Mansfield recommends abolition/suspension of Shaping A Healthier Future in a damning critique

The Mansfield Commission's Interim Report into the Shaping A Healthier Future consultation states of the programme that would rsult in the closure of four of the nine acute hospital sites in the North West London area and the loss of Central Middlesex A&E:  

The SaHF programme in our view was a preconceived solution that was imposed on the North West London health system without there being any clear problem that it was designed to solve. 

In particular there was no proper assessment of the needs of the whole area to which the health and social care system would respond.

 The following recommendations are made:

1.     We recommend that the SaHF programme is abolished / suspended, thereby saving a considerable sum at one fell swoop. 


2.     We recommend that an independent review of the North West London health system is undertaken under the auspices of a joint health and local authority initiative that builds its case on a thorough assessment of the needs for health and social care of local populations, at local levels. 


3.     There must be no presumption that so-called ‘reconfiguration’ of acute services is the solution to what may not be a problem at all. 


4.     In addition there must be no presumption that the solution will involve a top-down approach across the whole area as SaHF assumed; there should be an openness to consideration of local solutions possibly at the borough level where these can be shown to work. 


5.     The NHS and local authorities must agree to work together to achieve a joint aim to provide good accessible health and social care to all local populations within a sustainable financial model. 


6.     We recommend that the attempt to close Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals is immediately stopped; that a guarantee is given to sustain acute health services on these sites – with no more double talk from NHS leaders – until the above review is complete and any associated business cases are taken through to Full Business Case level, which is likely to be at least five years. 


7.     We recommend that in the light of current failures in the system in North West London there is an independent review of the emergency system under the auspices of the above joint health and local authority initiative; and that this as a matter of urgency examines the closure of Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A&E departments with a view to opening these, if that is what the review suggests is needed, and what local people want. Local people must be given honest and genuine choices; the opportunity cost of retaining these sites as A&Es must be made apparent. 


8.     We recommend that there is a review of primary care services in the region, and that following this review, immediate steps are taken to rectify any issues. However any investment must be based on a clear business case that relates costs and benefits to changes across the whole system. 


9.     Likewise we recommend that there is a review of OOH services in the region, to establish a clear case if it exists for OOH acting as a way of reducing demand for acute services, and also as a way of reducing total system costs. Following this review, any investment in OOH services must be based on a clear business case that relates costs and benefits to changes across the whole system. 


10.  In the case of changes that take place in primary care and OOH services as a result of the reviews outlined above, there must be a clear business case presented that makes a clear case for system- wide improvement arising out of these changes, and this should be consulted on with the relevant local populations; there should be no assumption that this is the population of the whole of North West London. 

The full report can be read here: 

The commission's final public session will be held at the Brent Civic Centre on Saturday 9 May 9am-5pm. Brent Trades Council and Brent Fightback are among those who have submitted evidence. It would be good to have as many health campaigners as possible at this session. More evidence will be heard

Protesters demand rebuilding of the Carlton Tavern after its demolition by property speculators

Guest blog by Ella Downing

A successful protest was held today against the demolition of the Carlton Tavern. Around 75 men, women and children attended including local residents, councillors and activists.

The demolition was a act of sheer vandalism by property speculators only interested in profit, regardless of the cost to the local community, and with little or no regard for health and safety.

A further protest will be held outside Porchester Hall at 6:30pm on Wednesday the 29th of April where a council meeting will discuss the matter. Pressure must be put on Westminster to act, and we demand the rebuilding of the Carlton Tavern!

 

 

 

Caroline Lucas clarifies Green's copyright proposals & tells creatives 'I'm absolutely on your side'

Greens campaigning in Neasden today were approached by a musician who, although supportive of the Greens was concerned about reports that we wished to 'reduce copyright to 14 years'.

In a recent blog LINK Caroline Lucas has confirmed that this means 14 years after the death of the creator - not 14 years after the copyright is established.

Nevertheless Lucas has called on the Green Party to review its copyright policy.  She writes:

At present many creators are in a stranglehold from our copyright laws, which see big corporation control the rights to work for eg 70 years after the creator dies in the case of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.  Some years ago I worked with artists like Billy Bragg to challenge the way that music corporations take a huge cut of royalties, leaving only leftovers for the artists. We wanted to try and return copyright to the artists it's supposed to benefit.

She says the 14 year proposal...

...isn't in our general election manifesto because it is just a proposal - not something we want to introduce as a priority in the next 5 years. What is in the manifesto is a commitment to copyright laws that protect creators - fairer, more flexible and shorter. To bring the law up to date to better reflect the demands of the digital age.  To increase government arts funding by £500 million a year, helping to keep local museums, theatres, libraries and art galleries open. And to better support fair pay productions in the arts.

Addressing composers, photographers, musicians and other creatives she  writes:

I'm absolutely on your side. Artists and writers have to be able to make a living and fairly benefit from their work.   I know that many often live in poverty for years before seeing any financial reward for their work and I would never back any proposal that did not take fair account of that fact. A copyright regime that both supports innovation and ensures people are fairly remunerated for their work is possible if we rebalance the power away from the big corporations and back into the hands of artists.

Rebecca Johnson pledges to Save the NHS if elected in response to 38 Degrees petition

Rebecca Johnson (Green), Tulip Siddiq (Labour) and Magnus Nielsen (UKIP) today received a petition signed by 2,528 Hampstead and Kilburn residents calling on them to pledge to save the NHS from privatisation, funding cuts and TTIP. Another 500 plus more sigantures were collected during the day. The petition was presented at a ceremony outside Waitrose in Finchley Road and the Raised Voices choir provided a musical commentary. Rebecca joined in with the choir. Tulip and Magnus did not. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates were invited but did not attend.

Election meeting on zero hours contracts Wednesday 29th April

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) are at the receiving end of  a shift to zero hours contracts.  The local branch of the UCU based at the College of North West London have organised this public meeting to discuss the issue with parliamentary candidates for Brent Central.

Note: I am aware that the spelling should be Learie Constantine. Apologies, but this was on the original pdf received from the UCU. MF

Recruiting Brent Council's Chief Executive – ‘no illegality in the process’ but...

Guest posting by Philip Grant

Last month’s blog about the permanent Chief Executive job at Brent Council finally being advertised LINK generated a great deal of interest. Among the comments (129 at the last count) some serious concerns were raised, so I wrote to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, Fiona Alderman, to bring them to her attention. Four weeks later I have received a reply, the key sentence of which is as follows:

‘I have considered the issues which you have raised but am satisfied that there is no illegality in the process currently underway for the recruitment of a Chief Executive.’

Although I have to respect her opinion that there is nothing illegal in the recruitment process, the legality was not what I had written about. The purpose of my email was summarised as follows:

‘It is very important that the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council, to lead by example as Head of Paid Service, is not only conducted fairly, but is seen to be conducted fairly.’

I had referred to several “anomalies” on the practical side of the recruitment process ‘which, if not addressed, are likely to mean that it will not be seen to be conducted fairly.’

There are some aspects of the recruitment process which may already be unfair, but which it is too late to change. The briefing pack issued to potential applicants makes clear that the post has been designed with the current Leader of the Council in mind. Part Four of the “Person Specification”, which candidates must show they meet, is actually headed “Chemistry and ‘fit’ between the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council.” The previous permanent Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel, was in the post for fourteen years and served a number of Council Leaders, from different political parties, before leaving because of irreconcilable differences with Cllr. Muhammed Butt, just four months after he was elected as Leader in 2012. And yet, unlikely as it may seem, Brent Council could elect a different Leader at the same meeting as it is asked to approve the appointment of a new Chief Executive recruited to ‘fit’ with Cllr. Butt’s ways of working.

One source of potential unfairness is the small number of people who will actually have any influence over who is chosen for the post. These will include the current interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, and Director of HR, Cara Davani. Questions have already been raised about appointments of their “cronies” to other senior Brent Council posts LINK  The fortunes of Ms Gilbert and Ms Davani also appear to be closely linked with those of the Leader of the Council, and Cllr. Butt has not yet answered the question of why he is still “protecting” these two senior officers, when he has known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case since at least September 2014. That question was put to him in February 2015 LINK

Good online detective work by “Wembley Matters” readers has shown that there are close links, during their time at Tower Hamlets Council and at Ofsted, between Ms Gilbert and Ms Davani, and Shahidul Miah of Bloomsbury Resourcing Ltd. That one-man company is one of two recruitment consultants handling the search for Brent’s new Chief Executive, along with Davidson & Partners. It is unclear from the briefing pack what the respective roles of the two consultancies are, but the involvement of Mr Miah does raise concerns that the external and internal sides of the recruitment process may not be independent of each other.

Under the Council’s Constitution (Standing Order 77) the shortlist of candidates who will be interviewed for the post will be drawn up by the (interim) Chief Executive, ‘or another officer nominated by him or her’, most probably the Director of HR. The list is then submitted ‘to the Chair of the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee’. If the Chair agrees the list, ‘then the shortlist prepared by the officer shall stand.’ If not, ‘a meeting of the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee shall be held to determine the shortlist.’ The Council’s website shows that the Chair of this “SSASC” is Cllr. Muhammed Butt, so once again the trio of the Council Leader, Ms Gilbert and Ms Davani hold the power to decide who will, or will not, be considered for the job.

The composition, and Chair, of the SSASC was one of the main points which I raised in my email to Ms Alderman. Under Brent’s Constitution, the SSASC comprises 5 councillors, 'at least one of whom shall be a member of the Cabinet'. This wording appears to have been designed as part of a system of “checks and balances”, to ensure that power over senior staff appointments is shared between Executive and backbench councillors. While it does not say that there should be only one member of the Cabinet on the sub-committee, as the Constitution also gives Cabinet members other rights to object to proposed appointments, it seems odd that the SSASC currently comprises four Cabinet members, plus the leader of the official Conservative group.

As stated above, Cllr. Butt chairs the SSASC (to be fair, his predecessor, Cllr. Ann John, did so before him, although with only one, or at most two, other Executive members, and at least two members from opposition parties on the sub-committee). I have suggested that Cllr. Butt should allow a backbench councillor to replace him as Chair of the SSASC for the recruitment of the new Chief Executive, and that one or two other Cabinet members should appoint non-Cabinet substitute councillors for this process. Brent’s Chief Legal Officer did not comment of this suggestion, other than to thank me ‘for [my] observations’.

The SSASC will interview the shortlisted applicants, and its Chair must then notify to the Council’s Director of HR ‘the name of the person to whom it wishes to make an offer together with any other particulars the sub-committee considers are relevant to the appointment.’ It is at this point that a clear conflict of interests arises, because the HR Director then has to notify every member of the Cabinet of these details, and of ‘the period within which any objection to the making of the offer is to be made by the Leader on behalf of the Cabinet to the [Director of HR] and the Chair of the sub-committee.’

Part of the “checks and balances” on the fair appointment of senior officers built into Brent’s Constitution is to separate the roles of Chair of the SSASC and Leader of the Council, as one heads the sub-committee which choses the preferred candidate, while the other heads the Cabinet which has the right to review and object to that choice (even though that may seem unlikely in practice, when half of the Cabinet are also currently members of the SSASC). If there were an objection, the Leader then has to give notice ‘of any objection which the Leader or any other member of the Cabinet has to the proposed appointment’ to both the HR Director and the Chair of the SSASC (imagine the scene: “I, Cllr. Butt, as Leader of the Council, give you, Cllr. Butt, as Chair of the SSASC, notice …”). In that case, the SSASC would have to reconvene, ‘to consider the objection and to consider whether to confirm the appointment.’

While Brent’s Constitution does not say that the Leader of the Council and Chair of the SSASC cannot be the same person, it is difficult to see how the recruitment process can be seen to be fair if this is the case. It could be argued that having the two roles held by the same person allows the process to dealt with more quickly and efficiently; but that argument could also be used to combine the roles of judge and jury in the criminal justice system, which many would feel could make that system less fair or just.

For the appointment of a Chief Executive, the proposed candidate 'must be approved at a meeting of the Full Council before an offer of appointment is made'. The proposed date, shown in the briefing pack, for the SSASC’s final interview panel is 18 or 19 May, and the next Full Council meeting is the Annual Meeting on 20 May. The final point I made to Ms Alderman was that this would not give the elected members of Full Council given sufficient time to consider properly whether they should approve the proposed appointment. I suggested that the date of the final interview panel should be brought forward by a few days, and that Officers should ensure that all members of the Council are notified with details of the person who it is proposed should be appointed as Chief Executive in good time (at least several days) before the Full Council meeting on 20 May. I do not know whether any changes have been made as a result of these suggestions.

Brent’s Chief Legal Officer is also its Monitoring Officer, a role which includes trying to ensure that the Council’s committees, sub-committees and officers do not act in a way which breaches codes of practice, or which may give rise to maladministration or injustice. I hoped that by bringing the points above to Ms Alderman’s attention, the potential unfairness in the recruitment process for the Chief Executive post could be avoided. It is not my intention to criticise Ms Alderman, who may have done all that she can to achieve this end. The overall responsibility for ensuring a fair appointment lies with the interim Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council.

We will find out next month whether my efforts have helped to produce an appointment which is seen to be fair, or whether those at the top of Brent Council are determined to bring it further into disrepute. If it appears that the person proposed as the new Chief Executive may not have been recruited fairly, I hope that councillors will be prepared to challenge his or her appointment at Full Council, rather than just nod through their approval of it.

Vote Green in Hampstead & Kilburn and reject Austerity Plus and Austerity Lite

Green voters in Hampstead and Kilburn are being told on the doorstep by Labour  that the outcome is 'too close ro call' and that they should vote Labour to prevent a possible Tory victory.  Green candidate Rebecca Johnson has been well received by voters at hustings and on the street.

Here she gives her reaction to that 'advice':

Rebecca Johnson, Green candidate for H&K will pledge to protect the NHS from privatisation, funding cuts and TTIP this afternoon

A cause the Greens support

38 Degrees members in Hampstead and Kilburn are to present a petition this afternoon outside Waitrose, close to Finchley Road station, asking candidates for the constituency to protect the NHS if elected.  Rebecca Johnson, Green Party candidate in H&K will be there.

The event starts at 3.30pm and is expected to last about 30 minutes.

This is the text of the petition:

Our NHS is precious. Please do everything you can to protect it, including:

* Stopping privatisation
* Making sure it has the funding it needs to provide high quality healthcare to everyone
* Protecting it from US health corporations by keeping the NHS out of TTIP

Why is this important?

Our NHS is precious. We all rely on it to care for us and our loved ones. We want to protect it for the future, and we don't want to see it run down or sold off.

Over the past few years, NHS funding has been squeezed so much that services are suffering. This winter, hospitals up and down the country have declared "major incidents" because they're struggling to cope. And now most hospitals are warning that their budget for next year has " reached the point where patient care is at risk."

Meanwhile, the government is letting profit-hungry companies take over more and more NHS services. At at a time of squeezed budgets, this is the last thing the NHS needs. We want an NHS where patient safety is put first, and where the NHS is run for the public good.

TTIP, the planned trade deal between the EU and the USA, could threaten the NHS further. If TTIP opens our NHS to American private healthcare companies, we could see even more privatisation and a slide into more US-style healthcare. We want the NHS excluded from TTIP.