NHS 'reforms' under attack

The NHS Campaign has issue the following quotations from official responses to the NHS White Paper:

"We believe the plans for free choice of GP practice will be damaging in terms of continuity of care, health inequalities and, potentially, patient safety." Royal College of General Practitioners

"A market-based approach risks fragmentation, inefficiency and increased transaction costs." British Medical Association

"We are gravely concerned that the Government takes little or no account of the potential impact on disadvantaged or disengaged individuals or communities.” Royal College of Nurses

"After analysing the proposed new system, we have identified significant risks, worrying uncertainties and unexploited opportunities." NHS Confederation


"We question a fundamental reorganisation, when evidence shows that health outcomes and public satisfaction have improved in recent years." The King's Fund

"The NHS is facing the most difficult financial times in its history. Now is not the time for ripping up internal structures yet again on scant evidence base." Civitas

"At best this will be a waste of time, at worst a waste of money." The Social Market Foundation

LINK to join in action

We are now the generation at the heart of the fightback...

Local Council Spending Cuts in Brent

These are the estimated figures based on yesterday's announcement (from the Guardian website):

BRENT
Estimated 2011-12 Revenue Spending Power £301m
Change in 2011-12 Revenue Spending Power -5.85%
Change in 2012-13 Revenue Spending Power -4.0%
Change in formula grant 2010-11 to 2011-12 -11.30%
Change in formula grant 2011-12 to 2012-13 -7.40%

Wasted opportunity to get strategy right

Brent Council Executive last night refused to accept the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee on the Waste Strategy despite the efforts of Elaine Henderson and Viv Stein of Friends of the Earth who addressed the meeting (see below). They also decided to go ahead with consultation on the West London Waste Authority's plans for more waste processing depots in the borough, serving several nearby boroughs, despite concerns about the concentration of such facilities in Brent and lack of information on the actual processes that will be employed.  In his contribution Cllr Powney, lead member on these issues, appeared not to provide any substantial answers to the questions raised.  On waste the issue was reduced to budgetary demands rather than green principles.

Viv Stein's speech:

Brent Campaign against Climate Change endorses the views of Brent FoE regarding the waste strategy.  Having attended the previous Executive committee and last week’s Scrutiny committee I felt compelled to speak as I was so astounded by some of the comments made by Cllr Powney.

Both the Brent Campaign and FoE are in favour of increasing recycling, increasing green jobs and cutting carbon.  But this new system is likely to CUT UK jobs, INCREASE emissions and is UNLIKELY to achieve the huge increase in recycling to 60%, which Cllr Powney admitted last week is “very important to get this right as will be a major financial problem for the Council if we don’t.”

You might think this strategy is all about climate change and cutting emissions.  So much so that it mentions climate change 28 times in the document.  But will it really have such an impact?

Yes we do understand there will be less emissions in the collection within Brent – with fewer lorry journeys (as less frequent collections) and instead of recyclables sorted manually on the kerbside they’ll be crushed (so you get more in the trucks).  But when you consider:

-there will be larger vehicles, using more fuel

-the mechanical separation at the materials recovery facility (which uses loads of electricity)

-the additional distances lorries have to travel to these

-the likely reprocessing overseas (as we’ve heard the commingled low-grade materials are likely to be sent further away including China), something not ruled out now by Brent, our emissions do not stop at Brent’s borders, so overall they will actually INCREASE.

Camden Council did an energy audit of their commingled collection, when they switched from kerbside sorted and found that, “The carbon footprint of the co-mingled collection system, transfer and MRF is 77% greater than for the kerbside sorted waste collection.”  They then changed to a twin-stream system, with paper collected separately, as Brent FoE proposed previously.

My question is – has an energy audit been modelled into the proposed new system?  If not, how can you possibly claim it will reduce emissions?

We’ve heard that commingling will produce low quality materials, so another question is – is this paving the way for incineration of Brent’s waste? Only last week the UK Confederation of Paper Industries expressed concerns that increasingly paper that could be recycled, may be used to generate energy instead.  This is both an incredibly inefficient use of resources and as a means of energy production, besides all the other concerns that incineration brings.

One of the main reasons why commingling is bad is that the crushed glass contaminates everything, but it also has implications for emissions.  According to WRAP (waste resources action programme) “co-mingled collection of glass frequently results in glass used as road aggregate, which creates 2 kg of CO₂ for each tonne of glass. Whereas, glass that is not compacted during the collection phase is made back into bottles and jars, which saves 314kg of CO₂ for every tonne.”

So to conclude I am asking for the Exec to reconsider the current kerbside sorted system, and if for some reason you really can’t, I would urge for an amendment that “glass be separated for collection in a twin- stream system” which would be preferable. (These could be collect in the existing green boxes and put in a wheelie bin on the kerbside).

Join the Fightback Against Cuts on Wednesday

Vote for the Ice Factor - forget the X Factor this weekend

If like me you are fed up with the priority given to cars after snow and ice - with roads gritted and cleared and pavements left for us to slip and slide on, then you may be interested in Living Streets' campaign on behalf of pedestrians.

Follow this LINK to take part in their 'Ice Factor' game (a totally different meaning to 'break a leg' than the X Factor)a fun way to bring the message home.

Living Streets are calling for local authorities to agree a winter contract with communities, committing to:

• Make sure that a severe weather plan is in place that sets out what the Council will do to reduce the impact of severe weather on all road users – including pedestrians
• Make sure that paths are gritted so that everyone, including older, younger and disabled people, is still able to walk to essential services
• Send staff and contractors to help clear pavements if they are unable to carry out their main job because of the severe weather
• Keep all grit bins filled so that grit can be used where it is needed
• Coordinate a list of volunteers who can be activated by email to help clear streets and alert the local public to help.

A sample contract can be downloaded from their website and sent to your council.

Blackman and Teather Renege on Election Promises

It wasn't just Sarah Teather who reneged on her election promise to oppose a rise in tuition fees. I shared a platform with Bob Blackman, former leader of Brent Conservatives, at a General Election hustings at Harrow College. He spoke against tuition fees and signed the NUS pledge.  Last night he voted for them as  MP for Harrow East and today attacked yesterday's demonstrations.

He stands exposed alongside Sarah Teather.  Both MPs have a large number of students living in their constituency and can expect retribution.

The Green Party continues to maintain its election commitment to oppose tuition fees.

Vodafone Appeal Brent Phone Mast decision

A similar mast at the Salmon Street/Pilgrims Way/Fryent Way roundabout erected July 2010

Vodafone have put in an appeal to Brent Council's refusal of a proposed phone mast at the junction of West Hill and the Avenue. Details of the original reasons for refusal are HERE and Brent Council documentation HERE.

The phone mast would be 13.6m tall with 3 antenna, plus equipment cabinets.

The case will be decided by  the Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol. You can find details on their website and eventually click through to a submission form HERE. The case reference number is 2141400.  The timetable for the appeal is as follows:

Stages and Dates

Start Date: 29th November 2010

Questionnaire and amplifications: 13th December 2010

Statements and interested parties comments: 10th January 2011

Final comments: 31st January 2011