Extraordinary Brent CCG meeting on Wednesday to further controversial health plans

There is an Extraordinary Meeting of the Governing Body of the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group at noon-1.30pm on Wednesday 14^th December at the Boardroom Wembley Centre for  Health and Care.  The meeting is open to the public and 30 minutes has been allocated to questions from the public.

The meeting is about the business case for Shaping a Healthier Future and the CCG consider this essential for ‘delivering’  the controversial NW London Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Cllr Krupesh Hirani confirmed in the Brent and Kilburn Times today that Brent Council intends to sign the STP despite the fact that neighbouring Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham councils have refused to do so.

As usual the documents are massive, jargon ridden and with enough acronyms to fill Wembley Stadium.

Anyone who manages to plough through them AND understand them deserves an honorary degree.

Those who think that the STP, though argued on the  basis of benefits to patients, is really a cover for cuts may be interested in the Strategic Outline Case for investment to eventually save money: 

For trusts under the ‘comparator’ scenario, where no commissioner QIPP is assumed to be delivered and with business-as-usual CIP delivery, all our provider trusts will be in financial deficit, with a combined deficit of £114m at 2024/25. However, if commissioner QIPP were delivered, trusts’ I&E would improve to a combined deficit of £18m as additional CIPs can be achieved (termed the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration). The CCG QIPP delivery is dependent in part on the building of the hubs, which is why it is not included in the ‘comparator’. If we receive the capital funding we are requesting, the trusts’ financial projections demonstrate that all trusts will have a sustainable I&E surplus position of £27.6m at 2024/25, with the reconfiguration contributing a c£50m benefit (termed the ‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’). 

Currently the trusts are running in-year deficits which would require an estimated cash support of £1.1bn over the next 10 years (and continue thereafter), which would reduce to £0.5bn under the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration’ (where additional CIPs are delivered, partly due to hub investment to enable QIPP delivery). Under the SOC part 1 option (‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’), the cash deficit support in the 10-year period would reduce further to £0.4bn and are eliminated post reconfiguration. 

If the capital investment were funded by loans, two of the trusts would have a below target Financial Sustainability Risk Rating (FSRR) and be unable to meet the loan repayments. As the loan funding scenario is unaffordable from a liquidity perspective, we have explored two further scenarios and have concluded that our preferred option is for Public Dividend Capital (PDC) funding, and an accelerated timeline. 

We have also demonstrated that the case is affordable under a range of scenarios by conducting sensitivity analyses.

Documents

BrentCCG SaHF SOC Part 1 cover sheet 14122016

Shaping a Healthier Future SOC Part 1 Covering Report

14 December GB Agenda

Shaping a Healthier Future - Strategic Outline Case Part 1

This is the Brent Cabinet decision as recorded in the minutes of the October 24th Cabinet meeting:

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. 


Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham Councils show Brent how to campaign on the STP

 It is just not possible for me to go to every vital meeting that I advertise on Wembley Matters so I am posting this account from the Hammersmith and Fulham website of their public meeting on the NW London Sustainability and Transformation Plan.

How about a similar meeting in Brent, Brent Council?


The decision by Hammersmith & Fulham and Ealing councils to refuse ‘secretive’ hospital closure plans was backed by hundreds at a packed town hall meeting this week.

Nearly 700 cheered and applauded the leaders of the councils as they explained why they have refused to sign up to the local NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). Councils across the UK have been asked to endorse similar plans for each region of the NHS, before they are submitted to government for approval.

“The STP is a deeply cynical re-hash of the earlier flawed plans which now proposes to close Charing Cross Hospital in 2021,” said Cllr Stephen Cowan, Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council.

“There are no good arguments for demolishing Charing Cross or for selling off much of the land and replacing it with an urgent care clinic just 13 per cent the size of the hospital. That’s why this administration will continue its fierce defence of Charing Cross and the vital local NHS services people rely on.”

The meeting drew campaigners from across the region who have been fighting plans to close or downgrade services at five out of the nine hospitals in north west London.

Despite the published plans, an NHS spokesman has said: “We want to reassure our staff, patients, local residents and partners that Charing Cross is not closing and that there will be no reduction in the hospital’s A&E and wider services during the lifetime of the STP, which runs until April 2021.”
Anne Drinkell, of the Save our Hospitals campaign, said: “This is a cuts and closures programme. We’re not saying we want no change. But objectively there’s already not enough capacity in our local hospital so closing more services would be unsafe.”

Campaigners were united in condemning the tactics being used to force through drastic reductions in local health services secretively and without public consultation.

The NHS has pressured councils to approve STPs by linking it to the release of vital government cash needed to keep councils’ social care services from collapsing under ever-rising demand.

But Cllr Julian Bell, Leader of Ealing Council, said: “The NHS tried to bounce us into signing the STP. They tried to get us to agree to the STP on the basis of a two-page summary and they told us we didn’t need to see the full document. We insisted, but it didn’t arrive until they day before we were meant to sign it. And once we finally saw what was in it, we understood why. There was no way on earth I was going to sign up to those plans.”

Dr David Wingfield, chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham GP Federation, suggested the STP was not equipped to tackle the health and social care problems facing the borough. He offered to form a ‘grand alliance’ between GPs, councillors and members of the community to confront local healthcare challenges.

 

Save Charing Cross Hospital meeting audience

 

Save Charing Cross Hospital campaigners

Inspiring Groundwork project on climate proofing social housing landscapes - ideas for Brent?

As we have learnt from the new park on the Chalkhill Estate green spaces can have a transformative impact on how people feel about their local areas and the social relationships on the estate. This video about work being carried out jointly by Groundwork and Hammersmith and Fulham Council  on three of their social housing estates shows how mitigation of the effects of climate change through  quite small measures can have a similar impact.

There are lessons here for Brent Housing Partnership in terms of their existing estates as well as for Brent Planners when examinining the many redevelopment proposals.  I hope there are people here in Brent who will get excited about the possibilities.

Should Brent follow Hammersmith & Fulham and replace glyphosate

I am well aware that dangers to public health are often under-estimated or dismissed only to be cited decades later as the cause of illness and perhaps early death. As an NUT representative at a school in Fulham in the early 70s I discovered asbestos, claimed to have been safely removed over the summer holidays, stuffed behind classroom radiators.  The borough Medical Officer of Health at the time was  not particularly sympathetic. Now the effects of exposure to even small amounts of asbestos dust  is well documented.

Currently concerns over the weed killer glyphosate are being similarly down-played.  When I informed Brent Council about the TUC's concerns about safety concerns for workers who use the spray LINK

The TUC report said:

There is no question that weed killers containing glyphosate are dangerous. If it gets on the skin it can cause irritation and dermatitis. It can also cause oral and throat discomfort if it is breathed in. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. If swallowed it may cause corrosion of the throat and can lead to kidney or liver failure.

It is also believed that it can cause cancer. In March 2015 the International Agency on research into Carcinogens (IARC) announced that glyphosate probably caused a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This was based on a study of agricultural workers who were exposed to the chemical, although it was backed up by tests on animals. However it is not known whether the cancer is being caused by contact through the skin or through breathing it, or both. It is therefore necessary to try to prevent any workers coming into contact with glyphosate.

It advocated action to protect workers:

Given that the risks to the skin, lung and eyes have been known about for many years, employers should already have been taking action to prevent any contact to glyphosate, even before there was evidence it causes cancer

Now that there is new evidence that glyphosate is likely to cause cancer, all employers must review their risk assessments, including their COSHH assessments. Where possible they should consider alternatives to the use of herbicides, but if that is not possible they must investigate whether there are safer alternatives. If there are alternatives then they should be introduced, regardless of whether they are more expensive. However they should not rush into substituting another herbicide for glyphosate without ensuring that they know the risk from the substitute. All herbicides are likely to have some dangers to humans.

If they are going to continue to use glyphosate then they should look at whether there are alternatives to how it is used now. Often it is sprayed from backpacks (which often leak) and are filled in an enclosed space. The employer must consider alternative ways of applying it and also look at how containers are filled, cleaned and the chemical stored and disposed of. They also need to provide training and information to the workers about the risk.

If, after that, any workers are still likely to come into contact with glyphosate, they must provide protective clothing. That may include gloves, masks and protective overalls. This must be done free of charge, and arrangements need to be made for them to be stored and cleaned. The safety representatives should be involved in any discussion on the best protective equipment.

Employers should also be monitoring the health of all those who use glyphosate (or any pesticide).

 In my email to Brent Council I said:

 I would like to draw your attention to the latest advice from the TUC re Health and Safety and the use of glyphosate  based weed killers which was issued last month.

With many schools out-sourcing grounds maintenance I wonder if a warning could be issued to them as well as clarifying the situation with Veolia.

Samantha Haines replied for Brent Council:

I have spoken to our contractor and the public realm department here at Brent and they have told me that our contractor are aware and adhere to these practices.

This did not address the issue regarding school contractors and of course some schools may have their own premises staff using the chemicals.   Apart from the danger posed to the workers concerned there is also that of exposing children to the herbicide.

Last week Hammersmith and Fulham Council responded to a 38 Degrees petition on the use of  glyphosate.   Wesley Harcourt, the cabinet member for environment, said:

As is the case at almost all local authorities, glyphosate-based herbicides are currently  used by Hammersmith and Fulham council contractors, Quadron-Serco.

However we have been working with contractors for some time to replace these with chemical  alternatives, such as hot foam and steam.

In May a group of 48 MEPs volunteered for a test to detect levels of glyphosate in their urine. The average was more than 17 times the safe limit and the lowest double the limit. at 0.17ng/ml LINK

Jean Lambert, MEP for London, a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee whose personal test results show a glyphosate contamination level of 0.67 ng/ml, said:

It is genuinely frightening that glyphosate is everywhere in our everyday lives. These test results show that no matter where we live, what we eat, or our age we cannot escape exposure to this toxic substance. With glyphosate widely used in cities, in urban parks and public spaces, on streets and pavements, the European Commission must bow to public pressure and put the safety of people and the environment ahead of the profits of chemical industry giants.

The general public using herbicides in their gardens, need to be aware that popular weedkiller Roundup, on sale in garden centres and other outlets, contains glyphosate.  Manufacturer Monsanto is fighting a public relations battle against critics of its product LINK

In May campaigners claimed a minor victory when the EU decided to delay re-approval of the use of glyphosate in the EU.  The Monsanto backed Glyphosate Task Force  complained about ' acute politicisation of the regulatory procedure' while Pekka Pesonen of the main European Farmers' Union deplored the fact that a ban on glyphosate ban would put them at a 'competitive disadvantage'.

The battle continues.

 The 38 degrees petition can be modified for any local authority and can be found HERE

One month to comment on Old Oak-Park Royal Development objectives

The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) is consulting on the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Scoping Report for the forthcoming OPDC Local Plan.This huge development covers parts of the London boroughs of Ealing, Brent and Hammersmith and Fulham and includes issues concerning housing, transportation, air quality, sustainability, health and the local economy.

The IIA Scoping Report is now out for consultation and available for download from OPDC’s website. LINK

OPDC is also seeking comments on the Scoping Report from the public and other stakeholders.

Hard copies will be made available at the address below.

Please note all comments, suggestions and responses should reach OPDC by 5pm 9th October 2015 and be sent by email to info@opdc.london.gov.uk or by letter to:

Local Plan IIA Scoping Report Consultation
Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation
City Hall, The Queen's Walk,
London SE1 2AA

This extract gives a flavour of the ground to be covered:

OBJECTIVES

1.     To enhance the built environment and encourage ‘place-making’ 


2.     To optimise the efficient use of land through increased development densities and building heights, where appropriate 


3.     Maximise the reuse of previously developed land and existing buildings, including the remediation of contaminated land 


4.     Minimise the need to travel and improve accessibility for all users by public and non- motorised transportation methods 


5.     Improve access to well designed, well-located, market, affordable and inclusive housing of a range of types and tenures, to meet identified local needs 


6.     Improve climate change adaptation and mitigation, including minimising the risk of flooding and addressing the heat island effect 


7.     To minimise contributions to climate change through greater energy efficiency, generation and storage; and to reduce reliance on natural resources including fossil fuels for transport, heating and energy 


8.     To minimise production of waste across all sectors in the plan area, maximise efficiencies for transporting waste and increasing rates of re-use, recycling and recovery rates as well as composting of all green waste 


9.     Improve the quality of the water environment 


10. Create and enhance biodiversity and the diversity of habitats across the area and its surroundings 


11. To minimise air, noise and light pollution, particularly for vulnerable groups 


12. To conserve and, where appropriate, enhance, cultural heritage 


13. Increase community cohesion and reduce social exclusion 


14. Improve safety and reduce crime and the fear of crime 


15. Maximise the health and wellbeing of the population, reduce inequalities in health and promote healthy living 


16. To improve the education and skills levels of all members of the population, particularly vulnerable groups 
 

17. Maximise the social and economic wellbeing of the population and improve access to employment and training 


18.To encourage inward investment alongside investment within existing communities, to create sustainable economic growth.

 

'Cockney Benefit Tourist Invaders' jibe as Brent Council relocates families in Sandwell

Illustration used in the Halesowen News

Following Sandwell' Council's loss of a court case which over-ruled their attempt to withhold Council Tax benefit for two years from new residents who are families rehoused by Brent and other London boroughs in Sandwell, near Birmingham, Brent Council is again sending families to the city.

The Halesowen News LINK states:

In a memo entitled Out of Area Placement Notification seen by the News Brent Council warned Sandwell Council officers of its plans.

The memo said:

We are housing tenants again in the Sandwell Council area due to the change in the council tax status.

We will be housing clients in temporary accommodation and emergency hotel accommodation (mainly houses) with offers of two year tenancies.

The memo also revealed Brent Council would be advising Hammersmith and Fulham Council to do the same.

The story goes on:

Deputy council leader Councillor Steve Eling said:

Within just weeks of the court's judgement that deemed there was no evidence of people being relocated from London to Sandwell, a London borough has placed a family here and another has confirmed it will be dumping poor families in Sandwell, apparently taking advantage of cheaper rent here.

This is a direct result of the court's judgement in the case of Brent Council and would appear to apply equally to the others. As a result, we're powerless to stop this happening.

We believe some of these families don't want to come here either because it takes them away from family and friends.

This will create an added burden on Sandwell Council taxpayers who will now have to pick up 100 per cent of the bill for these extra families who can't afford to pay council tax - as well as potentially for families that London boroughs have already placed here.

That's why we introduced the two-year residency rule in the first place, to protect Sandwell taxpayers and Sandwell families who are most in need.

Following the court's judgement, we've had no choice but to suspend that policy. We'll now have to either make further cuts or ask everyone - including the most vulnerable and poorest people in the borough - to pay something towards their council tax bill.

Following the court's judgement, we now have a £1.6 million shortfall in the money to cover the cost of council tax discounts.

The stereotype in the illustration above may be ridiculous but such stereotyping of Brent families, already removed from friends and family, clearly presents a danger that they will encounter prejudice and resentment on arrival in Sandwell and the possibility that the children of 'invading' 'Cockney Benefit Tourists' will encounter bullying in school.

Thankfully the Halesowen News quotes the warmer words of another local councillor:

Councillor John Tipper said:

Whatever the finances of the matter is we have to remember these people who are coming into Sandwell are probably not coming by choice and are human beings who should not be demonised. I hope the people of Sandwell offer the hand of friendship to these newcomers.

PARK ROYAL: Hammersmith & Fulham object to London Mayor usurping planning powers while Brent remains silent

This Guest Blog from Harlesden Blogspot highlights a neighbouring borough's  reaction to the London Mayor's proposal to take planning powers from Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham in order to develop the Old Oak Common and Park Royal site. So far Brent Council has been silent on the issue, merely advertising the consultation, which closes on September 24th, on its website LINK

The issue will be discussed at the Harlesden Brent Connects meeting on July 8th at Tavistock Hall, off the High Street AGENDA

A proposal to take local planning powers away on one of the capital’s biggest housing projects are ‘an anti-democratic land grab’ which gives the potential for the Mayor to allow the building of properties for overseas speculators rather than homes Londoners can afford, according to Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council.

The Mayor of London launched a consultation on plans to create a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) around Old Oak Common and Park Royal which is the area where the new High Speed 2 (HS2) hub station is expected to be built.

The MDC would assume planning powers within its borders, which span large parts of the north of H&F and parts of Brent and Ealing. H&F’s new administration objects to this and has raised concerns that this is nothing more than a land-grab designed to make life easier for the developers – at the cost of local people.

Old Oak and Park Royal Mayoral Development Corporation proposed

The boundary of the Old Oak Mayoral Development Corporation

The Mayor of London is inviting comments on the creation of a new mayoral development corporation covering Old Oak and Park Royal. It would cover a substantial area of south Brent.

This consultation will run for 14 weeks from 18 June to 24 September 2014, following which the Mayor will review all comments received and will consider how best to proceed with setting up the new Mayoral Development Corporation.

You can provide your comments via this link or alternatively you can directly email OldOakMDC@london.gov.uk with your comments and/or questions.

 

-->

 The aims of the MDC:

“Deliver the physical, social, economic and environmental regeneration of Old Oak and Park Royal. To secure maximum benefits from the newly planned transport improvements. To plan for the transformational change at Old Oak and at the same time work to protect and regenerate the industrial areas of Park Royal. A central objective of the Corporation would be to secure high-quality sustainable development and investment for the benefit of the area and the communities that surround it.”

What powers would a Mayoral Development Corporation have?

The Corporation would be responsible for planning the regeneration of Old Oak and Park Royal comprising powers relating to infrastructure, regeneration, land acquisitions including Compulsory Purchase Orders, streets, business and financial assistance, preparing local plans (including Community Infrastructure Levy) and determining large planning applications.

The London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham would continue to perform all other functions, including services related to: environment, health, social services, housing, leisure, culture, community, childcare, crime prevention, safety, education, highways, business and job support, licences, town centre management, Council Tax, student benefits and grants

When responding please indicate if you would like to be contacted about the preparation of future

plans for Old Oak and Park Royal and also provide your preferred contact details.

RECLAIM OUR SCHOOLS! Hammersmith.Tonight.

Tonight's Education Question Time at St Paul's Church in Hammersmith could be the start of a significant fightback against neoliberal policies in education. It is a chance to bring together teacher unions, parent groups, community organisations and governors in a concerted campaign to defend progressive child-centred and democratically accountable schools with broad educational aims from privatisation and narrow aims centred on international commercial competition.

Nothing could illustrate the current battle more than the fate of Sulivan Primary School, a walk away from tonight's venue. Hammersmith and Fulham Council has voted to close the successful Sulivan Primary School (ostensibly a merger with a nearby primary academy) and handing over its unique site to a boys' free school.

Staff, parents and pupils have all campaigned for their school and their views have been ignored.

Here are some of the questions tweeted for tonight. Add your own: #edqtime @nec2014

The Sulivan school scandal should shame Michael Gove and galvanise the Green Party

The outdoor space currently enjoyed by Sulivan children

Tomorrow evening there will be a panel discussion at the Green Party Conference in Brighton chaired by Natalie Bennett, the Green Party leader on Free Schools and Academies. The panel includes Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT and education campaigner and author of School Wars, Melissa Benn.

On Saturday I will be moving a motion calling for the revision of Green Party Education Policy in the light of the enormous changes brought about by the Coalition government.

Down in Fulham in South West London a battle is raging which epitomises these issues. Sulivan Primary is a local authority school rated Good with outstanding features by Ofsted. It is a small school with a form entry of 45 children. It is strongly supported by its parents who rate its care for pupils, accessibility for SEN and disabled children, and the amazing learning opportunities provided by its large play areas and outdoor science laboratory.

 Just the kind of child-centred community school that we in the Green Party would like to be the norm.

Save Our Sullivan campaigners at Hammersmith Town Hall

But Sulivan is threatened with closure by the flagship Tory borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, not because of any inadequacies on the part of the school but because the borough wants to find space for a proposed free school, Fulham Boys Free School.

In a further twist it wants to close Sulivan and transfer pupils to New Kings School, a one form entry school which is committed to become a privately sponsored academy.

At present there is spare capacity at Sulivan (overall 89% full but at capacity in younger classes) the closure/merger would actually reduce the overall number of school places at a time when an increase in demand is projected. The merged school would have a 2 form entry (60 children) against the current joint entry of 75.

Closure of Sulivan will enable the borough to divest itself of a local authority school and will satisfy Gove with another academy and free school to add to the empire which is accountable only to him.

Not surprisingly teachers and parents have risen up against this proposal and organised themselves into a effective lobbying force.  At a recent meeting about the closure, attended by parents, teachers, residents and governors there was standing room only with the attendance estimated at between 250 and 300.

An account of the meeting can be found HERE . Among the contributions was one by the mother of a child with impaired mobility who said that the single storey Sulivan was accessible for her child. She feared segregation at the Victorian New Kings, even if a lift were fitted.

A child bravely got up in front of the panel and large audience and, praising her headteacher and teacher several times, said that she loved he school and that she and other children would do everything they could to save it. She got huge applause from the audience but only a 'we'll bear what you say in mind' from the chair.

A teacher pressed the question, 'Please explain – with evidence and examples -  how you know that this amalgamation will provide a better education for the children.' and never got a satisfactory answer. Because of course this is not a decision that will be made on educational grounds but one made to further Gove's agenda of dismantling democratically controlled and accountable schools and opening the system up for privatisation and eventual profit making.

The dismissal of parents' views (unless they are parents who want to set up free school), ignoring of children's interests, and undemocratic procedures and sham consultations are all consistent with what teachers, parents and governors are experiencing with converter academies and forced academies.

The Green Party must stand alongside local campaigners on these issues.

Follow Save Our Sulivan on Twitter @SaveOurSulivan