The chief inspector of hospitals has recently reported on local hospitals Care Quality Commission. The report on Queen Charlotte’s in Du Cane Road concludes it is “good”.
Within those overall judgments there are some wide variations. For instance the A&E at Charing Cross was rated “good” while the Oupatients service was judged “inadequate”.
For St Mary’s the Critical Care and Maternity and gynaecology were both rated “good” but the A&E “inadequate.”
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust chief executive Dr Tracey Batten said:
“While we are disappointed with our overall rating of ‘requires improvement’, we think the report is extremely constructive. It clearly sets out our challenges while also recognising the positive impact of our work over the past year and highlighting the great care that we already provide.
“We acknowledge that there are a few areas, such as cleanliness in St Mary’s A&E, that have simply not been acceptable and there can be no excuse for that. But we want to assure patients that this is the exception and that we have acted immediately to address the most pressing issues raised. For example, we have already put in extra staff support and refurbished the A&E at St Mary’s Hospital – with new flooring and lighting, more sinks and additional cleaning rotas. The CQC has now re-inspected St Mary’s A&E and has confirmed that the required improvements have been made.”
The Labour MP for Hammersmith Andrew Slaughter highlighted the contrasting verdicts on the A&E departments and saying it showed plans to close the A&E at Charing Cross are wrong. The problem with this point is that there are no such plan. The NHS have made clear that there will continue to be a full A&E department at Charing Cross. Mr Slaughter is full aware of this yet he persists with spreading the allegation. That makes him a liar.
But there is another point. The good news is that the local NHS failings have been exposed, detailed recommendations published to put them right and those measures are being taken – or indeed have already been taken.
How has this come about? How do we know what is going on? It is because this Government introduced this level of transparency. They introduced the post of Chief Inspector of Hospitals to act as whistleblower-in-chief and produce these reports. That came about after the scandal at Mid Staffs Hospital – when the mentality was one of “cover up” rather than facing up to problems and dealing with them. Disgracefully poor care continued for years because of a lack of transparency and accountability. That was the way the NHS was run when Andy Burnham was Health Secretary.
Andrew Slaughter voted against the legislation last year to establish a chief inspector of hospitals who could provide independent information about the quality of services. Now he is quoting from information that would have been suppressed had he won that vote. He should apologise for that desist from his scaremongering. No matter how frequently he repeats it that doesn’t make the lie about the Charing Cross A&E closing true.
The Government has announced a generous grant settlement to Hammersmith and Fulham Council. When all the revenue sources are added together the Council will £199.68 million for its General fund spending in 2015/16. This compares with £209.43 million for 2014/15. So that is a cut in the total “spending power” of just 4.7 per cent. Those figures assume the Council tax is frozen. That would actually mean increased revenue from it as the base in wider (there are more homes). So the revenue would rise from £51.37 million to £51.88 million. The main Government grant will be £103.57 million.
If the Council tax is frozen or cut there will be an extra £0.62 million in Government grant in recognition of this.
Labour were elected on a pledge to cut the Council Tax – and to do so at a faster rate than was managed under the Conservatives. That would imply a cut of over three per cent (which was the typical level achieved under the Conservatives). So if they keep their promise and include a Council Tax cut of, say, four per cent that would mean extra savings needed of £2.07 million – or around one per cent of the total budget.
That would be perfectly achievable and I hope that pledge is honoured. If it is then it will show the important success in shifting the parameters of debate in this borough. After the election the pledge was modified “to reduce taxes” but not specifying that this would be at a faster pace. There was also a Labour pledge to cut parking charges – which they described as a “stealth tax”.
Their undertaking to cut spending by £20 million a year would allow a much bigger Council Tax cut – even after absorbing the lower Government grant – but I would be surpirsed if that is delivered.
One longer term problem could come with the Labour council’s hostility to allowing new homes to be built. The New Homes Bonus for 2015/16 will be £5.7 million. There is a time lag between planning approval for new homes and the new homes actually being built. But eventually the New Homes Bonus grant will fizzle out under the current planning policies. There could also be some trouble with the £20.86 million Public health grant. This is supposed to be “ring fenced” specifically for public health improvements. The council has raided it for funding voluntary groups – which was already being paid out of the Council’s general budget. I’m not sure the rules will allow this.
The council’s budget is due to be published on Monday January 5th.
Some really good news with the latest unemployment figures today which show a fall across Hammersmith and Fulham. Here are the figures for each ward – the first column being JSA claimants in October. The second the claimants last month.
The total for the borough is now 2,982. In May 2010 it was 4,910.
Addison 190 188
Askew 393 377
Avonmore and Brook Green 141 140
College Park and Old Oak 253 230
Fulham Broadway 177 170
Fulham Reach 131 119
Hammersmith Broadway 195 180
Munster 86 84
North End 150 141
Palace Riverside 45 46
Parsons Green and Walham 91 90
Ravenscourt Park 122 113
Sands End 229 228
Shepherd’s Bush Green 385 351
Town 146 136
Wormholt and White City 413 389
Total 3,147 2,982
The Labour Party have been holding meetings at Hammersmith Town Hall without paying the required booking fees. On some evenings they have booked out every meeting room for different ward branches – including wards where they have no councillors.
There is a serious matter in a democracy. Council resources should not be used to subsidise one party rather than another. The Conservatives have also used the town hall for meetings but have paid the full fee.
It is reasonable for councillors, when discussing council business, to use a room at the town hall without paying – whether for the Conservative Group or Labour Group. The issue is that the Labour PARTY have been using rooms without payment (sometimes several rooms in one evening) for Party activists to discuss campaigning/wider Party business. Especially given the Conservatives have paid up for meetings of that nature.
The problem arose due to an internal booking system which relied on those making the bookings to state if a fee was due. The system was based on trust – and Labour proved themselves untrustworthy.
Jane West the Director of Finance tells me that “charges for room bookings have been made to both political parties in the past but not in a particularly efficient way.”
That is a diplomatic way of putting it. It would have been rather more efficient if Labour had paid what they owe rather than evading.
Jane adds “in future, when either the local Conservative Party or the local Labour Party wish to book one of the Committee Rooms, and the attendees for the meeting are mainly H&F councillors, we will not be making a charge for the booking. The rooms can be booked through the self-service system on the intranet.”
She has offered the Conservatives a rebate. But wouldn’t it be better for the Council Taxpayer if the Labour Party coughed up the fees owed for the vast amount of room bookings they have made for party political, rather than council business?
The school’s founder Toby Young has signed the contract with Willmott Dixon, the school’s builders.
“This means that Willmott’s can now start the main construction programme and you should begin to see a lot of activity on the site shortly. We have also been given the Council’s blessing to commence the works.
“I’d like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their patience. It’s taken a long time to get here, but we’re finally at the point where construction can begin.”
A Planning Committee due to take place on January 7th has been cancelled. This is the second planning meeting to have been cancelled in the last few months. New home building has been brought to a halt under Labour. The only thing they have achieved is to rename the committee itself in a pointless rebranding exercise.
Cllr Adam Connell, a Labour councillor for Addison Ward is the Chairman of the Planning Committee. As a result of this he pockets a an extra £5,664.70 as a “Special Responsibility Allowance” on top of his basic allowance of £8,940.
The July 15th meeting lasted 40 minutes.
The September 10th one lasted 2 hours and 7 minutes.
The November 12th one lasted 1 hour 33 minutes.
I gather that the one last week (the first one to actually approve any new homes) went on for around two and half hours. The new homes, of course, offered a “contemporary” (ie ugly) design – intended to please planning officers rather than residents. I don’t blame the applicants for this – they have to meet the “requirements” of the planners. I suspect Cllr Connell is too busy counting his money to take much interest in either how many homes are built or in what they look like.
So, anyway, a total of six hours and 50 minutes for him to sit through.
With the January one cancelled there won’t be another until February 18th. So for those eight months Cllr Connell collects £3,776 – two thirds of the annual allowance – for chairing a meetings for just under seven hours. That comes to £540 an hour.
Since Labour took over they have decided to spray £150,000 of your money at the management consultants Deloitte. Plus another £1.5 million for lawyers and consultants to facilitate the privatisation of the entire council housing.
But even by Labour’s fat cat standards £540 an hour is on the high side.
Of course Cllr Connell, like his Labour colleagues, won election with populist class war, bash the rich, rhetoric….
I have emailed him to ask if he feels justified in continuing to claim his full SRA.
Ifwe are to have new buildings in our borough that make it more beautiful rather than more ugly then it is important for as many residents as possible to make their views known.
Below is the list of organisations that the council is supposed to consult.
Is your group included? If not please email me on email@example.com and I will alert the planning officers. Similarly it may that your group is on the list but you are not receiving notifications as they are sent to an old address of someone who moved to Bridport six years ago. If so again please let me know and I will try to get it rectified.
Abdale Road Residents’ Association
Action Trust For The Blind
Ada Lewis Tenants’ And Residents Association
Addison Bridge Place Residents Association
Albion House Residents Association
Albion Mews Tenants Association
Alley Tenants And Residents’ Association
Amateur Rowing Association
Argyll & Glyn Co-operative Limited
Ashchurch Residents Association
Ashcroft Square Tenants’ And Residents’ Association
Askew Crescent/Clifton Avenue Residents’ Association
Askham Court Tenants’ Club
Aspen Gardens Tenants’ Association
Association Of Residents In Sands End (ARISE)
Avalon Road Residents Association
Avonmore Gardens Residents Association
Avonmore Mansions Residents Association
Avonmore Residents Association Continue reading
Analysis of new data from the Environment Agency, obtained under Freedom of Information Act, shows that the Thames already complies with the Water Framework Directive and the European Waste Water Treatment Directive.
The Thames also complies with the Environment Agency’s Health and Aesthetic requirements, so there is can be no reason at all for the £4.2bn Thames Tideway Tunnel.
This is the conclusion in a new Report by Prof Chris Binnie ‘A Review of Tideway spills and their environmental impact.’
Prof Binnie concludes that ‘post the Sewage Treatment Works upgrades, which are now operational, plus the Lee Tunnel, operational in 2015, and, if thought appropriate, the installation of floating booms and other low cost measures to collect floating debris, the Tideway will meet the requirement for no significant adverse environmental impact from Combined Sewage Outfalls.
‘Thus, there appears to be no reason at all to go ahead now with the Thames Tideway Tunnel in order to meet the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, since the Thames already complies with that EU Directive.’
Lord Berkeley commented: ‘there can no longer be any credible argument for going forward with this costly Tunnel project, £4.2bn at 2011 prices plus financing, operating and maintenance costs.
‘Cancellation will save some 14 million Thames Water customers having to pay an extra £80 per annum for the foreseeable future to fund this expensive folly!.
‘The time to stop this waste of money is now!’
Lord Berkeley has written to Lord De Mauley, Minister of State at DEFRA, urging the Government to stop any further expenditure on this project, and make 12m Thames Water customers, as well as the thousands of people affected by the works, happy.