Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Darzi Report - submission
The following submission was sent in to the Healthcare for London consultation ("Consulting the Capital") by Lib Dem Cllr.John Beanse, who is Vice-Chair of Health Scrutiny in Waltham Forest:
Firstly, I do not find the questionnaire very helpful and cannot believe the results of answers to many questions will do much more than provide some statistics. I cannot believe that they are going to affect or alter current thinking.
- e.g.1a; 2, etc and other questions where agreement is sought.
What I find more relevant is to make the following points:
* More care in the community is a current driver for change - which coincidentally and sometimes too conveniently coincides with the need to cut deficits and save money.
Of course in many cases this may be desirable - BUT there has to be much improvement in community care. People must not be sent out of hospital early to cope on their own with inadequate help or to place an impossible burden on carers - which sometimes leads to them becoming ill themselves.
These matters receive inadequate attention in the report- there is little reference to carers.
Also, local authorities are going to need more funding for Social services - this needs to be urgently addressed.
* There is a tendency to drive down activity at local hospitals by our PCT - through day operations, more care in the community, etc, saving money. Again, sometimes, but not always, there are good clinical reasons for this approach. This can lead to ward closures, staff reductions, etc - not always so desirable. Above all, hospitals must maintain adequate capacity which can be brought into use if there is for instance an epidemic involving more admissions or a major accident, etc.
* Sending people out of hospital earlier is not always "successful". Figures I have obtained show that on average 1 in 10 of patients leaving my local hospital - for whatever reason - are likely to back in hospital within 2 months.
* The section on mental health is inadequate. There does not seem to have been sufficient input from service users, carers, or practitioners.
Also, it is not - sadly - the case that all patients with mental health problems will "recover" - the emphasis has to be on recovery (where feasible) and/or well-being.
There is insufficient awareness of the growing problems of more and more people suffering different degrees of dementia - and the implications. Home-assisted living can become impossible after a time.
We have to retain sufficient capacity in suitable homes.
* I have concerns about the suggested move to polyclinics. In a way we seem to be coming full circle. Years ago, many popular smaller hospitals - incl. "cottage hospitals" - were closed in the name of so-called "efficiency" - usually to much unheeded local protest. Are we now recreating them in a diiferent form?
* It has to be recognised that there are many patients who prefer to be with ONE GP and value that personal service. Is this recognised?
* Moving services out of district general hospitals - either to polyclinics or to specialist centres could bring unwanted consequences. There may be good reasons for having some specialist centres - but having established some, there could be moves to have more. This could downgrade hospitals by stealth.
* Let it be clear. People expect to have a fully funded, fully functioning local hospital. In many cases they are less concerned about CHOICE. Their choice is to have a local hospital - convenient for out-patient appointments and convenient for friends & family to visit in-patients. Is this being fully considered??
* I have serious reservations about the TRANSPORT implications where patients have to be taken on congested roads into central London. Why not have centres on the periphery of London?
* There is insufficient regard of the funding implications in all this.
* Both nationally and locally, proper attention has to be paid to increasing population levels. I am not convinced this is being done adequately.
I hope that all representations will be given due consideration and that the direction for the future will indeed lead to a better NHS for us all. At present I have some serious misgivings.
Firstly, I do not find the questionnaire very helpful and cannot believe the results of answers to many questions will do much more than provide some statistics. I cannot believe that they are going to affect or alter current thinking.
- e.g.1a; 2, etc and other questions where agreement is sought.
What I find more relevant is to make the following points:
* More care in the community is a current driver for change - which coincidentally and sometimes too conveniently coincides with the need to cut deficits and save money.
Of course in many cases this may be desirable - BUT there has to be much improvement in community care. People must not be sent out of hospital early to cope on their own with inadequate help or to place an impossible burden on carers - which sometimes leads to them becoming ill themselves.
These matters receive inadequate attention in the report- there is little reference to carers.
Also, local authorities are going to need more funding for Social services - this needs to be urgently addressed.
* There is a tendency to drive down activity at local hospitals by our PCT - through day operations, more care in the community, etc, saving money. Again, sometimes, but not always, there are good clinical reasons for this approach. This can lead to ward closures, staff reductions, etc - not always so desirable. Above all, hospitals must maintain adequate capacity which can be brought into use if there is for instance an epidemic involving more admissions or a major accident, etc.
* Sending people out of hospital earlier is not always "successful". Figures I have obtained show that on average 1 in 10 of patients leaving my local hospital - for whatever reason - are likely to back in hospital within 2 months.
* The section on mental health is inadequate. There does not seem to have been sufficient input from service users, carers, or practitioners.
Also, it is not - sadly - the case that all patients with mental health problems will "recover" - the emphasis has to be on recovery (where feasible) and/or well-being.
There is insufficient awareness of the growing problems of more and more people suffering different degrees of dementia - and the implications. Home-assisted living can become impossible after a time.
We have to retain sufficient capacity in suitable homes.
* I have concerns about the suggested move to polyclinics. In a way we seem to be coming full circle. Years ago, many popular smaller hospitals - incl. "cottage hospitals" - were closed in the name of so-called "efficiency" - usually to much unheeded local protest. Are we now recreating them in a diiferent form?
* It has to be recognised that there are many patients who prefer to be with ONE GP and value that personal service. Is this recognised?
* Moving services out of district general hospitals - either to polyclinics or to specialist centres could bring unwanted consequences. There may be good reasons for having some specialist centres - but having established some, there could be moves to have more. This could downgrade hospitals by stealth.
* Let it be clear. People expect to have a fully funded, fully functioning local hospital. In many cases they are less concerned about CHOICE. Their choice is to have a local hospital - convenient for out-patient appointments and convenient for friends & family to visit in-patients. Is this being fully considered??
* I have serious reservations about the TRANSPORT implications where patients have to be taken on congested roads into central London. Why not have centres on the periphery of London?
* There is insufficient regard of the funding implications in all this.
* Both nationally and locally, proper attention has to be paid to increasing population levels. I am not convinced this is being done adequately.
I hope that all representations will be given due consideration and that the direction for the future will indeed lead to a better NHS for us all. At present I have some serious misgivings.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Getting greener in Waltham Forest
Good news on the environment in Waltham Forest:
* the Council's vital Environmental and Regeneration department has improved recycling levels to over 30% and is driving on towards a 50% target over the next years
* the department has recorded Chartermark and Green Flag success
* performance indicators show the department is the 7th most improved of its type in the country
* Lib Dem plans to put climate change awareness at the heart of the Borough's agenda were backed at the last full Council meeting
* During the 2 Christmas weeks, borough residents recycled waste weighing the same as 179 double decker buses
The re-use, reduce, recycle message is having effect and we must keep striving to do even more.
* the Council's vital Environmental and Regeneration department has improved recycling levels to over 30% and is driving on towards a 50% target over the next years
* the department has recorded Chartermark and Green Flag success
* performance indicators show the department is the 7th most improved of its type in the country
* Lib Dem plans to put climate change awareness at the heart of the Borough's agenda were backed at the last full Council meeting
* During the 2 Christmas weeks, borough residents recycled waste weighing the same as 179 double decker buses
The re-use, reduce, recycle message is having effect and we must keep striving to do even more.
Single sex wards - backtracking by Government
Labour has admitted it had abandoned its historic commitment to eliminate mixed-sex wards from NHS hospitals. Health minister Lord Darzi of Denham told the House of Lords that the key manifesto pledge repeated in 1997 and 2001 was "an aspiration that cannot be met".
This is an issue that Cllr.John Beanse, Waltham Forest's Vice-Chair of Health Scrutiny, (Hale End & Highams Park ward) has raised repeatedly, including at Board meetings of Whipps Cross Hospital. He said: "Now the talk is of single sex bays within mixed sex wards. This has to be a minimum requirement. It is certainly not what we were originally led to believe was the policy." [Telegraph]
This is an issue that Cllr.John Beanse, Waltham Forest's Vice-Chair of Health Scrutiny, (Hale End & Highams Park ward) has raised repeatedly, including at Board meetings of Whipps Cross Hospital. He said: "Now the talk is of single sex bays within mixed sex wards. This has to be a minimum requirement. It is certainly not what we were originally led to believe was the policy." [Telegraph]
Friday, January 25, 2008
Long awaited review on voting systems
The Government has today published its much delayed review of voting systems which examines the experiences of the different forms of elections introduced over the last ten years in the UK.
The 1997 Labour Party manifesto committed the party to holding a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. They have broken this promise.
The Government have come up with excuse after excuse for their delays. The latest one, set out in a written ministerial statement by Justice Minister Michael Wills today, is: "At this point, it would be premature to seek to reform the electoral system for the Commons while the voting system for a reformed and substantially or fully elected House of Lords is still to be determined."
So the Government’s excuse for delaying action on electoral reform is their continuing delay of Lords reform. As Nick Clegg says, “It takes a peculiar kind of genius for ministers to spend a decade deciding what to do with our voting system before reaching the conclusion that we should wait a bit longer.”
The government press release and ministerial statement (and, consequently, most media coverage) on the review give a misleading picture of the actual contents of the 197 page review. Despite being a government report, prepared by civil servants and issued by ministers, the truth is that the review is reasonably balanced. Its conclusions back up many of the arguments used by pro-fair votes campaigners and undermine much of the case made by those who are against reform.
The 1997 Labour Party manifesto committed the party to holding a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. They have broken this promise.
The Government have come up with excuse after excuse for their delays. The latest one, set out in a written ministerial statement by Justice Minister Michael Wills today, is: "At this point, it would be premature to seek to reform the electoral system for the Commons while the voting system for a reformed and substantially or fully elected House of Lords is still to be determined."
So the Government’s excuse for delaying action on electoral reform is their continuing delay of Lords reform. As Nick Clegg says, “It takes a peculiar kind of genius for ministers to spend a decade deciding what to do with our voting system before reaching the conclusion that we should wait a bit longer.”
The government press release and ministerial statement (and, consequently, most media coverage) on the review give a misleading picture of the actual contents of the 197 page review. Despite being a government report, prepared by civil servants and issued by ministers, the truth is that the review is reasonably balanced. Its conclusions back up many of the arguments used by pro-fair votes campaigners and undermine much of the case made by those who are against reform.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
So is anything ever "hypothetical"?!
Cllr. John Beanse writes: "I have just been listening to an interview on BBC Radio 4’s "Today Programme". The Home Secretary was seeking to justify the supposed need to be able to extend the possible detention period without trial for terrorist suspects to 42 days.
She dismissed any idea that the need for such a measure was based on a hypothetical case with the memorable words:
“It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs”!
In the end, I suppose you can’t argue with that!"
She dismissed any idea that the need for such a measure was based on a hypothetical case with the memorable words:
“It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs”!
In the end, I suppose you can’t argue with that!"
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
A rail scandal
LIB DEM RESEARCH REVEALS BRITAIN HAS THE MOST EXPENSIVE RAIL FARES IN EUROPE
Rail travel in Britain is more expensive than anywhere else in Europe, according to research by the Liberal Democrats. The figures show that, on average, £10 will buy a ticket for 27 miles travel by train in Britain, compared with nearly 50 miles in France and 383 miles in Latvia. Six years ago, British train passengers could travel 55 miles for £10. The figures, based on a comparison of European fares published in this year's Thomas Cook European Rail Timetable, show it costs nearly £40 to travel an average of 100 miles in Britain. [Telegraph]
The Lib Dems have regularly pointed out that our rail fares are the most expensive in Europe and have continued to rise in real terms, while the cost of motoring is falling. Massive fare rises, like the ones we saw earlier this month, are pricing travellers off the railways. Labour ministers regard spending on the roads as investment but spending on the railways as subsidy, just as their Tory counterparts did.
Rail travel in Britain is more expensive than anywhere else in Europe, according to research by the Liberal Democrats. The figures show that, on average, £10 will buy a ticket for 27 miles travel by train in Britain, compared with nearly 50 miles in France and 383 miles in Latvia. Six years ago, British train passengers could travel 55 miles for £10. The figures, based on a comparison of European fares published in this year's Thomas Cook European Rail Timetable, show it costs nearly £40 to travel an average of 100 miles in Britain. [Telegraph]
The Lib Dems have regularly pointed out that our rail fares are the most expensive in Europe and have continued to rise in real terms, while the cost of motoring is falling. Massive fare rises, like the ones we saw earlier this month, are pricing travellers off the railways. Labour ministers regard spending on the roads as investment but spending on the railways as subsidy, just as their Tory counterparts did.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The London campaign
Cllr.Meral Ece, Lib Dem London Assembly candidate for London North East (which includes Waltham Forest) is pictured here on the left at a dinner, alongside W.Forest councillor Liz Phillips (Portfolio holder for Health, Adults and Older People). Meral is pleased to announce a special liink for the London Mayor and GLA campaigns (voting takes place on May 1st): click on http://www.brianpaddick.org/in-your-area/waltham-forest
Saturday, January 12, 2008
London Lib Dem Conference
Chingford & Woodford Green Liberal Democrats were represented today at an important London Lib Dem Conference at the London School of Economics by 2 members of their Executive Committee: Monkhams ward rep. Anne Crook, and Chairman Cllr.John Beanse.
The day began with a keynote speech by the new party leader, NICK CLEGG MP.
There then followed discussions on many aspects of party policy.
Speaking in one of the discussions in the main hall, Cllr.John Beanse drew attention to some of the shortcomings of local government in England – in particular:
* Too many Government directives
* Too much power exercised by Council officers, rather than elected representatives
* The Cabinet system, which leaves “backbenchers” with inadequate say and influence
* The voting system by which our councils are elected, which distorts the will of the people (Cllr.Beanse quoted the disturbing example of the London Borough of Newham between 1998 and 2002 when there were 60 Labour councillors and NO OPPOSITION).
* The democratic deficit in the Health service where councillors are able to scrutinise and recommend – but may well be ignored
* The inadequate proportion of money spent by councils which can be raised locally – weakening local democracy
Cllr.Beanse stressed the need for the Liberal Democrats to "change the system" to get a better deal for people.
The day began with a keynote speech by the new party leader, NICK CLEGG MP.
There then followed discussions on many aspects of party policy.
Speaking in one of the discussions in the main hall, Cllr.John Beanse drew attention to some of the shortcomings of local government in England – in particular:
* Too many Government directives
* Too much power exercised by Council officers, rather than elected representatives
* The Cabinet system, which leaves “backbenchers” with inadequate say and influence
* The voting system by which our councils are elected, which distorts the will of the people (Cllr.Beanse quoted the disturbing example of the London Borough of Newham between 1998 and 2002 when there were 60 Labour councillors and NO OPPOSITION).
* The democratic deficit in the Health service where councillors are able to scrutinise and recommend – but may well be ignored
* The inadequate proportion of money spent by councils which can be raised locally – weakening local democracy
Cllr.Beanse stressed the need for the Liberal Democrats to "change the system" to get a better deal for people.
Friday, January 11, 2008
GOVERNMENT REVEALS NUCLEAR POWER STATION PLANS
A new generation of nuclear power stations was today given the go-ahead by the government. LINKS: [BBC] [Guardian]
The Lib Dems say: "The Government should abandon these expensive white elephants and focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of genuinely renewable technologies. This has effectively locked us into nuclear power for the best part of a century. By the time they are up and running in the 2020s nuclear power plants may be obsolete given the progress in renewable technologies. Energy conservation and investment in renewables should be our top priorities."
The Lib Dems say: "The Government should abandon these expensive white elephants and focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of genuinely renewable technologies. This has effectively locked us into nuclear power for the best part of a century. By the time they are up and running in the 2020s nuclear power plants may be obsolete given the progress in renewable technologies. Energy conservation and investment in renewables should be our top priorities."
Nick Clegg off to a good start
The media gave a big thumbs up to Nick Clegg’s performance in his first performance as leader of the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s Questions, in which he questioned the Prime Minister on increasing energy bills and fuel poverty. Sky described Nick’s performance as “confident” and “assured”. A full range of comments can be found at Lib Dem Voice. Links: [EPolitix] [Lib dem voice]
