to spend on beautiful things’. It has now been launched, with dresses ranging from £575 to nearly £1,000.

Milliner to the stars Philip Treacy OBE and designer Bella Freud – Lucian Freud’s daughter – are among the company’s board members and advisers.
Mrs Cave, the business’s 50-year-old creative director, lives in a regency-era mansion worth around £3million with her husband Nick, the singer-songwriter, who is worth £4million.

Coast to Capital said: ‘This is a strong local business. It has already delivered the 5.5 jobs for local people it committed to at its premises on a Brighton Business Park. This grant, representing 25 per cent of the total investment, was awarded through a transparent process, with the proposal assessed against the published criteria by an independent panel.’ ”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003918/Ban-fat-cats-secret-deals-says-MPs-demand-action-Mail-exposes-old-pals-club-doles-public-money.html

Post-truth spin by Conservative Gatecrashers

Owl refuses to publish the EDDC press release that triggered the comment below. Owl considers it a brazen example of “post truth” spin. Suffice to say he tries to twist the situation where he and two other councillors gatecrashed a “Save our Seafront” meeting.

Here is an organiser’s response:

Councillor Skinner’s press release of 05/12/16 is full of mistruths. In terms of clarification, the meeting Councillor Skinner [attended] was advertised as ‘all welcome’, however it was not advertised as a public meeting but as a Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) meeting in which we were welcoming along new supporters following the large numbers who attended our protest march. I don’t think that gives Cllr Skinner any legitimacy in his hijacking of the meeting – and hijack he did. If he wanted to attend a public meeting to genuinely engage, why did he arrive unannounced so no questions could be formulated ahead of the meeting? He attended and DISRUPTED what was a SES meeting, and judging by accounts of his behaviour – he had no intention to listen to those present anyway.

I have been trying since July to organise a public Q&A session with Cllr Skinner; the idea being for ALL members of the public to be able to attend and put questions to him, not only the supporters of SES. That he attended uninvited and unannounced and simply disrupted a SES meeting does NOT count as public engagement!

If Cllr Skinner was genuinely hoping to use this meeting as an opportunity to engage, the overriding question has to be, why did he not contact the organisers of the meeting, including myself, for I was emailing him in the preceding week asking him to clarify his intent ref the public Q&A? My emails of the preceding week would have been a perfect opportunity for him to tell me he intended to attend the SES meeting. Instead he utterly ambushed the meeting and acted rudely towards many who were in attendance, I therefore take serious issue with him now trying to paint this as a public engagement exercise.”

How ruthless chief executives avoid the sack

“The NHS was accused of a whitewash this evening after a hospital boss who spent £10million suppressing whistleblowers was cleared by an official report.

David Loughton, who earned £260,000 last year, has been allowed to keep his job despite using taxpayers’ money to fight staff who raised serious concerns about patient safety.

The review into how Mr Loughton’s hospital trust is being run would only go as far as saying that he had ‘an impulsive and honest style’. It appears he will now face no disciplinary action and no sanctions will be taken against him.

Whistleblowers who were forced out of their jobs by Mr Loughton were not even interviewed for the report, and only found out the review had been published when contacted by the Mail.

In a further twist, it has emerged that the consultancy firm chosen by the NHS to do the review has been paid £78,837 by Mr Loughton’s trust for other jobs this year.

Deloitte was paid £45,444 for the review by watchdog NHS Improvement.
Mr Loughton, 62, chief executive at The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, is renowned for fighting whistleblowers through the courts.

They include leading heart surgeon Dr Raj Mattu, who was vilified and sacked after he exposed that two patients had died in dangerously overcrowded bays in a hospital at another trust run by Mr Loughton.

Dr Mattu was cleared at a tribunal and in February was awarded £1.2million damages.

Manager Sandra Haynes Kirkbright was also suspended after raising concerns that Mr Loughton’s Woverhampton trust had mis-recorded deaths, making it look like fewer patients had died needlessly.

An investigation into her case condemned the trust for its ‘significantly flawed’ and ‘unfair’ treatment.

It described an account of how Mr Loughton made sure Mrs Haynes Kirkbright was ‘out of the way’ before a visit from hospital inspectors, telling staff to ‘kick this into the long grass’.

After the report into her case was published in May, NHS watchdogs ordered a review into the management of Mr Loughton’s hospital trust. But the results of that review were only quietly published on the trust’s website earlier this week. And it emerged that Deloitte was instructed to focus on the hospital as it is now, rather than considering previous whistleblowing cases.

As a result, the report’s authors did not contact Dr Mattu, Mrs Haynes Kirkbright or former board members who have criticised the management. They did not check what they were told by Mr Loughton and his employees, writing in the review: ‘We have assumed that the information provided to us and management’s representations are complete, accurate and reliable.’

Describing Mr Loughton, the report stated: ‘The chief executive is a strong character with an impulsive style and can attract controversy from time to time. However, he is strongly supported.’ It added: ‘Any past behavioural challenges have tempered in recent years.’

Today Dr Mattu said: ‘They have taken at face value everything management has said. I have great experience of Mr Loughton and he ruthlessly attacks anyone who dissents. He has persecuted whistleblowers. This has been a disgraceful waste of taxpayers’ money.’

Mrs Haynes Kirkbright said: ‘I was not consulted at all on this report. I didn’t know a thing about it until the Mail told me.’

Professor David Ferry was outed last year by Mr Loughton’s hospital after he anonymously revealed in the Mail that 55 cancer patients were needlessly put through the agony of chemotherapy.

This evening, he said: ‘They have whitewashed everything. I told them about Dr Mattu, about Sandra, about my case, but they said this is about the future, not the past. They have rewritten history their way, whatever the facts are.’

Mr Loughton, an NHS chief executive for 28 years, was awarded a pay rise of about £35,000 last year.

He joined Royal Wolverhampton in 2014 after 14 years at Coventry’s Walsgrave Hospital.

Mr Loughton said: ‘We are pleased with the review’s conclusions. Our number one priority is always patient care. Having an open and transparent culture is one of the ways in which we can ensure we remain committed to providing the best care we possibly can.

‘We are always seeking ways in which we can improve and we will take on board the recommendations the review makes.’

A trust spokesman said NHS Improvement commissioned Deloitte to do the review and ‘in line with many other organisations we have used the services of Deloitte’.

NHS Improvement said: ‘Deloitte were appointed following a formal and thorough tendering and evaluation process.’
Deloitte declined to comment.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3995418/NHS-boss-Royal-Wolverhampton-NHS-Trust-faces-no-action-spending-10m-silence-whistleblowers.html

Budleigh Salterton Health and Wellbeing Hub to Open in Spring 2017 – is this Hub the bright new future of the NHS or what is left when the wheels fall off?

A press release of 30 November press claims this regeneration of the old Cottage Hospital, and one time specialist stroke unit, is aimed at providing a population of 50,000 with:

Bringing health, social care and well-being services together, as they will be at the Budleigh Hub, is a vision of the future and what can be achieved through partnership and focusing on the needs of the local community.

It will be a centre for a wide range of services in one place and it will provide a range of social and clinical services with the focus on prevention, rehabilitation and wellbeing.

Services will include NHS outpatient clinics, day centre, gym, café alongside health and wellbeing services such as diabetes and weight management support, dementia support, exercise classes, carers support, family groups, arts and craft and music. …”

Owl thinks that how you view this might depend on whether you interpret the provision of “spinning and other classes” alongside “jigsaws, knitting and crafts” as meaning something to do with spinning yarn, spinning words or exercise bicycles.

Whichever is correct it doesn’t seem directed at relieving the acute problem of bed blocking.

Knowle officer decision exposes hypocrisy of planning system

Unsurprisingly, planning officers have recommended the PegasusLife planning application for luxury flats at the Knowle.

Well, be honest, would you go against the wishes of your CEO, deputy CEO and all the Tory councillors?

Yet a very similar (almost identical) planning application in Bath has just been turned down – but that isn’t being built on council land and part- financing a new HQ.

Funny that.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/knowle_demolition_wins_officer_support_1_4800636

Exmouth: have councillors been misled – asks councillor

PRESS RELEASE
Have Councillors been misled?

East Devon District Council’s Cabinet “rubber stamped” the go ahead for a “full planning permission” on the redevelopment at Queen’s Drive, Exmouth which they were told needs to be submitted by the end of the year.

This is part of what the Cabinet recommended on the 9th November:
“To note that under delegated powers and an exemption to standing orders, officers have engaged planning and design services to take forward a reserved matters application for the continuance of the current planning approval of Queen’s Drive.”

This means that contrary to normal procedures officers engaged the planning and design services of a company to design and submit a full planning application proposal for the remainder of the Queen’s Drive Development.

Within the submitted papers presented to the Cabinet it explains officers drew up a proposal to hire consultants in September 2016 and gave details of the costs which are estimated at £65,000.

The document states it is “necessary to submit the application by the end of 2016.” It also claims to be a “technical exercise” simply to “sustain a planning application”.

Local Independent District Councillors believe that the advice given to the Cabinet members was misleading. Rather than a “technical exercise” the proposal to submit a “reserved matters application” would provide full planning permission which in theory would allow contractors to start development as soon as it is approved. The ‘reserved matters’ application does not need to be submitted until 24th January, when the current outline application expires.

Megan Armstrong, District Councillor for Exmouth said “Independent colleagues and I cannot understand why the Council has now decided to appoint a designer to submit a full planning application at vast expense when all that is required is to submit a further outline planning application to replace the present one.

The cost of a new outline application would be far less than the ‘reserved matters’ proposal.”

Councillor Armstrong added “If this goes ahead, it contradicts the recommendation that “the Council will give Exmouth people another opportunity to have their say on what happens on that site. The Council will bring in external expertise to carry out a review. This will involve full consultation that is neither developer nor Council led.”

“I believe the District Council should put in a fresh outline planning application for phases two & three, which could be done before the current one expires. Then we can have the full consultation, rather than setting out the ‘reserved matters’ details first, which seems to be putting the cart before the horse. We understand that these Cabinet decisions will be discussed further at the next Full Council meeting on 21st December.”

— ENDS —

“False, flawed and fraudulent” says “Save Our Hospital Services” of NHS plans for Devon

SAVE OUR HOSPITAL SERVICES DEVON PRESS RELEASE
ON THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY

The ‘Success Regime’/STP Team in Devon

“Save Our Hospital Services Devon (SOHS Devon) is today calling for the abolition of NHS England’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Wider Devon and the suspension of the so-called Success Regime for North, East and West Devon that is now an integral part.

“These two programmes are false, flawed and fraudulent,” says Dave Clinch, a spokesperson for SOHS in North Devon. “They are riddled with public-private, professional-personal conflicts of interest.”

SOHS Devon points out that the Case for Change document on which both the Success Regime and the STP are based was produced by a private-owned health service consultancy, Carnall Farrar. One of the consultancy’s founding partners, Dame Ruth Carnall, is now the ‘Independent’ Chair of the Success Regime pushing through the STP in Devon.

“SOHS Devon believes that there is a pre-determined agenda in Devon to cut services, limit access and reduce demand by redefining medical need to ensure that government cuts are carried out. How can Ms Carnall, who produced the blueprint for the STP, be considered remotely independent in assessing our needs or services to meet them?” asks Mr Clinch.

SOHS Devon points out that to push their agenda for cuts to NHS services and staff, the Success Regime/STP team will have been allocated £7.4 million between 2015 and 2017. Some of this funding has been used to recruit senior staff from those same services they plan to cut; for example, Andy Robinson, who left his role as Director of Finance at the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust to join the Success Regime in Exeter. What is more, Mr Robinson happens to be the partner of the Chief Executive of the Trust, Alison Diamond.

“Professional or personal? How can this relationship avoid directly impacting on the life-and-death decisions now being made?” says Mr Clinch.

Meanwhile, the proposed relocation to Exeter of acute services based at North Devon District Hospital (NDDH) is being overseen by the Success Regime’s Lead Chief Executive Angela Pedder, the former CEO of the Royal Devon & Exeter Foundation Trust.

“How can she be considered unbiased given her former role?” says Mr Clinch. It’s no coincidence that RD&E needs to cover a much bigger deficit than NDDH in Barnstaple.”

On top of this, the two leads on the STP’s Acute Services Review programme are both from hospitals in South Devon, namely Derriford in Plymouth and Torbay in Torquay. SOHS Devon can find no evidence that they are talking to the clinicians working in acute services at NDDH. And the fact is, if the proposed acute services cuts go ahead, people here in North Devon will suffer and die”.

ENDS

Beggars belief! Local Tories implicitly defend local bed cuts then put out a press release saying the total opposite!

EDDC Tories have released the following statement and press release below.

The wording of this statement seems to imply to Owl that our local Tories are 100% behind the cutting of beds and the closure of our community hospitals. Note that it takes no account of the warning bells from the King’s Fund (plans are vague, poorly costed and badly evidenced) and the UK Statistics Agency (the NHS is underfunded) – it simply offers knee-jerk pandering to a CCG shown to be not fit for purpose and (much as usual in Devon these days) with people at the top with glaring conflicts of interest.

THE STATEMENT

We have decided as a group to issue this statement on the proposed bed closures throughout Devon which we will continue to oppose in their current form. Those wishing to cause mischief are doing a great disservice to our residents as they do not offer a sustainable solution to the endemic problems the NHS faces and tinkering with the process is no solution to the root and branch reform needed. The process is being piloted in Devon and Sir Hugo Swire and Neil Parish, our MPs, are continuing the fight in Westminster as do I as the South West Board Member for the District Councils Network nationally and as a Member of Devon County Council’s Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.”

Readers will recall that Councillor Leader Diviani voted against DCC Councillor Claire Wright’s motion to “stop the clock” on the closure of Honiton hospital until its viability had been reassessed and rechecked. Councillor Leader Diviani and his fellow Tories can hardly claim to be defending our services – indeed they seem anxious for the process to be concluded as quickly as possible, including the closure of Honiton hospital.

They also state that our MPs are “fighting for us” when their voting records, lack of speeches on our behalf and watering down of a parliamentary motion shows that they are doing nothing of the sort.

To all those vulnerable people out there who will suffer from these cuts: use your vote much more wisely in council by-elections, elections and general elections.

Now, compare what they say in the paragraph above to the press release sent out below. REMEMBER, when they say THEY – they mean their own party!

THE PRESS RELEASE

STARTS

Conservatives call for second opinion on Devon NHS funding crisis treatment
ENSURE THAT BED-CUT ‘CURE’ DOESN’T DAMAGE PATIENTS

East Devon Conservatives are deeply worried about proposals from the NEW* Devon Clinical Commissioning Group to restructure hospital care in the North, East and West of the county in a bid to plug a £400 million budget shortfall over the next three years.

They believe the hospital bed closures proposed by the Devon health provider as the cure for a funding crisis may be the wrong treatment – and could have harmful side-effects for patients.

So the 37 Conservative members of East Devon District Council are sending a collective response to the CCG’s current consultation in the hope of persuading the NHS commissioning group to change its approach to tackling the immediate £100m funding gap, expected to rise to £400m by 2020.

The Conservative councillors are advising the CCG that it would be dangerous to move from a system of mostly inpatient treatment to care at home until a robust structure is in place to provide the alternative cover. Taking this step without the necessary resources in place and with no vital transition budget to call upon, could put patients at risk, they say.

Dangerous

Having studied the CCG’s report, Conservative group members were unimpressed with the strength of the argument in favour of bed closures and home care, especially because the CCG has not been able to provide accurate and meaningful financial detail or convincing trial evidence to back up its proposed Community Care Package.

They also wonder if the massive funding gap could not be closed by greater attention to efficiency savings.

And they are counselling the commissioning group not to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tackling the area’s financial ills, bearing in mind the differing demographics and age profiles of each local authority area in Devon, especially remote rural communities. Patient vulnerability and loneliness must also be addressed.

The CCG appears to favour a new model of care that has been subject to limited testing, with little hard evidence that it improves the service to patients.

The Conservative group are not convinced by the scant evidence provided after their requests for more detail and are nervous of the CCG’s reliance on a notional target of county hospital beds, regardless of variations in proven need.

Blunt instrument

They want to know more about the 80 clinicians the CCG claims to be in support of the new model. And they are sceptical of a ‘blunt instrument’ approach to treatment, especially when many elderly patients have dementia in addition to multiple clinical problems.

Finally, the Conservative members contest that many areas in East Devon appear to have a reducing stock of nursing and residential home beds. This only aggravates the situation, because these beds are often required in the short or long-term for patients stuck in hospital.

Phil Twiss, Conservative Group Secretary, said: “Some people want to boycott this consultation process – but that won’t help anyone. We believe constructive feedback is the best way.

“We all agree that bed-blocking is a serious issue and we also accept that the clinical commissioning group need to save money. The question is how should they go about it so as to deliver results without making the situation worse.

“We feel that they have the solution the wrong way round. They want to move to a care-in-the-home model at a time when the resources just aren’t there to support that model. It might be the right approach in theory, but it will only work in practice if the social care infrastructure is robust enough to take the strain – and it is not.

Panic measures

“We’re not convinced that the new model has delivered the right standard of success in trial areas and we don’t believe it can be rolled out across other parts of the county until the necessary support structure is in place. And we should not be moving to a new model as a panic measure to solve a funding shortfall that could be tackled by other means.

“For example, a lot of money can be wasted on high-cost agency staff who appear to be a short-term emergency man-power fix but all too often are relied upon as part of the workforce establishment.

“We don’t know whether the budget shortfall was perhaps caused by wasteful practices that are still in place, and so we don’t know whether the CCG could find alternative ways to save money. What we do know is that their current proposals are unconvincing and ill-advised”.

East Devon Conservatives will be responding to the CCG consultation with their views and will be calling on the commissioning group to think again.

ENDS

SO, are they for cuts or against them? A dangerous business deciding which bit is truth and which bit is post-truth!

And now the UK Statistics Agency criticises NHS funding figures

“The UK Statistics Authority looked into the prime minister’s repeated use of the £10bn claim after Labour and the British Medical Association complained that the figure was misleading and wrong. It has asked the Treasury to overhaul how government spending on both the NHS and health more widely is presented in order to minimise the risk of further “confusion” about the size of budget rises.

The UKSA’s intervention followed an increasingly public disagreement between May and Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, over how much extra funding the government had pledged to give the health service over the course of this parliament. May has put the figure at £10bn in the House Commons, a newspaper interview and at the Conservative party conference. She said that sum meant her administration was giving the NHS more money than the £8bn it had asked for in 2014 in order to transform how it works and close a £30bn budget gap by 2020.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, accused the prime minister of exaggerating the true sum and using “spin” to try to present the government in a better light over the NHS. Dr Mark Porter, chair of the BMA’s ruling council, had also asked the UKSA to look into May’s claim. …

… The UKSA intends to ask the Treasury to “investigate whether in future they can present estimates for NHS England and total health sending separately. I will also explore with officials producing these figures other ways in which they might ensure clarity around sources, time periods and what is being measured, and in what context, when reporting on the level of increase in real budget allocations to NHS England.”

While Hunt has acknowledged that the £10bn was the budget increases over a six-year period, May has yet to do the same.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/23/government-scolded-by-watchdog-over-theresa-may-nhs-funding-claims?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Police yet to quiz Exeter’s crime tsar as inquiry into election expenses draws to close”

“Police have still not even asked for a date to interview Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez about expenses for the general election campaign, her chief of staff has revealed.

Ms Hernandez, who was criticised for taking a “selfie” with the chief fire officer at the scene of the Exeter fire last week, is set to be interviewed following a complaint about alleged false accounting, following her role as the Conservative Party election agent in Torbay MP Kevin Foster’s victorious campaign in 2015.

The allegations relate to expenses for the Tory “Battle Bus”, which brought activists to constituencies from outside the area with leaflets and are thought to have helped swing the vote.

Cornwall MPs Scott Mann and George Eustice are among those caught up in the investigations, which are continuing.

The issue has dogged the PCC since the story broke days before her own election victory in May by a narrow margin.

She has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and insists she stands ready and willing to assisst any investigation.

Andrew White, chief executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) said the investigation in Devon and Cornwall by West Mercia police was expected to conclude in weeks but no request has been made to speak to the commissioner.

Mr White, who I referred allegations about election expenses and potential breaches of electoral law on expenses in the Torbay constituency, said: “I am informed by the IPCC that the investigation is progressing. It is expected that the investigation should conclude by November this year. I can confirm that West Mercia Police have not yet requested an interview with the PCC, Alison Hernandez.”

“Following the investigation, a report will be presented to the IPCC and a decision will be made whether the case should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS),” Mr White added

“This investigation is one of a number of similar investigations being undertaken across the country.

“I will issue further updates as and when any relevant information, that I am allowed to disclose by the relevant bodies, becomes available.”

It emerged last month that Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer was also under investigation after comments he made about diverting police resources to deal with the inquiry.

The remarks which have got Mr Sawyer into hot water were made in a BBC interview, when he said that although “democracy is important” Parliament needed to consider procedures for dealing with complaints about the way elections are run.

“This is taking up police time,” he said. “It is taxpayers’ money.”

Adrian Sanders, who made the complaint, has said that it was not for the chief constable to make such comments.

“You can’t make statements like that unless you have some background detail,” he told the BBC.

“He’s not in a position to know that detail, especially when it’s his boss who is the subject of investigation.”

In a statement, the chief constable denied any wrongdoing and said he would cooperate fully with the investigation.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/police-yet-to-quiz-exeter-s-crime-tsar-as-inquiry-into-election-expenses-draws-to-close/story-29884683-detail/story.html

North Somerset and Bath: Goodbye NHS, hello Virgin Healthcare

Set to commence on April Fool’s Day next year

“Sir Richard Branson’s health firm, Virgin Care, has won a £700m contract to deliver 200 types of NHS and social care services to more than 200,000 people in Bath and north-east Somerset.

The contract, which was approved on Thursday, has sparked new fears about private health firms expanding their role in the provision of publicly funded health services.

Virgin Care has been handed the contract by both Bath and North East Somerset NHS clinical commissioning group and Conservative-led Bath and North East Somerset council. It is worth £70m a year for seven years and the contract includes an option to extend it by another three years at the same price.

It means that from 1 April Virgin Care will become the prime provider of a wide range of care for adults and children. That will include everything from services for those with diabetes, dementia or who have suffered a stroke, as well as people with mental health conditions. It will also cover care of children with learning disabilities and frail, elderly people who are undergoing rehabilitation to enable them to go back to living at home safely after an operation.

NHS campaigners warned that the history of previous privatisations of NHS services in other parts of England may mean the quality of care patients receive drops once Virgin takes over.

“This is obviously part of a big push by Virgin to dominate the supply of community health across England. The experience so far from NHS outsourcing is that companies struggle to deliver the level of service that patients need and make a profit,” said Paul Evans, co-ordinator of the NHS Support Federation, which monitors NHS contracts being awarded to firms such as Virgin.

“In too many instances outsourced healthcare has resulted in care being compromised to cuts costs. Patients need secure services that they can trust and rely on,” Evans added.

The collapse of the £725m UnitingCare contract in Cambridgeshire meant Virgin’s newly acquired contract would be the most lucrative ongoing deal for providing NHS care, he said.

Eleanor Jackson, a Labour member of Bath and North East Somerset council, told the Mirror she was “horrified” by the decision. “Make no mistake about it, what has happened here is the beginning of the privatisation of the NHS in this country. Woe betide you getting ill in this area if you are old, disabled or have learning difficulties in the next seven years. It is just a horrifying decision,” she said.

There are concerns that handing the work to Virgin Care will take important income away from the many local NHS, voluntary, charitable and housing bodies that currently provide some of the services. They include the Royal United hospitals Bath NHS foundation trust, Great Western hospitals NHS foundation trust and the Avon and Wiltshire mental health partnership NHS trust. Charities affected include Age UK’s Bath branch and the Alzheimer’s Society.

Virgin will also run the urgent care facility at Paulton community hospital, which is 12 miles from Bath, and subcontract a number of other services to other providers, including the provision of dementia and end of life care and a “hospital from home” service for recently discharged patients.

“I am pleased that we can now start the process of transferring services. Following extensive consultation with local people and a very rigorous procurement process, the CCG board is assured that Virgin Care is the right organisation to deliver the personalised and preventative care that local people have asked for,” said Dr Ian Orpen, the clinical chair of Bath and North East Somerset clinical commissioning group.

“We will be working closely with the council and our new partners, Virgin Care, over the coming months to ensure that services and staff are transferred across safely on 1 April 2017 and to minimise disruption to the care and support that people currently receive.”

A spokesman for Virgin Care said: “We are really pleased to have been chosen by the council and CCG to deliver more joined-up care for people across Bath and north-east Somerset. We have a strong track record over the last decade of overseeing integration and improvement of NHS services across England and we’re looking forward to working with the many outstanding professionals, and a range of great partners, to provide and oversee high quality, easy-to-navigate services which are shaped by the people who use them.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/11/virgin-care-700m-contract-200-nhs-social-care-services-bath-somerset

Post- truth journalism

Guardian headline today:
UK construction at weakest level for four years as housebuilding stalls”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/11/housebuilding-stalls-britain-eu-construction

Daily Telegraph headline today:
Construction downturn after Brexit vote not as deep as feared”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/11/construction-downturn-after-brexit-vote-not-as-deep-as-feared/

NHS: How to profit when excrement hitting the air conditioning

The NHS’ new “Success Regime” aims to put a firm brake on health spending, but it’s proving to be a bonanza for consultants on lucrative contracts who oversee the process. And some of these consultants are former senior NHS managers who received generous payoffs when their jobs disappeared as a result of the Tories’ top-down reorganisation of the health service in 2012.

There were a few wry smiles, therefore, at Monday evening’s public “consultation” in Sidmouth to discuss closing the town’s community hospital beds, when Dame Ruth Carnall, chair of the “Success Regime” which is monitoring these cuts, bemoaned the disastrous “fragmentary” effects of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

She may not like it, but as chief executive of NHS London which was abolished by the Act, she received a payoff in 2013 which included a £2.2 million pension pot.

Then with another former NHS executive she created consultants Carnall Farrar Ltd who were chosen by NEW Devon CCG to advise them on how to save money before she was appointed “Independent Chair” of the “Success Regime”. Rumours suggest this will net her several hundred thousands of pounds in fees!

See
https://nhsreality.wordpress.com/…/nhs-executives-rehired-as-consultants-after-payoff

Owl’s Midweek Herald competition – Spot the News!

Rules:

1. Examine each page of the Midweek Herald for REAL news.
2. Rehashed press releases do not count.
3. This includes puff jobs for the Thelma Hulbert Gallery.
4. Advertorials (advertising dressed up as news items) don’t count.
5. Fires in airing cupboards, sheds, etc immediately put out don’t count.
6. News reported from other news media doesn’t count.
7. EDDC’s official notices don’t count.

Good luck!

Government reject former Cabinet MP’s FoI request for report he commissioned!

“As Energy Secretary, he was a target for journalists wielding the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, after being ousted from Parliament in the May 2015 general election, Sir Ed Davey has been forced to resort to using the transparency legislation himself – in an attempt to read a report he commissioned.

But, in a dark twist, civil servants, who just 18 months ago worked with him, have rejected his FOI request asking them to publish a study on the true costs of different electricity sources.

The former Lib Dem cabinet member has accused the Government of “an abuse of power” after it rejected his FOI request to publish the Frontier Economics study into the true costs of different electricity sources, which was submitted to ministers by the consultancy at the start of this year.

Responding to Sir Ed’s requests, the Government acknowledged a public interest in publishing the report but said it would do so “in due course” when it could provide “sufficient context”.

“The excuse for this delay is clearly self-serving nonsense,” Sir Ed said. “It’s an independent report that can stand alone without any spin from Conservative ministers.”…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/05/access-denied-government-rejects-sir-ed-daveys-request-for-energ/