Extra security at Wembley this weekend plus Manchester tributes

Photo: Evening Standard/Getty Images

During the consultation on 'Shaping a Healthier Future' which proposed closure of several A&E services, including Central Middlesex, I repeatedly raised the issue of whether what remained could cope with a 'major incident' in Brent which includes the Park Royal Industrial Estate,  several railway lines, the North Circular, Wembley Arena and Wembley Stadium all potential accident or attack sites.

On event days at Wembley roads in the area are very congested, particularly for the recently increased full capacity events, making acess for emergency vehicles extremely difficult.

The events in Manchester make this question even more relevant. I understand there is a special committee that keeps security in Wembley under constant review although its proceedings are not made public.

It appears that we may see armed police patrolling in Wembley this long weekend of Stadium events.

Meanwhile the Stadium has issued the following guidance to fans:

MESSAGE FOR FANS COMING TO WEMBLEY STADIUM

The safety of fans is of paramount importance and we have robust security measures in place at Wembley Stadium connected by EE. In collaboration with the Metropolitan Police and the local authorities there will be an enhanced security operation for all upcoming events. 

All supporters attending the upcoming matches at Wembley Stadium are advised to arrive as early as possible to avoid queues and to support commemorations of the tragic events in Manchester this week.

Fans can be assured that all appropriate security measures are in place for the upcoming matches, which includes thorough searches upon entrance to Wembley Stadium, and they are encouraged to arrive as early as possible to avoid any delays in entering the stadium.  We strongly advise that all supporters arrive at the stadium no later than 1 hour prior kick-off to be inside for the start of the match and we encourage spectators to not bring any bags or unnecessary items with them.

The FA plans to appropriately remember Monday’s Manchester attack before the kick-off of the Emirates FA Cup Final including: 

• A period of silence will be observed prior to kick-off
• Commemorative wreaths will be laid by The President of the Football Association, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge and The Football Association Chairman, Greg Clarke
• Arsenal and Chelsea players will wear black armbands as well as the match officials

In addition, all four teams and match officials taking part in the Sky Bet Play-Off Finals on Sunday and Monday will wear black armbands and observe a period of silence prior to kick-off.

On Tuesday night The FA lit the Wembley Arch in England colours to remember the victims and to show support for all those affected by the attack, as well as displaying ‘For Manchester’ on the front of the stadium.

The Emirates FA Cup Final matchday programme was printed prior to this weekend’s matches, so there is no reference to Monday night’s tragic events due to print deadline. The FA will instead be showing its support with the plans listed above.

We thank all supporters for their cooperation and understanding.

Saturday 27 May

Emirates FA Cup Final: Arsenal v Chelsea

17:30 kick-off

Sunday 28 May

Sky Bet League Two Play-Off Final: Blackpool v Exeter City

15:00 kick-off

Monday 29 May

Sky Bet Championship Play-Off Final: Huddersfield Town v Reading

15:00 kick-off

Bid for £513m for NW London CCGs to be submitted to implement STP

Just after the Kilburn Times LINK published a story about the potential impact of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) on Brent, the NHS Brent Clinical Commissioning Group held an extraordinary Governing Body meeting at lunchtime today. The Times story pointed to a difference in emphasis on the STP from Cllr Krupesh Hirani, lead member for community wellbeing who said he would sign up to the STP, and Carolyn Downs, Brent CEO who has led on the STP, who repeated the caveats made at Brent's October Cabinet meeting*. The STP got very little detailed mention at today's meeting.  Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham boroughs have refused to sign the STP at present.

The chair said that in seeking £513m investment the area CCGs were following through the controversial Shaping a Healthier Future  (SaHF) and the Sustainability and Transformation Plan . The investment was necessary to deliver these plans and the meeting considered the Strategic Outline Case (Soc 1) for the investment. 

The majority of the funding (£304)  would go to acute hospitals, most of it to Ealing Hospital. £69m to improving GP practices, and £141m to out of hospital hubs.

 

The £304m hospital share would:

• support Ealing's changes to become an excellent local hospital
• expand A& E and provide more beds at West Middlesex Hospital
• expand A & E and maternity at Hillingdon Hospital
• provide more primary and community care services at Central Middlesex Hospital
• provide more post-op recovery and critical care beds at Northwick Park Hospital and improve some existing buildings

The £69m GP practices share would:

• make it easier for patients to physically get in and out of practices
• make better waiting rooms and more consulting rooms across all 8 boroughs

The £141m allocated to Out of Hospital Hubs would:

• modernise 11 existing community hubs
• build 7 new ones
• increase capacity and enable people who have multiple health and care needs to have those dealt with in one place 

The overall aim was better health care and preventing unnecessary hospitalisation.

At the public question time Robin Sharp speaking for Brent Patient Voice said:

I thank the Governing Body for making 30 minutes available for public comments or questions during this session. I am afraid that the rest of what I have to say will be more critical.

Sadly we are presented with yet another example of flawed procedure and a flawed case for change on the part of our NHS.

To begin with procedures, it is farcical that the Governing Body are set to approve a complex 250-page submission only 8 days after it was put into the public domain. Doctors on the Governing Body are very busy people with important clinical jobs. How can they have had time to read and understand these proposals?

It is also disgraceful that 7 out of the 8 NW London Healthwatches which make up the PPRG (Patient and Public Representative Group) for SaHF have offered quasi-endorsement for the document even though they admit that the public they are supposed to represent have not seen it.

We are told there will be public engagement in future, but is not this the wrong way round? Engagement should have been before the document goes to the Treasury.

Turning to the clinical case for change, it has been over 3 years since the “Better Care Closer to Home” strategy set out in SaHF was launched. It was supposed to be all in place by 2015. Where is the assessment to show that more care in the community has stopped people being admitted to hospital and reduced the need for acute beds?  It is certainly not in the NW London STP (Sustainability and Transformation Plan). “If Better Care Closer to Home” works why are our A&Es among the most challenged in England. Why are Referral to Treatment (RTT) times on a downward trend?

We were told in the slide presentation that 27 Hubs across NW London are at the heart of this Business Case and that St Charles off Ladbroke Grove is an example of a fully functioning “Hub”. Can we please see a paper giving details of how this is working? As a patient of a nearby Brent practice who uses the Urgent Care Centre at St Charles I have to say that the existence of a Hub is a well kept secret. No-one has told me or my Practice PPG about it.

Maurice Hoffman asked if only a limited amount of the monies claimed was available how would it be distributed?  He asked if  a 'local A & E' would meet London standards. He was told that the CCG had made it clear to the NHS that all the proposals were inter-connected and they were pitching for the full amount.  He was told that a Charing Cross A & E would not take 'blue light' case and NW London CCGs were looking at what services for the frail and elderly could be best placed there.  He was assured that 'until we have the capacity we will not change anything.'

As the presentation had mentioned voluntary organisations as providing services in the hubs, I asked how this would work when NHS England and NHS Estates were saying that market rents had to be paid. There was a momentary silence while the governing body members looked at each other and then Sarah Mansurali replied that they were looking at giving grants to voluntary sector organisations so they could afford the rent, offering sessional space or try to integrate voluntary organisations into new models of care.

The Governing Body noted the scope of the SOC and approved Part 1 for submission to NHSE and NHSI for approval and asked for the following points to be considered prior to approving subsequent related Outline Business cases (OBCs):

• further public involvement is undertaken where appropriate
• the OBCs continue to justify the capital requirement set out in SOC part 1
• opportunities to accelerate the delivery of the benefits are explored
• opportunities to further improve the income and expenditure position of proposals are explored

It is worth noting that this meeting took place during the day on a weekday so opportunities for the public to attend were clearly limited.  

*Cabinet Minutes October 24th 2016:

1.     Cabinet noted the STP submission for North West London. 


2.     Cabinet welcomed the principles adopted within the STP of prevention, out  of hospital care, dealing with the social care funding gap and the need to work across the public sector to maximise benefits from changes to the NHS and other public sector estate. 


3.     Cabinet noted that the STP will need formal sign off by the end of December and that between October and December the following issues need to be clarified both within the submission and through other NHS processes, in 
 order for the council to give full support for the plan:

a.     That the IMBC on which delivery area 5 is based is released, debated and understood; 


b.     That the flow of monies from acute to out of hospital settings are clarified; 


c.      That the specification for out of hospital settings, in particular social care, are clarified
based on an agreed model of out of hospital care; 


d.     That a full risk assessment for the plan and relevant mitigations are included.

Dawn Butler MP expresses 'deep concern' over plans to decommission Brent Sickle Cell Support Service

Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central has added her voice to those challenging plans to decommission the Brent Sickle Cell Advisory Support Service (BSCASS). 

She has written the following letter to the Chair of Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Dr Effie Kong, calling on her to urgently reconsider the decision.

 

Dear Dr Kong,

I am writing to put on record my deep concern at the recent decision taken by Brent CCG to decommission the Brent Sickle Cell Advisory Support Service (BSCASS).

BSCASS provides a thoroughly vital and valued service to the communities of Harlesden and Stonebridge and beyond which has a high prevalence of sickle cell sufferers. This is a poorly understood condition and services such as BSCASS are vital in helping sufferers live normal and healthy lives.

It is also vital in providing assurances to sufferers who are discharged from hospital, that extra help prevents sufferers often immediately returning into hospital, for example if a person’s house is too cold.

In particular, I would like answers to the following questions:

What consultation, beyond the reported meeting due to take place on the 7^th September 2016, has been carried out with sickle cell suffers and service users within Brent?

Has an equality impact assessment been carried out ahead of the decision to decommission this service? And if not, why did you not feel it appropriate to do so?

Brent CCG’s own report suggests service users will be ‘signposted to advocacy and advisory services within the borough’. What assessment has been made of the travel implications of decommissioning for residents of Harlesden and Stonebridge where a majority of local sickle sufferers are based?

Have you conducted a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis in relation to the decommissioning of this service? I understand that the CCG acknowledges a reduction in admissions as a result of the service. Will you also publish any data you have on this point?

I should declare an interest as an MP who is sickle cell trait and my brothers have the full blown disease I understand the complicated needs around sufferers, I have always been so impressed with the service provided by Brent, recently the erosion of this service starting with the relocation of the services from Central Middlesex hospital has been extremely disappointing.

You have no idea how painful it is to sit when you are in crisis and to expect someone to travel an extra 60mins for help is very cruel. The decommissioning of this service adds further to the existing health burden of my constituents and represents a growing inequality in the provision of healthcare services within the borough.

Finally, if this is a question of fiscal constraints then I believe we need to look at new and innovative ways to ensure the preservation of this service. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the CCG and community activists to explore alternate funding arrangements that would deliver this outcome. I am pleading with you to reconsider your decision.

I look forward to your reply,

Dawn Butler MP

Labour Member of Parliament for Brent Central


Brent Council may join Judicial Review bid on Shaping a Healthier Future

I thought this posting on the Brent Council website LINK by Cllr Kruoesh Hiran, Cabinet member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing,  deserved a wider audience. It sets out Brent Council's response to the Mansfield report.

Following a year long investigation into health service changes across five London boroughs the Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London reported its findings earlier this month.
The Commission, which was chaired by one of the UK’s leading lawyers Mr Michael Mansfield QC, was jointly commissioned by the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow and Hounslow. Naturally, as the democratically elected representatives of local people, we shared serious concerns about how A&E and other health services were changed across our boroughs.

However, it is important to also note that our concerns are not solely focused on A&E. One of the main issues here in Brent is the outdated population estimates underpinning the original plans. Yes A&E is a barometer of how the NHS is performing but it is clear that there is a wider system problem.

The Mansfield report highlights social care funding cuts and the significant cuts to local government. A good NHS needs a properly funded social care system. But the funding cuts to councils have reduced local authorities’ ability to provide more preventative services. It is the same problem emerging with Public Health funding.

Naturally when you are looking at a report, which affects two million people across North West London, there will be some issues more relevant than others to Brent’s 320,000 population.
First let’s turn to the main findings in the report:

• there is still no completed, up to date business plan in place that sets out the case for delivering the Shaping a Healthier Future programme (SaHF), demonstrating that the programme is affordable and deliverable
• there was limited and inadequate public consultation on the original SaHF proposals and those proposals themselves did not provide an accurate view of the final costs and risks to the people affected
• the escalating costs of the programme do not represent value for money and is a waste of precious public resources
• NHS facilities, delivering important public healthcare services, have been closed without adequate alternative provision being put in place
• the original business case seriously underestimates the increasing size of the population in North West London and fails to address the increasing need for services.

The report also makes it clear that we are now looking at a £1.3 billion project while the original proposals were predicating a saving of over £200 million a year. A continued lack of investment in the out of hospitals strategy, while still implementing the A&E closures programme has led to unacceptable standards and low performance within A&E.

We are supportive of a good out of hospital strategy. It is in all our interests as it is generally better to have good health services closer to home. However, those services need to be in place before hospitals are reconfigured.

This is combined with a lack of bed capacity at Northwick Park and the delays in resolving this situation have been ongoing for the past year. Residents still consistently report problems with accessing GP appointments in a timely way and this inevitably leads to people presenting at A&E, while the use of urgent care centres is below capacity.

What was truly shocking to me in the report was the statistics on Northwick Park hospital where performance has been consistently poor since September 2014. A key graph in the report shows London Ambulance Service ‘black breaches’. These are where an ambulance has taken more than an hour to take a patient to A&E. In Northwick Park there were 633 such breaches compared to 106 at Hillingdon. Especially relevant is the fact that the London Ambulance Service has just been placed into special measures as, if you close A&Es, you are clearly more reliant on this service.

In summary, the SaHF plans really need to go back to the drawing board. We want greater local authority involvement in the actual decision making process and designing of services. While it is clear that mistakes have been made Brent Council wants to take this forward in a positive way.
Co-production is a good example where there is potential. There has been a recent decision to involve a Health and Wellbeing Board representative in local primary care. I am now Brent’s representative and although it has been a slow process to get here, I think we are now moving in the right direction.

In the meantime, we will thoroughly explore all of the recommendations in the Mansfield report
including the possibility of joining a Judicial Review after careful consideration and assessing the impact on Brent residents.

Finally, it does not give me any pleasure to write about the findings in this report but please do be reassured that Brent Council will continue to do our very best to help support our local NHS partners to learn the lessons from it and ultimately to deliver a good and more fully integrated NHS for all Brent residents.

• Read the Mansfield Health Commission Report (.pdf)

Brent hospital proposals must come under intense scrutiny on Thursday

Days after NHS England announced an inquiry into why waiting times at Ealing Hospital and Northwick Park A&Es have the longest waiting times in the country, LINK, Brent's Scrutiny Committee on Thursday will be examining several important aspects of local health care.

Representatives of the North west London NHS Hospital Trust will be questioned about progress on the recommendations of the Care Quality Commission's (CQC) critical  report on Northwick Park Hospital.

The report LINK sets out the issues to be examined clearly:

CQC made specific recommendations for improvement at Northwick Park Hospital concerning A&E and related services. These are set out below:-

• Ensure that there are appropriate numbers of staff to meet the needs of patients in the A&E department, surgical areas and critical care.

• Ensure that there are systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of services provided in A&E, critical care, surgery and maternity to ensure that services are safe and benchmarked against national standards.

•Review the coping strategies within A&E during periods of excessive demand for services.

•Empower senior staff to make changes to ensure that patients are safe in A&E in maternity.

•Review discharge arrangements in A&E and critical care to avoid re-admission to these areas.

Given the significant number of areas requiring improvement in the current A&E provision at Northwick Park Hospital reassurance is sought from the senior management concerning implementation of actions and the safety of the A&E services available to Brent residents.

Another area to be examined is the proposals from Shaping a Healthier Future and Brent NHS to close maternity and other associated services at Ealing Hospital. 

The committee is recommended to question representatives of the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group on:-

•the robustness of their modelling assumptions and assurance plan;

•the timescale for their implementation; and

•what contingency plans are in place in case any of the proposals turn out not to be possible or feasible

A puzzling aspect of the report LINK is the timing. This meeting is on November 26th and it looks as if key decisions on this issue are actually to be made by the CCGs on the same day:

The next stage of reconfiguration is the changes to maternity services and the inter dependent services at Ealing Hospital. Brent Clinical Commissioning Group is due to make a decision on delegating the decision on timing to Ealing Clinical Commissioning Group, along with the other CCGs across North West London, on 26thNovember 2014. Ealing Clinical Commissioning Group is due to make a decision on the timings of changes to maternity services, and the interdependent services at Ealing Hospital on 26^th November 2014.

One can only wonder if what the Scrutiny Committee thinks will have any impact given this timetable.

The report's authors reach a soothing conclusion:

The impact on Brent residents and NHS services of changes to maternity and inter-dependent services at Ealing Hospital is not expected to be significant. Local services have the capacity to receive additional activity from Ealing without causing a negative impact on accessibility for Brent residents

The final health report to be considered is on the future use of the Central Middlesex Hospital site LINK. Current proposals are:

•An elective orthopaedic centre.

•Mental Health inpatient facility relocated from the site at Park Royal.

•A GP and primary care ‘hub’.

•A Genetics laboratory relocated from Northwick Park Hospital.

•Relocation of rehabilitation beds currently at Willesden.

This is a crowded agenda with lots of 'suits' from Brent NHS Health, the Clinical Commissioning Group abd Shaping a Healthier Future attending.  At previous meetings the chair has seemed irritated by the searching questions posed by Cllr Mary Daly and tried to hurry through proceedings with so many of the scrutinised wanting to speak.

In fact Daly's interventions seemed based on the fact that, unusually, she is a councillor who has done her homework as well as being someone passionately committed to the health of local residents.

I hope that at this meeting, however inconvenient, she gets a fair hearing. I also hope, for the sake of the public, microphones are installed to get over the acoustic problem in the committee rooms as well as the suits' mumbling.

If all that Health material is not another there is a major and very interesting report  LINK by a Task Group on the Agenda.The Task Group, chaired by Cllr Neil Nerva, looked at promoting electoral engagement following the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration and is packed with information and ideas. The most innovative of which is the involvement of the campaign group Hope Not Hate.

Once again such a crowded and complex agenda raises the issue of the wisdom of reducing Brent Council's scrutiny committee to just one. This was a hasty decision made at the beginning of the administration with no prior consultation which took many Labour councillors by surprise.

These are decisions about vital issues, at the extreme perhaps a matter of life or death, and must have proper scrutiny.

Will Brent Scrutiny Committee have sufficient time to consider far-reaching changes in health provision in the borough?

The Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday August 6th will discuss two key issues relating to health in the borough.

They will receive a report from the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) on the closure of Central Middlesex Accident and Emergency. The report is available here: LINK

The committee is recommended to question representatives of the CCG on the robustness of their assurance plans and the timescale for their implementation, as well as on what contingency plans are in place in case any of the proposals turn out not to be possible or feasible.

The A&E Department is due to close on September 10th and David McVittie, Cheif Executive of NW London Hospitals NHS Trust this week admitted that there could be problems initially LINK    It is  hard to see what additional safeguards could be demanded by the Commitee if they are not satisfied, just 4 weeks before the closure.

The second report to be considered, also from the CCG,  outlines three 'transformational' strategies to reduce the costs of healthcare in the borough whilst at the same time improving outcomes. The full report is available HERE

The committee is recommended to question representatives on the viability of these transformation plans, the timescale for their implementation, as well as on what contingency plans are in place in case any of the proposals turn out not to be possible or feasible. In particular the committee is asked to consider the adequacy of proposals to expand capacity within primary care services.

These are clearly complex issues with huge implications for Brent residents.  It does raise the issue of whether the decision to have one Scrutiny Committee rather than several specialist ones was wise. There used to be a Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, now this Committee will also be considering the 'Garden Tax' call-in, proposals for a Budget Scrutiny Commitee and the Committee's Forward Plan. LINK 

Will the crowded agenda allow for the full examination and  discussion required?

Tell them what future you want for Central Middlesex Hospital tomorrow

Following the decision to close the A&E at Central Middlesex Hospital a question mark still hangs over its future and the future of Willesden Centre for Health and Care. Millions have been spent on the PFI scheme for Central Middlesex and Willesden has only fairly recently been revamped.

At the extreme of possible decisions either site could close but there are other options in between including shifting some facilities from Willesden to Central Middlesex, and the mental health facility at Park Royal into the main hospital, as well as the GP/Dental surgery on Willesden High Road, moving to the Willesden Hospital site.

There is a possibility that some of the Willesden site will be sold off for housing. Come to the meeting at the Brent Civic Centre to find out much more about what may happen and have your say.

Have your say on Thursday about the future of local hospitals

Wembley residents will get the chance to air their views on proposed hospital reform in the borough which could see two hospital trusts in North West London merge.

The meeting, held by Brent Local Involvement Network (LINk) on Thursday December 12th  will discuss plans for a proposed merger between North West London Hospital Trust and Ealing Hospital Trust.

Residents are invited to air their concerns and answer any questions from experts at both hospital trusts during the meeting in the Sattavis Patidar Centre in Forty Avenue.

Although there are no concrete plans for the merger a potential scenario could see Central Middlesex Hospital in Acton Lane, lose its Accident and Emergency Department.

Ealing Hospital Trust manages Ealing Hospital as well as community services across Brent, Harrow and Ealing while the North West London Hospital Trust manages Northwick Park Hospital and St Mark’s hospitals in Watford Road and Central Middlesex Hospital in Park Royal.

The hospital trusts are planning a merger after an independent report revealed that both trusts were among 20 trusts country wide that were not clinically or financially viable.

The evening begins at 7pm. For more information contact Carol Sealy on 0208 965 0309 or email: Carol.Sealy@hestia.org

At this stage, Brent LINk does not have an opinion regarding the merger.

Study confirms poorest hit hardest by A&E closures

An Equality Impacts report commissioned by NHS managers into the closure of four West London Accident and Emergency facilities LINK has confirmed the fears of many campaigners. The report by consultants Mott MacDonald into the closures of A&Es at Ealing, Charing Cross. Hammersmith and Central Middlesex and the reconfiguration programme under the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals concluded:

• 33% of 'blue light' ambulances across the area will take longer to reach hospital
• Among those picking up patients from poorer areas, 41% will take longer
• The four A&Es proposed for closure are all in deprived parts of London
• Elderly, poorer and disabled people who need non-urgent care will be 'disproportionately' affected
• Seven in ten people travelling by bus or tube will have journey times of 30 minutes or more
• Travel times are a key concern and warnings need to be raised about the prospect of longer and more complext journey times
• Closure could affect 'continuity of care' particularly for children
• Well-developed services at Ealing hospital to help Southall's large South Asian population, which suffers high levels of poor health, would also be lost.

The report's authors believe no ambulances will take more than an extra 10 minutes to reach an A&E  after the closures but of course that could be an extremely crucial 10 minutes.

Dr Onkar Sahota, chair of the London Assembly health committee,told the Daily Mail LINK  that he thought their calculations were wrong:  'There is clear evidence that when travel times are increased, mortality rates go up'.

Gareth Thomas and Barry Gardiner press for Northwick Park expansion before A&E reconfiguration

From the parliamentary debate on A&E waiting times:

Stephen Pound (Ealing North, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. In view of what he has just said, does he think that the best possible prescription is that currently recommended by the Government whereby the existing A and E departments at Ealing, Park Royal, Hammersmith and Charing Cross all close? Does he think that will improve waiting times in A and E departments?

Gareth Thomas (Harrow West, Labour)

My hon. Friend, as ever, is ahead of me. He makes the perfectly reasonable point that if the Northwick Park and Central Middlesex A and E departments are not achieving the 95% target now, how can our constituents have any more confidence about reaching that target should the Central Middlesex and Ealing hospitals close?

Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour)

As my hon. Friend knows, Northwick Park is just in my constituency and we share that border. Does he agree that whatever the future configuration of hospitals in north-west London, it is absolutely essential that the A and E unit at Northwick Park is expanded to cope and that that should happen before any reconfiguration?
.....

Gareth Thomas (Harrow West, Labour)

I share the view of my neighbour and hon. Friend Barry Gardiner. We need that expansion to go ahead, and to go ahead soon.

Butt vows to go full-out on Central Middlesex A&E campaign

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, has told Labour Group members that he is determined to get behind the campaign to Save Central Middlesex Accident and Emergency.

Butt and some of his colleagues took part in the Brent Fightback march against the closure but they cited lack of Liberal Democrat and Conservative support as the reason they could not take an official Brent Council stand on the issue. They claimed this  meant that they could not mount a campaign such as that by Ealing Council that mobilised thousands of the local population.

In addition Brent Council's Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee failed to take a strong stand in defence of the A&E, accepting many of the arguments for closure, and then defeated a motion to join Ealing Council to refer back the reorganisation.

Butt now wants to take a much stronger position and has challenged his colleagues to give him full backing.The issue has already been mentioned by several of the candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary candidate nomination.

The leadership of Brent Labour will again be up for challenge at the May Annual General Meeting. A challenge to Butt's leadership fizzled out in February when his opponents were unable to muster enough support to table a no confidence vote.

Northwick Park A&E falls well below national targets

The North West London Hospital Trust is failing to meet targets for A&E according to figures submitted to the Brent Health Partnership Overview and Scrutiny Committee LINK.  The national target is that patients should spend no more that four hours in the department from entry to exit. The annual average for Northwick Park (Type one) is 90.55% and in the week leading up to the report was only 73.71%. One quarter of patients were there for more than four hours.

Central Middlesex A&E figures, on a much lower total of patients, were 97.05% and 95.45% respectively.

Commenting on Northwick Park, Tina Benson, Deputy Director of Operations at the Trust, states: