WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
To front up the so-called “listening” exercise, an NHS Future Forum has been set up. It is stuffed with high-profile supporters of Lansley’s plans. All five of the GPs on the panel are among the minority of GPs who signed up for Lansley’s suggested commissioning consortiums. The whole forum is under the chairmanship of Professor Steve Field, who controversially supported Lansley’s white paper back in July and has since been replaced as president of the Royal College of GPs by Dr Clare Gerada, who has criticised much of the Lansley plan.
The forum on “choice and competition” will be led by Sir Stephen Bubb, a one-time Labour councillor and now at the head the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations.
Bubb is a vigorous advocate of competition and greater private-sector involvement in delivering healthcare. He led a challenge to Labour’s attempts to designate the NHS as preferred provider of community health services. Other doctors, trust bosses, primary care trust and strategic health authority bosses and senior council officers among the 40 hand-picked appointees on the forum are likely to be influenced by their career aspirations. They are unlikely to listen to any articulate critics of the Lansley plan.
The whole process has been set up to waste a month, to give the impression of responding to public opinion - and then to press through the key elements of the plan with little if any actual change.
There is no indication that the principal objections raised at the Lib Dem conference a few weeks ago have been taken on board by the Tories, not least because the suggestion that the private sector can somehow be prevented from “cherry-picking” the most profitable services from the NHS is pure fantasy.
Cherry-picking is central to the private provision of healthcare. Even the so-called “non-profit” social enterprises will have to focus on delivering a surplus from their work and will be compelled in a competitive market to withdraw from services which cannot guarantee to deliver them a surplus.The only guarantee against the private sector cherry-picking services and destabilising existing NHS provision in many parts of the country is to drop Lansley’s plans altogether and to focus resources on investing in NHS care related to local need.
That’s why it’s vital that Labour and the unions crank up the pressure to force the Con-Dems to ditch the Bill.
The Private Secretary, Jessica Yuille observed an adviser’s interviews with welfare benefits clients. She could see how severely disabled the client was and yet also saw the client being rated as able to work under the Government’s points system.
We are pleased that the representative from DWP was able to observe how the practicalities of Government policies translate on the ground. She commented on the main things she had taken away from the experience and would share with colleagues, ‘I learnt that the DWP telephone service and the Jobcentre Plus staff service is patchy and that reconsideration of Work Capability Assessments by DWP is often ineffective as no alternative medical evidence is requested.’
Ms Yuille’s experience at Brent CAB will feed back into her work on Universal Credits in the Welfare Benefits Bill. We hope it will help the Government address the obvious flaws in the current system, including the inaccurate assessments of disabled clients, poor customer service for those that need advice from DWP and Jobcentre Plus and the complexity of benefits forms.
1. a fair-minded and informed observer, having full regard to the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of predetermination by the decision-makers that these closure proposals should go ahead (indeed that there was no alternative) which, in turn, meant the results of the consultation exercise were not taken into account conscientiously and with open minds on 11 April 2011;
2. insufficient information was gathered to enable the decision- makers to take into account mandatory relevant considerations at the appropriate time, particularly in relation to questions of need for library services and equality;
3. some consultation responses were not made known to members, significant errors of fact were made in the consultation document and officers’ reports and irrational conclusions drawn;
4. the Council misdirected itself on the means by which its duty to provide a library service could be discharged; and
5. those who had made alternative proposals were not dealt with fairly.
Unless Brent Council backs down the legal process is expected to proceed by way of a judicial review of the council's decision.
Thousands of people across the whole of Brent are supporting the campaign to save the local community libraries of Barham, Cricklewood, Kensal Rise, Neasden, Preston and Tokyngton.While Councillors Ann John and Powney are using the resources of Brent Council to force through the closures local people are determined to fight their closure plans all the way.
"an overwhelming number of constituents on this issue and am well aware of the strength of feeling. I believe our National Health Service is a major part of this country's history and something to be very proud of."Her comments will be read out along with those of other local MPs at a 'Defend Our Health Service' public meeting on Thursday May 12th, 7.30pm, Willesden Green Library. The meeting will be addressed by GPs, other NHS workers, service users and campaigners.
