The Guardian reports today that the recent nationalisation of the country's most expensive rail contract has exposed details of a £30bn funding gap in Britain's transport system.
The newspaper has had sight of a leaked industry memo that warns of "looming spending cuts" on major transport projects, raising fears that major schemes could be delayed, reduced or scrapped in an expenditure freeze.
The list of improvement schemes in the firing line include the £16bn Crossrail scheme linking Heathrow airport to Canary Wharf and Essex; a £6bn road building programme including the extension of the hard shoulder on Britain's motorways; a proposed new high-speed rail route and the rail fare cap of inflation plus 1%.
As a result of Treasury plans to bring public finances back into line over the next 10 years, the paper claims that the DfT is braced for a reduction in its capital expenditure plans that could total £28.9bn over the next decade.
Yet despite this looming funding crisis evident in this single government department - who knows how many others - the government still sends billions of pounds a year to the EU, the accuracy of whose accounts have been criticised by auditors for 14 years running.
At stake according to this article is public transport improvements totalling almost £30bn. When we consider that Britain hands the EU £10.2bn (gross) every single year, by just 2012 the EU instead will have swallowed up the funds needed to ensure these transport improvements stay on track. Unless our EU cheques are stopped now.
Handing such a vast amount of cash to the EU, rather than using it to stop our transport system crumbling, is completely unjustifiable given auditors have for 14 years running had considerable trouble explaining how the EU is spending that money.
Meanwhile reports abound of waste and fraud on a vast scale, even within the EU's own institutions.
The money for essential services is running out and it's time for some tough choices. The EU budget deal agreed in the pre-crisis days of late 2005 is no longer sustainable. If anything must be cut, spending on the EU should be top of the list.
The government must go to Brussels urgently, re-open the EU funding deal, secure drastic cuts and show us that it is serious about maintaining properly funded public services in this downturn.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Schools get heavy on 'voluntary' contributions
In another example of how the vast amount of money Britain hands over to the EU towards its lavish costs - £115 million every single week on average - is depriving essential public services, a new report has revealed that schools are increasingly having to send heavy-handed demands to parents for 'voluntary' financial contributions.
Quote a parent who received such a letters, the Guardian reports: "It read like a letter from a debt-collector ... "Our accounts indicate you have not made a contribution," it stated. "Our records indicate you have not contacted us." In fact, it was a letter from a state primary school. And it was asking for "voluntary" contributions of £40 from parents to its annual fund".
"I recognise that you may feel unable to pay the full amount," the chair of governors went on. "We always invite parents to write to us to explain their circumstances and propose an alternative."
Another parent told Education Guardian that her child's state school in Buckinghamshire had rung her "several times" when she did not immediately pay its annual voluntary contribution.
A report by the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) on the cost of schooling last year found that three in 10 parents were asked to make voluntary contributions.
Secondary schools tended to ask for £44 a year, while primaries asked for £27. Nine per cent of the 1,500 parents surveyed said they were asked to contribute £100 or more to the annual school fund.
Clarissa Williams, president of the National Association of Headteachers and former headteacher of Tolworth Girls' school in Kingston-upon-Thames, says voluntary contributions enable schools to buy things without tapping into government funds.
"We used to run the school minibus, buy wheelie bins, and kit out the library with the money," she says.
All things which many of us understood were supplied out of the taxes we pay.
But in truth, huge amounts of that money is now being sent to the EU instead, since Tony Blair agreed from 2007 to increase our payments by 63%. This was despite the failure by auditors to give a clean bill of health to the EU's accounts for 14 years in a row.
Now schools are having to make up the shortfall.
Quote a parent who received such a letters, the Guardian reports: "It read like a letter from a debt-collector ... "Our accounts indicate you have not made a contribution," it stated. "Our records indicate you have not contacted us." In fact, it was a letter from a state primary school. And it was asking for "voluntary" contributions of £40 from parents to its annual fund".
"I recognise that you may feel unable to pay the full amount," the chair of governors went on. "We always invite parents to write to us to explain their circumstances and propose an alternative."
Another parent told Education Guardian that her child's state school in Buckinghamshire had rung her "several times" when she did not immediately pay its annual voluntary contribution.
A report by the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) on the cost of schooling last year found that three in 10 parents were asked to make voluntary contributions.
Secondary schools tended to ask for £44 a year, while primaries asked for £27. Nine per cent of the 1,500 parents surveyed said they were asked to contribute £100 or more to the annual school fund.
Clarissa Williams, president of the National Association of Headteachers and former headteacher of Tolworth Girls' school in Kingston-upon-Thames, says voluntary contributions enable schools to buy things without tapping into government funds.
"We used to run the school minibus, buy wheelie bins, and kit out the library with the money," she says.
All things which many of us understood were supplied out of the taxes we pay.
But in truth, huge amounts of that money is now being sent to the EU instead, since Tony Blair agreed from 2007 to increase our payments by 63%. This was despite the failure by auditors to give a clean bill of health to the EU's accounts for 14 years in a row.
Now schools are having to make up the shortfall.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
NHS 'faces huge budget shortfall'
The BBC reports today that the NHS is facing the most severe and sustained financial shortfall in its history after 2011, according to a report by health service managers.
The NHS Confederation report says the health service in England will not survive unchanged and conference attendees have been told that they face an "extremely challenging" financial outlook.
The report reveals that the NHS in England is facing a real-terms reduction of between £8bn and £10bn over the three years after 2011.
During the same period the government plans to hand the European Union £30.6 bn (gross) or £18bn (net), despite EU auditors criticising the accuracy of the EU's accounts now for 14 years in a row. These audit failures are accompanied by regular reports of waste and fraud involving very large sums.
The report says that the cost of new treatments and the ageing population are two of the factors causing the inflation in the health service.
According to the OHE, the £8-10bn at stake would cover the costs of family or mental health services for one year, 2 years of cancer treatment, normal births for 27 years or over one and a half years of prescription charges.
When is the government going to take seriously the major funding threats essential public services face, and cut this scandalous and unjustifiable waste of billions of pound on an organisation that cannot tell us with any certainty how that money is being spent, yet whose employees and bureaucrats and MEPs clearly live a lavish lifestyle?
The NHS Confederation report says the health service in England will not survive unchanged and conference attendees have been told that they face an "extremely challenging" financial outlook.
The report reveals that the NHS in England is facing a real-terms reduction of between £8bn and £10bn over the three years after 2011.
During the same period the government plans to hand the European Union £30.6 bn (gross) or £18bn (net), despite EU auditors criticising the accuracy of the EU's accounts now for 14 years in a row. These audit failures are accompanied by regular reports of waste and fraud involving very large sums.
The report says that the cost of new treatments and the ageing population are two of the factors causing the inflation in the health service.
According to the OHE, the £8-10bn at stake would cover the costs of family or mental health services for one year, 2 years of cancer treatment, normal births for 27 years or over one and a half years of prescription charges.
When is the government going to take seriously the major funding threats essential public services face, and cut this scandalous and unjustifiable waste of billions of pound on an organisation that cannot tell us with any certainty how that money is being spent, yet whose employees and bureaucrats and MEPs clearly live a lavish lifestyle?
Monday, 20 April 2009
Councils do not have enough money to prevent flooding, warns survey
More than half of the councils in England do not have enough funding to protect homes against flooding, town halls have admitted.
Following the devastating floods of 2007 councils were told to improve flood defences and help households to put in place measures to prevent damage.
But a survey by the Local Government Association, reported in the Daily Telegraph, found that 60% of councils still do not have the necessary funds to fulfil their flood risk responsibilities.
It also reveals that a quarter are struggling to recruit and retain the specialist staff needed to improve drainage systems and plan for floods properly.
Despite the need for cutbacks in many areas of government spending in order to recoup the costs of bank bailouts and other economic support, the government has so far refused to re-open the question of the £6bn net a year that Britain pays to the European Union.
This amount was agreed before the economic crisis erupted and before the value of the pound dropped in relation to the euro - the currency in which payments to the EU must be made.
In November last year, the accuracy of the EU's accounts was seriously criticised by auditors for the 14th year in a row, with billion of pounds of EU spending once again unaccounted for.
Spending on propping up the EU's wasteful institutions should be a prime candidate for cuts before axing council grants or spending on education - both of which have been reported recently.
Following the devastating floods of 2007 councils were told to improve flood defences and help households to put in place measures to prevent damage.
But a survey by the Local Government Association, reported in the Daily Telegraph, found that 60% of councils still do not have the necessary funds to fulfil their flood risk responsibilities.
It also reveals that a quarter are struggling to recruit and retain the specialist staff needed to improve drainage systems and plan for floods properly.
Despite the need for cutbacks in many areas of government spending in order to recoup the costs of bank bailouts and other economic support, the government has so far refused to re-open the question of the £6bn net a year that Britain pays to the European Union.
This amount was agreed before the economic crisis erupted and before the value of the pound dropped in relation to the euro - the currency in which payments to the EU must be made.
In November last year, the accuracy of the EU's accounts was seriously criticised by auditors for the 14th year in a row, with billion of pounds of EU spending once again unaccounted for.
Spending on propping up the EU's wasteful institutions should be a prime candidate for cuts before axing council grants or spending on education - both of which have been reported recently.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Front line council service cut due to £1 bn black hole in council funding
Front line council services will be cut and thousands of workers are set to lose their jobs as recession-hit town halls struggle with a £1 billion black hole.
A Daily Telegraph investigation has established that local authorities in England and Wales are slashing budgets by up to 10 per cent, with social services, education and transport bearing the brunt of the cuts.
Councils also revealed that they were planning to claw back some of their losses by increasing charges for facilities such as car parking and cutting services such as lollipop ladies and meals on wheels.
Many authorities insist that the cuts are necessary to compensate for a lower than average government grant settlement, at a time when demand for services, such as care homes and advice centres, is rising as the pressures of the recession bite.
A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: "Income is falling away very sharply at a time when more and more people are turning to councils for help."
A Daily Telegraph investigation has established that local authorities in England and Wales are slashing budgets by up to 10 per cent, with social services, education and transport bearing the brunt of the cuts.
Councils also revealed that they were planning to claw back some of their losses by increasing charges for facilities such as car parking and cutting services such as lollipop ladies and meals on wheels.
Many authorities insist that the cuts are necessary to compensate for a lower than average government grant settlement, at a time when demand for services, such as care homes and advice centres, is rising as the pressures of the recession bite.
A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: "Income is falling away very sharply at a time when more and more people are turning to councils for help."
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Teachers threaten strike over £200m school funding cuts
Teachers are threatening to strike over plans to cut £200m from school and college budgets amid claims it will "ration" teenagers' opportunities - reports the Daily Telegraph.
They will ballot for industrial action at sixth-forms where staff face redundancies to plug the funding black hole.
The National Union of Teachers branded the cuts "an absolute disgrace" and said Labour risked leaving many young people on the "scrap heap".
It marks a significant escalation of the row over an eleventh-hour drop in funding for institutions across England, putting courses for as many as 50,000 teenagers under threat.
Last week, head teachers warned they could sue the Government's Learning and Skills Council over the episode.
Meanwhile the European Union continues to enjoy its net £6bn a year (or £115m a week) funding deal, agreed in 2005 before the economic crisis erupted.
The Government is facing the need to make major cuts in public spending to compensate for money spent on supporting banks and the economy, but has so far refused to re-open debate on the scale of cash Britain hands to the EU.
This is despite the fact that, back in November, the accuracy of the EU's accounts was seriously criticised by auditors for the 14th year in a row, with billion of pounds of EU spending once again unaccounted for.
They will ballot for industrial action at sixth-forms where staff face redundancies to plug the funding black hole.
The National Union of Teachers branded the cuts "an absolute disgrace" and said Labour risked leaving many young people on the "scrap heap".
It marks a significant escalation of the row over an eleventh-hour drop in funding for institutions across England, putting courses for as many as 50,000 teenagers under threat.
Last week, head teachers warned they could sue the Government's Learning and Skills Council over the episode.
Meanwhile the European Union continues to enjoy its net £6bn a year (or £115m a week) funding deal, agreed in 2005 before the economic crisis erupted.
The Government is facing the need to make major cuts in public spending to compensate for money spent on supporting banks and the economy, but has so far refused to re-open debate on the scale of cash Britain hands to the EU.
This is despite the fact that, back in November, the accuracy of the EU's accounts was seriously criticised by auditors for the 14th year in a row, with billion of pounds of EU spending once again unaccounted for.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Shocking state of roads costs UK drivers £1m every day
A survey has confirmed what every motorist already suspected - our roads are becoming almost as potholed as the surface of the moon - reports the Daily Telegraph.
British drivers are now paying out an estimated £1 million every day in repairs because of the shocking state of some highways.
Over an eight-year period up to May 2008, six per cent of cars each year suffered axle and suspension damage thanks to bad roads.
With some claims as high as £2,710 and the average repair costing £240, it means drivers are paying out a total of £413 million a year - even if they do manage to claim the costs back on insurance, or from the roads authority concerned.
British drivers are now paying out an estimated £1 million every day in repairs because of the shocking state of some highways.
Over an eight-year period up to May 2008, six per cent of cars each year suffered axle and suspension damage thanks to bad roads.
With some claims as high as £2,710 and the average repair costing £240, it means drivers are paying out a total of £413 million a year - even if they do manage to claim the costs back on insurance, or from the roads authority concerned.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Colleges forced to take 'drastic measures' after £60 million cut
Head teachers are considering drastic measures, such as turning down thermostats and forgoing new text books, because of a "comprehensive mismanagement" of government funds which may lead to tens of thousands of students losing college places.
The Daily Telegraph reports that a surprise £60 million cut in the budget for the education of 16 to 19 year olds in England was announced to schools last week, jeopardising the future of an estimated 35,0000 students.
This came despite a promise in early March that the money, allocated by the by the Government's Learning and Skills Council, was available to take on more students in a drive to encourage teenagers to stay in education.
Many heads recruited additional sixth-formers in response only to later be told the money was not available.
Now they say they will have to resort to cancelling school trips and building repairs among other "desperate" measures in order to make up for the shortfall.
The Daily Telegraph reports that a surprise £60 million cut in the budget for the education of 16 to 19 year olds in England was announced to schools last week, jeopardising the future of an estimated 35,0000 students.
This came despite a promise in early March that the money, allocated by the by the Government's Learning and Skills Council, was available to take on more students in a drive to encourage teenagers to stay in education.
Many heads recruited additional sixth-formers in response only to later be told the money was not available.
Now they say they will have to resort to cancelling school trips and building repairs among other "desperate" measures in order to make up for the shortfall.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Future threat to public services
The Financial Times reports that cuts in public services are on the cards for 2011 as the government plans to boost short term spending.
Alistair Darling has made clear that he will not cut spending now as the economy slows to recession, but will try to bring forward capital spending and "reprioritise" current expenditure on areas that support the economy or protect people from the downturn.
As the £115 million a week net Britain hands to the audit-failing EU falls into neither of these priority categories, when will Mr Darling be heading to Brussels to break the bad news that their huge weekly cheque has been "reprioritised"?
A range of government departments including Work & Pensions, Revenue & Customs, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office already face sharp real-term cuts in their budgets.
Latest spending plans squeezed virtually all government departments to protect health, education and law & order, which themselves received lower rises than in previous years.
However it will be beyond 2010 - after the next general election - when the real pain will be felt.
"What has happened recently will leave a permanent scar on the economy," said Ray Barrell of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
"After the dust has settled, all governments will have to give serious thought to the level of public services that they want."
However not all the pain may be taken by public services. Some of it could well come from tax rises.
In the current economic turmoil, the billions of pounds a year Britain lavishes on the wasteful and fraud-ridden EU is looking less and less sustainable. As public finances tighten, the government needs to act urgently to redirect these huge amounts to more productive purposes.
Alistair Darling has made clear that he will not cut spending now as the economy slows to recession, but will try to bring forward capital spending and "reprioritise" current expenditure on areas that support the economy or protect people from the downturn.
As the £115 million a week net Britain hands to the audit-failing EU falls into neither of these priority categories, when will Mr Darling be heading to Brussels to break the bad news that their huge weekly cheque has been "reprioritised"?
A range of government departments including Work & Pensions, Revenue & Customs, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office already face sharp real-term cuts in their budgets.
Latest spending plans squeezed virtually all government departments to protect health, education and law & order, which themselves received lower rises than in previous years.
However it will be beyond 2010 - after the next general election - when the real pain will be felt.
"What has happened recently will leave a permanent scar on the economy," said Ray Barrell of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
"After the dust has settled, all governments will have to give serious thought to the level of public services that they want."
However not all the pain may be taken by public services. Some of it could well come from tax rises.
In the current economic turmoil, the billions of pounds a year Britain lavishes on the wasteful and fraud-ridden EU is looking less and less sustainable. As public finances tighten, the government needs to act urgently to redirect these huge amounts to more productive purposes.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Kidney cancer drugs too costly for NHS
Four new drugs to treat advanced kidney cancer have been rejected by the government's drugs advisory body as too expensive for use by the NHS, various news sources report today.
Although the drugs were acknowledged to provide "substantial benefits" and were judged to provide "significant gains" in survival, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has refused approval on the grounds that the NHS cannot afford to provide them to patients.
More than 7,000 people are diagnosed with kidney cancer annually in the UK, with around 1,700 of those diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer.
The drugs cost between £20,000 to £35,000 a year per patient, but even at the upper end of this scale the total cost of providing the drugs to all the 1,700 patients for a year - at just under £60m - is a tiny fraction of the £115m every week the government lavishes on the audit-failing EU. Priorities?
The decision to issue draft guidance rejecting Sutent (sunitinib), Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib) and Torisel (temsirolimus) has outraged charities, kidney specialists and campaigners.
Experts have reacted angrily to the decision, saying it left them with little option for treating patients.
Although there are treatments available, none of them "cure" advanced renal cell carcinoma or cancer that has spread from the initial tumour. But they can help extend a patients' life by around five to six months.
Quoted in the Times report, John Wagstaff, an honorary consultant in medical oncology at the South Wales Cancer Institute in Swansea and director of the Wales Cancer Trials Network, said there was “no point” in him accepting referrals for people with advanced kidney cancer because about 75 per cent of them “do not gain any real benefit” from interferon. The only other option, he said, was to make patients comfortable in their last months.
The draft guidelines for England and Wales, which are subject to appeal, recommended people already on the drugs should be able to continue therapy.
In the BBC's report, Pat Hanlon from Kidney Cancer UK said that the drugs provide a 'considerable benefit' and Professor Peter Johnson, from Cancer Research UK, said they had shown a small but definite improvement in an illness where there are few alternative treatments.
It's easy to cast NICE as the villian of the piece, but in trying to get the best out of limited resources they have a very difficult job to do.
In reality, in agreeing to pay an unjustifiable 63% extra to the undeserving EU, it is the government and the MPs who voted to approve that deal who are solely to blame when there's no public money left for life-prolonging drugs to be made available on the NHS.
Although the drugs were acknowledged to provide "substantial benefits" and were judged to provide "significant gains" in survival, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has refused approval on the grounds that the NHS cannot afford to provide them to patients.
More than 7,000 people are diagnosed with kidney cancer annually in the UK, with around 1,700 of those diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer.
The drugs cost between £20,000 to £35,000 a year per patient, but even at the upper end of this scale the total cost of providing the drugs to all the 1,700 patients for a year - at just under £60m - is a tiny fraction of the £115m every week the government lavishes on the audit-failing EU. Priorities?
The decision to issue draft guidance rejecting Sutent (sunitinib), Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib) and Torisel (temsirolimus) has outraged charities, kidney specialists and campaigners.
Experts have reacted angrily to the decision, saying it left them with little option for treating patients.
Although there are treatments available, none of them "cure" advanced renal cell carcinoma or cancer that has spread from the initial tumour. But they can help extend a patients' life by around five to six months.
Quoted in the Times report, John Wagstaff, an honorary consultant in medical oncology at the South Wales Cancer Institute in Swansea and director of the Wales Cancer Trials Network, said there was “no point” in him accepting referrals for people with advanced kidney cancer because about 75 per cent of them “do not gain any real benefit” from interferon. The only other option, he said, was to make patients comfortable in their last months.
The draft guidelines for England and Wales, which are subject to appeal, recommended people already on the drugs should be able to continue therapy.
In the BBC's report, Pat Hanlon from Kidney Cancer UK said that the drugs provide a 'considerable benefit' and Professor Peter Johnson, from Cancer Research UK, said they had shown a small but definite improvement in an illness where there are few alternative treatments.
It's easy to cast NICE as the villian of the piece, but in trying to get the best out of limited resources they have a very difficult job to do.
In reality, in agreeing to pay an unjustifiable 63% extra to the undeserving EU, it is the government and the MPs who voted to approve that deal who are solely to blame when there's no public money left for life-prolonging drugs to be made available on the NHS.
Labels:
cancer care,
NHS funding,
sorafenib,
sutent
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Norfolk & Suffolk: Post office closures hit elderly
Post Office bosses and the government came under fire last night as it emerged a third of pensioners in Norfolk and West Suffolk are set to be left without their local branch - reports the Eastern Daily Press.
An estimated 82,200 elderly people in the area will be affected, forcing them to travel further to a post office.
Fifty post office branches are set to shut as part of controversial nationwide cuts to the network, caused by the government's refusal to increase subsidies for loss-making branches.
The government's stance over funding of post offices is in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's approval of the European Union budget deal, which increased our payments to the EU by an astonishing 63% to £115m (net) every single week between now and 2013 - putting the £150m annual subsidy for post offices in the shade.
Approval was given despite the EU's accounts not having been given a clean bill of health by auditors for the past thirteen years, and the organisation's terrible repuation for waste and fraud.
Help the Aged yesterday criticised the closure plan and accused the Post Office of ignoring the older population.
Pensioners are a primary customer base for post offices, with thousands collecting pensions from them each week.
Dr Alan Burnett, the charity's senior policy officer, said: “When you have a mobility problem or difficulty getting around, a journey extended by only half a mile is not a simple matter of a little more exercise - it is almost a complete removal of the service.
“Older people in Norfolk and West Suffolk are contacting us to say they feel ignored by the consultation process. It's beginning to seem as if the Post Office is merely paying lip service to government consultation regulations and not really listening to the valuable local information being given to them.
“If older people are not listened to, and their needs are not taken into account, the consequences for many will be extremely serious.”
So far, 970 branches have shut across the country, out of the 2,500 earmarked for closure. Less than 4% have been saved, despite numerous campaigns.
On a national scale, millions of pensioners are struggling with simple day-to-day tasks as a result of the ongoing closures, and Help the Aged claim that 2.3 million people will need to travel at least half a mile further afield to find a replacement post office.
Last night, two of the counties' MPs spoke angrily of the impact the scheme was set to have on their constituents, branding the consultation “farcical”.
Richard Spring, MP for West Suffolk, said: "We always said the post office closures would hit the most vulnerable, most particularly in rural areas. They are part of village life.
"We've been through a farcical consultation. They have decided in a completely arbitrary way without any consideration. The figures are shocking, but I'm not surprised.
"I'm grateful to Help the Aged for highlighting the impact. It only fortifies the view I had.”
Christopher Fraser, MP for South-West Norfolk, said: “The figures are simply appalling. The government's decision to cut funding for the sub-post office network is a cynical, cost-cutting policy that will prove devastating to those living in the countryside.”
An estimated 82,200 elderly people in the area will be affected, forcing them to travel further to a post office.
Fifty post office branches are set to shut as part of controversial nationwide cuts to the network, caused by the government's refusal to increase subsidies for loss-making branches.
The government's stance over funding of post offices is in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's approval of the European Union budget deal, which increased our payments to the EU by an astonishing 63% to £115m (net) every single week between now and 2013 - putting the £150m annual subsidy for post offices in the shade.
Approval was given despite the EU's accounts not having been given a clean bill of health by auditors for the past thirteen years, and the organisation's terrible repuation for waste and fraud.
Help the Aged yesterday criticised the closure plan and accused the Post Office of ignoring the older population.
Pensioners are a primary customer base for post offices, with thousands collecting pensions from them each week.
Dr Alan Burnett, the charity's senior policy officer, said: “When you have a mobility problem or difficulty getting around, a journey extended by only half a mile is not a simple matter of a little more exercise - it is almost a complete removal of the service.
“Older people in Norfolk and West Suffolk are contacting us to say they feel ignored by the consultation process. It's beginning to seem as if the Post Office is merely paying lip service to government consultation regulations and not really listening to the valuable local information being given to them.
“If older people are not listened to, and their needs are not taken into account, the consequences for many will be extremely serious.”
So far, 970 branches have shut across the country, out of the 2,500 earmarked for closure. Less than 4% have been saved, despite numerous campaigns.
On a national scale, millions of pensioners are struggling with simple day-to-day tasks as a result of the ongoing closures, and Help the Aged claim that 2.3 million people will need to travel at least half a mile further afield to find a replacement post office.
Last night, two of the counties' MPs spoke angrily of the impact the scheme was set to have on their constituents, branding the consultation “farcical”.
Richard Spring, MP for West Suffolk, said: "We always said the post office closures would hit the most vulnerable, most particularly in rural areas. They are part of village life.
"We've been through a farcical consultation. They have decided in a completely arbitrary way without any consideration. The figures are shocking, but I'm not surprised.
"I'm grateful to Help the Aged for highlighting the impact. It only fortifies the view I had.”
Christopher Fraser, MP for South-West Norfolk, said: “The figures are simply appalling. The government's decision to cut funding for the sub-post office network is a cynical, cost-cutting policy that will prove devastating to those living in the countryside.”
Monday, 21 July 2008
Access to arthritis drugs denied
Around 60,000 people in the UK with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are being denied access to potentially life-changing drugs - reports ITV News today.
A decision by the National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) will mean that patients will not able able to try a second anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) if their first attempt at the therapy fails.
Anti-TNF therapy drugs - adalimunab, etanercept, infliximab - can slow the progress of disease and help to reduce symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, mobility and fatigue.
NICE said that giving patients two, or even three, anti-TNFs is not 'cost-effective' and that doctors should offer patients the next drug in line - rituximab - which costs about £3,000 less per year than the cheapest anti-TNF.
This is yet another example of health services restricting effective drugs on the grounds of costs that, if provided, could greatly improve many people's quality of life. All the while the government shamefully continues to waste an astonishing £115m a week on the audit-failing European Union.
Charities have said that moving from one therapy to a second or third has been established practice in the UK for years and the change could leave sufferers with pain and the possibility of long-term disability.
Rob Moots, ARMA clinician and professor of rheumatology at Liverpool University, said: "It's almost impossible to know which anti-TNF will work for a patient at the outset.
"Before this decision we could try patients on each of the three treatments in turn to find one that was effective for them - now we only have one shot at success.
"This flies in the face of clinical judgment. Many patients will be left in astonishing pain, while knowing we haven't explored all the options for them."
The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register shows that around 70% of patients will get a good response from a second anti-TNF if the effects of the first start to wane.
Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, said the move, combined with a Nice decision in April to reject the drug abatacept, meant effective therapies for arthrities provided by the NHS had been cut from five to two.
She added: "This decision is another nail in the coffin for the treatment of RA in England and Wales.
"Nice are re-writing the rules of RA treatment in this country, ignoring the clinical effectiveness of drugs and ignoring the views of patients and clinicians.
"Nice is systematically taking away clinically effective and proven treatments from patients and giving them just one roll of the dice when it comes to Anti-TNF treatment."
Ros Meek, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA), said: "Nice's decision takes away access to a normal and independent life for the many thousands of people battling with the condition.
"It also totally contradicts Lord Darzi's pronouncements in his recent review of the NHS - in particular his focus on patient choice and patient empowerment.
"It's a prescription for pain."
A spokeswoman for Nice said: "Nice has not yet issued final guidance to the NHS. Consultees now have the opportunity to appeal against the draft guidance. Subject to an appeal being received, guidance is expected in September 2008."
A decision by the National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) will mean that patients will not able able to try a second anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) if their first attempt at the therapy fails.
Anti-TNF therapy drugs - adalimunab, etanercept, infliximab - can slow the progress of disease and help to reduce symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, mobility and fatigue.
NICE said that giving patients two, or even three, anti-TNFs is not 'cost-effective' and that doctors should offer patients the next drug in line - rituximab - which costs about £3,000 less per year than the cheapest anti-TNF.
This is yet another example of health services restricting effective drugs on the grounds of costs that, if provided, could greatly improve many people's quality of life. All the while the government shamefully continues to waste an astonishing £115m a week on the audit-failing European Union.
Charities have said that moving from one therapy to a second or third has been established practice in the UK for years and the change could leave sufferers with pain and the possibility of long-term disability.
Rob Moots, ARMA clinician and professor of rheumatology at Liverpool University, said: "It's almost impossible to know which anti-TNF will work for a patient at the outset.
"Before this decision we could try patients on each of the three treatments in turn to find one that was effective for them - now we only have one shot at success.
"This flies in the face of clinical judgment. Many patients will be left in astonishing pain, while knowing we haven't explored all the options for them."
The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register shows that around 70% of patients will get a good response from a second anti-TNF if the effects of the first start to wane.
Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, said the move, combined with a Nice decision in April to reject the drug abatacept, meant effective therapies for arthrities provided by the NHS had been cut from five to two.
She added: "This decision is another nail in the coffin for the treatment of RA in England and Wales.
"Nice are re-writing the rules of RA treatment in this country, ignoring the clinical effectiveness of drugs and ignoring the views of patients and clinicians.
"Nice is systematically taking away clinically effective and proven treatments from patients and giving them just one roll of the dice when it comes to Anti-TNF treatment."
Ros Meek, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA), said: "Nice's decision takes away access to a normal and independent life for the many thousands of people battling with the condition.
"It also totally contradicts Lord Darzi's pronouncements in his recent review of the NHS - in particular his focus on patient choice and patient empowerment.
"It's a prescription for pain."
A spokeswoman for Nice said: "Nice has not yet issued final guidance to the NHS. Consultees now have the opportunity to appeal against the draft guidance. Subject to an appeal being received, guidance is expected in September 2008."
Labels:
abtacept,
anti-TNF,
arthritis,
drugs,
NHS funding
Friday, 4 July 2008
Salford: Woman fights for NHS cancer drug
A woman terminally ill with kidney cancer could now be given a drug which could prolong her life, after a High Court ruling - reports ITV News.
Sutent has not yet been approved by the government and is not automatically available on the NHS.
Jean Murphy, a 62-year-old grandmother from Salford, had twice been denied the drug by Salford Primary Care Trust on the grounds that it is too expensive.
Dr Mike Burrows from the trust said before the ruling: "We have a limited amount of resources and have to make decisions on which treatments we are prepared to fund and which we cannot fund. We have to use health economics to support those decisions."
Ruling on the case, Mr Justice Burnett said the Trust's commissioning panel had failed to consider Mrs Murphy's application "in the round", and to take into account her day-to-day responsibility for caring for her husband who has a heart condition and diabetes.
This is yet another example of how the abject waste of £115 million a week paid to the audit-failing European Union - an unjustifiable 63% increase on the annual amount Britain paid between 2001-06 - is causing real suffering and shortfalls in essential public services.
In particular, Salford MP Hazel Blears needs to explain why she voted to approve paying this extra money to the EU while her local hospital clearly cannot provide services her constituents need, and blame a "limited amount of resources".
With public finances tightening, we can no longer afford to hand over so much money to the European Union. Especially as the "majority" of the EU's spending has not been approved by auditors for 13 years running, and there are so many reports of waste and fraud - going on even within EU institutions themselves.
Evidence continues to grow that it's time to Stop the Cheques to the EU.
Sutent has not yet been approved by the government and is not automatically available on the NHS.
Jean Murphy, a 62-year-old grandmother from Salford, had twice been denied the drug by Salford Primary Care Trust on the grounds that it is too expensive.
Dr Mike Burrows from the trust said before the ruling: "We have a limited amount of resources and have to make decisions on which treatments we are prepared to fund and which we cannot fund. We have to use health economics to support those decisions."
Ruling on the case, Mr Justice Burnett said the Trust's commissioning panel had failed to consider Mrs Murphy's application "in the round", and to take into account her day-to-day responsibility for caring for her husband who has a heart condition and diabetes.
This is yet another example of how the abject waste of £115 million a week paid to the audit-failing European Union - an unjustifiable 63% increase on the annual amount Britain paid between 2001-06 - is causing real suffering and shortfalls in essential public services.
In particular, Salford MP Hazel Blears needs to explain why she voted to approve paying this extra money to the EU while her local hospital clearly cannot provide services her constituents need, and blame a "limited amount of resources".
With public finances tightening, we can no longer afford to hand over so much money to the European Union. Especially as the "majority" of the EU's spending has not been approved by auditors for 13 years running, and there are so many reports of waste and fraud - going on even within EU institutions themselves.
Evidence continues to grow that it's time to Stop the Cheques to the EU.
Friday, 27 June 2008
Warwickshire: Woman in High Court sight battle
A woman who could lose her sight has been given permission for a test case at the High Court to try to get an NHS Trust to fund her treatment - reports the BBC.
Warwickshire Primary Care Trust refused to pay for Patricia Meadow's eye treatment, even though the drug is available in other areas.
The trust took a "resource-based" decision not to fund treatment, the court heard, meaning it has insufficient funding from central government to provide the care Ms Meadows needs.
Ms Meadows suffers from wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in her left eye, and dry intermediate AMD in her right.
There is no treatment for the dry condition, but there is hope that a course of the drug ranibizumab (trade name Lucentis) will save the sight in her left eye.
The High Court heard from her lawyers that objective medical evidence shows a course of the drug has up to a 95% chance of arresting her eyesight deterioration.
They said there was also a chance of it improving her vision and without treatment she could lose her sight in a matter of months.
Her case is being backed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People.
Mr Justice Undershill gave permission for a judicial review to be heard within a matter of weeks.
David Lock, appearing for the PCT, said that Novartis, the manufacturer of Lucentis, was refusing to provide the support recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice).
He said: "Without the manufacturers support, Nice has clearly advised that this is not a cost-effective treatment.
He said the PCT had to balance a budget of £668m and it was impossible to meet all the needs of patients.
So while this is the case, why has the government agreed to giving the audit-failing European Union a massive and unreasonable 63% increase in payments, taking Britain's contribution to an astonishing £115 million (net) every single week?
It's people like Ms Meadows who are being forced to pay the price of the utter waste of huge amounts of public money on the EU.
Warwickshire Primary Care Trust refused to pay for Patricia Meadow's eye treatment, even though the drug is available in other areas.
The trust took a "resource-based" decision not to fund treatment, the court heard, meaning it has insufficient funding from central government to provide the care Ms Meadows needs.
Ms Meadows suffers from wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in her left eye, and dry intermediate AMD in her right.
There is no treatment for the dry condition, but there is hope that a course of the drug ranibizumab (trade name Lucentis) will save the sight in her left eye.
The High Court heard from her lawyers that objective medical evidence shows a course of the drug has up to a 95% chance of arresting her eyesight deterioration.
They said there was also a chance of it improving her vision and without treatment she could lose her sight in a matter of months.
Her case is being backed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People.
Mr Justice Undershill gave permission for a judicial review to be heard within a matter of weeks.
David Lock, appearing for the PCT, said that Novartis, the manufacturer of Lucentis, was refusing to provide the support recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice).
He said: "Without the manufacturers support, Nice has clearly advised that this is not a cost-effective treatment.
He said the PCT had to balance a budget of £668m and it was impossible to meet all the needs of patients.
So while this is the case, why has the government agreed to giving the audit-failing European Union a massive and unreasonable 63% increase in payments, taking Britain's contribution to an astonishing £115 million (net) every single week?
It's people like Ms Meadows who are being forced to pay the price of the utter waste of huge amounts of public money on the EU.
Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Improvements needed over flood response
Major improvements are needed to ensure the country is better protected against flooding, reports the Eastern Daily Press.
Two new reports are set to highlight that Britain was ill-prepared for last summer's floods, which caused devastation across large parts of the country, and that eastern England is particularly under threat.
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) report - The Flooding: Engineering Resilience - warns the UK's power, water and transport systems are stretched to the limit and need extra capacity to prevent blackouts and shortages when the country is hit by floods in the future.
In a special section on the east of England, the ICE report states that drainage systems in places like Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge are already working at full capacity and that pressure would only be increased as the region moves towards meeting its target of building 500,000 new homes by 2021.
The vulnerability of the Norfolk Broads and major Suffolk roads such as the A12 are also highlighted, should controversial proposals to abandon flood defences along 25 square miles go ahead.
“No other area of the UK is in such real and immediate danger from flooding as the East of England. It's at risk from all sides: coastal erosion and flooding, tidal surges, river flooding and overflowing drains in towns and cities,” the report states.
ICE said investment in new infrastructure had been reduced by economic and regulatory pressure to a point where “there is no longer any spare capacity available to provide alternative sources of power or water treatment should key utilities be compromised by flooding”.
The report also said funding for flood defences was not sufficient or secure, undermining industry confidence, and there were not enough skilled engineers to deliver protection from flooding.
The ICE report coincides with the release of a government-commissioned review from Sir Michael Pitt, which contains 92 recommendations on how Britain should be better equipped in the event of future flooding crises.
Britain's vulnerability was highlighted this time last year when places such as Hull were devastated by flooding. Then, in November, communities along the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline narrowly missed being swamped by a North Sea tidal surge.
Sir Michael's recommendations include local authorities being given a more clearly-defined leadership role in overseeing the maintenance of drainage networks, a joint nerve centre from which the Met Office and Environment Agency can issue better flood warnings and new building regulations detailing drainage systems and appropriate construction materials.
A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the government was working to ensure that infrastructure was resistant to flooding and robust back-up was in place where it was most needed.
She added: “Work includes assessing the vulnerability of infrastructure to natural hazards and working with industry and operators to ensure it's resilient. More details on this work will be provided as part of our formal response to the Pitt report.”
Two new reports are set to highlight that Britain was ill-prepared for last summer's floods, which caused devastation across large parts of the country, and that eastern England is particularly under threat.
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) report - The Flooding: Engineering Resilience - warns the UK's power, water and transport systems are stretched to the limit and need extra capacity to prevent blackouts and shortages when the country is hit by floods in the future.
In a special section on the east of England, the ICE report states that drainage systems in places like Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge are already working at full capacity and that pressure would only be increased as the region moves towards meeting its target of building 500,000 new homes by 2021.
The vulnerability of the Norfolk Broads and major Suffolk roads such as the A12 are also highlighted, should controversial proposals to abandon flood defences along 25 square miles go ahead.
“No other area of the UK is in such real and immediate danger from flooding as the East of England. It's at risk from all sides: coastal erosion and flooding, tidal surges, river flooding and overflowing drains in towns and cities,” the report states.
ICE said investment in new infrastructure had been reduced by economic and regulatory pressure to a point where “there is no longer any spare capacity available to provide alternative sources of power or water treatment should key utilities be compromised by flooding”.
The report also said funding for flood defences was not sufficient or secure, undermining industry confidence, and there were not enough skilled engineers to deliver protection from flooding.
The ICE report coincides with the release of a government-commissioned review from Sir Michael Pitt, which contains 92 recommendations on how Britain should be better equipped in the event of future flooding crises.
Britain's vulnerability was highlighted this time last year when places such as Hull were devastated by flooding. Then, in November, communities along the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline narrowly missed being swamped by a North Sea tidal surge.
Sir Michael's recommendations include local authorities being given a more clearly-defined leadership role in overseeing the maintenance of drainage networks, a joint nerve centre from which the Met Office and Environment Agency can issue better flood warnings and new building regulations detailing drainage systems and appropriate construction materials.
A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the government was working to ensure that infrastructure was resistant to flooding and robust back-up was in place where it was most needed.
She added: “Work includes assessing the vulnerability of infrastructure to natural hazards and working with industry and operators to ensure it's resilient. More details on this work will be provided as part of our formal response to the Pitt report.”
Labels:
cambridge,
flood prevention,
ipswich,
norwich
Monday, 23 June 2008
Council workers vote for strike
The BBC reports today that Council workers have voted in favour of industrial action in a dispute over pay.
The public sector workers union Unison has announced that its members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland voted by 55% to strike, after rejecting a below-inflation 2.45% pay offer which they argue is effectively a pay cut.
The union is demanding a 6% pay rise or 50p an hour extra, whichever is greater.
A strike would affect a wide range of public services that local communities rely on, including school dinner staff and classroom assistants, care home workers and a range of council services like bin collections and environmental health inspectors.
Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said his members were "fed up and angry they are expected to accept pay cut after pay cut while bread and butter prices go through the roof.
"Most of them are low-paid workers, who are hit hardest by food and fuel price hikes."
But Brian Baldwin, chairman of the local government employers' negotiators, said: "If the pay settlement was set any higher, then councils will be forced into making unpalatable choices between cutting front line services and laying off staff. Neither unions nor employers would want either of these options.
Of course, another option is for the government to stop wasting vast amounts of money - for example handing a 63% increase in our payments to the audit-failing EU for MEPs to rip off - so that it can give more to local councils to provide both quality essential services and afford fair pay for workers.
The government's preferred inflation measure, the Consumer Prices Index rose, to 3.3% in May, with the Bank of England warning it may reach 4%.
The wider Retail Prices Index measure of inflation - the one used for many pay negotiations - is already at 4.3%.
The public sector workers union Unison has announced that its members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland voted by 55% to strike, after rejecting a below-inflation 2.45% pay offer which they argue is effectively a pay cut.
The union is demanding a 6% pay rise or 50p an hour extra, whichever is greater.
A strike would affect a wide range of public services that local communities rely on, including school dinner staff and classroom assistants, care home workers and a range of council services like bin collections and environmental health inspectors.
Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said his members were "fed up and angry they are expected to accept pay cut after pay cut while bread and butter prices go through the roof.
"Most of them are low-paid workers, who are hit hardest by food and fuel price hikes."
But Brian Baldwin, chairman of the local government employers' negotiators, said: "If the pay settlement was set any higher, then councils will be forced into making unpalatable choices between cutting front line services and laying off staff. Neither unions nor employers would want either of these options.
Of course, another option is for the government to stop wasting vast amounts of money - for example handing a 63% increase in our payments to the audit-failing EU for MEPs to rip off - so that it can give more to local councils to provide both quality essential services and afford fair pay for workers.
The government's preferred inflation measure, the Consumer Prices Index rose, to 3.3% in May, with the Bank of England warning it may reach 4%.
The wider Retail Prices Index measure of inflation - the one used for many pay negotiations - is already at 4.3%.
Friday, 20 June 2008
Charity props up NHS cancer care
The NHS relies heavily on charitable donations for the treatment and support of children and teenagers with cancer, research reported by the BBC suggests.
Up to half of funding in NHS specialist cancer centres in England and Wales comes from charities, a team of health economists has calculated.
Some oncologists said without charity support many services would not exist.
The funding level raises questions about the government's responsibility for cancer care, the researchers say.
The report's author, Dr Dyfrig Hughes, said, "The take-home message is that it is a significant contribution towards work which arguably should be paid for by the NHS."
A total of 51 charities have been set up specifically to assist children with cancer and 340 charities had made some kind of financial contribution, the University of Bangor team report in the Journal of Child Health Care.
A further 28 organisations had been set up to provide funds for hospices.
Figures from 2003 show that between £25m and £38m (depending on the method of calculation used) of funding for cancer care came from national charities, compared with between £38m and £55m coming from the NHS.
Yet these sums are tiny factions of the amount of money the government pays to wasteful organisations like the EU, following the government's pledge to pay 63% more a year to the EU from last year.
With the net payments now reaching £115 million every single week - in total £6bn a year - even the upper figures given for cancer care amount to less than a week's money given to the audit-failing EU. Right priorities?
Study author, Dr Dyfrig Hughes, said the charity figures could be an underestimate, as they did not include the many hospital and local charities which also provide funding.
"For things which might be labelled as luxury that's fine, but essential things should come from central resources to ensure equal access," he said.
Up to half of funding in NHS specialist cancer centres in England and Wales comes from charities, a team of health economists has calculated.
Some oncologists said without charity support many services would not exist.
The funding level raises questions about the government's responsibility for cancer care, the researchers say.
The report's author, Dr Dyfrig Hughes, said, "The take-home message is that it is a significant contribution towards work which arguably should be paid for by the NHS."
A total of 51 charities have been set up specifically to assist children with cancer and 340 charities had made some kind of financial contribution, the University of Bangor team report in the Journal of Child Health Care.
A further 28 organisations had been set up to provide funds for hospices.
Figures from 2003 show that between £25m and £38m (depending on the method of calculation used) of funding for cancer care came from national charities, compared with between £38m and £55m coming from the NHS.
Yet these sums are tiny factions of the amount of money the government pays to wasteful organisations like the EU, following the government's pledge to pay 63% more a year to the EU from last year.
With the net payments now reaching £115 million every single week - in total £6bn a year - even the upper figures given for cancer care amount to less than a week's money given to the audit-failing EU. Right priorities?
Study author, Dr Dyfrig Hughes, said the charity figures could be an underestimate, as they did not include the many hospital and local charities which also provide funding.
"For things which might be labelled as luxury that's fine, but essential things should come from central resources to ensure equal access," he said.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
MEPs in expenses scandals
To show exactly where the £115 million (net) Britain lavishes every week on the European Union at the cost of public services actually goes, we've put together a little collection of links to recent newspaper articles about the activities of Britain's Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
We'll leave it to you to decide whether these people deserve to wield the 63% increase in funding that Gordon Brown approved gifting them at the start of this year, and which will be backdated to the start of 2007.
Or whether spending these large sums on the other causes and purposes highlighted on this blog might be a better use of scarce public money.
MEPs 'expenses abuse' hushed up by Brussels
The Times, 21 February 2008
MEP in £500,000 allowances probe
Sunday Times, 1 June 2008
Second Tory MEP loses position over expenses
Daily Telegraph, 7 June 2008
Tory MEP Sir Robert Atkins flew to wedding on expenses
Sunday Times, 8 June 2008
Fresh names in Tory MEP expenses row
EUobserver, 9 June 2008
EastEnders MEP pays gay lover £30,000 to be his secretary
Daily Mail, 10 June 2008
MEPs say expenses troubleshooter risks a timebomb of further sleaze disclosures
The Times, 11 June 2008
The Fatcat Parliament: How MEPs pocket a staggering £630,000 a year
Evening Standard, 14 June 2008
Tory MEP Den Dover faces quiz over cars worth £65,000
Sunday Times, 15 June 2008
Despite these shocking revelations, and many more, the government keeps throwing our £115 million every week into this EU black hole of waste and fraud.
What will it take for the government to Stop the Cheques and put that money to many more essential purposes that could make life better for those who need it most?
We'll leave it to you to decide whether these people deserve to wield the 63% increase in funding that Gordon Brown approved gifting them at the start of this year, and which will be backdated to the start of 2007.
Or whether spending these large sums on the other causes and purposes highlighted on this blog might be a better use of scarce public money.
MEPs 'expenses abuse' hushed up by Brussels
The Times, 21 February 2008
MEP in £500,000 allowances probe
Sunday Times, 1 June 2008
Second Tory MEP loses position over expenses
Daily Telegraph, 7 June 2008
Tory MEP Sir Robert Atkins flew to wedding on expenses
Sunday Times, 8 June 2008
Fresh names in Tory MEP expenses row
EUobserver, 9 June 2008
EastEnders MEP pays gay lover £30,000 to be his secretary
Daily Mail, 10 June 2008
MEPs say expenses troubleshooter risks a timebomb of further sleaze disclosures
The Times, 11 June 2008
The Fatcat Parliament: How MEPs pocket a staggering £630,000 a year
Evening Standard, 14 June 2008
Tory MEP Den Dover faces quiz over cars worth £65,000
Sunday Times, 15 June 2008
Despite these shocking revelations, and many more, the government keeps throwing our £115 million every week into this EU black hole of waste and fraud.
What will it take for the government to Stop the Cheques and put that money to many more essential purposes that could make life better for those who need it most?
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Norfolk & Suffolk: Campaigners united over sea defences
Groups fighting plans to abandon coastal areas to the waves have resolved to work together to convince the government to drop the controversial proposals - reports the Eastern Daily Press.
Councillors from across Suffolk and Norfolk coastal areas and from all levels of local government met for a conference in Southwold today.
Also among more than 100 delegates were coastal pressure groups, Natural England, Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer and Euro MP Geoffrey Van Orden.
They were united in wanting to stop the Environment Agency's policy of “managed retreat”, or letting nature take its course as sea levels rise and coastal erosion continues.
The conference focused on the Blyth estuary, one of the areas which will be most affected by the policy, but also heard of concerns elsewhere on the Suffolk coast and in Norfolk.
Delegates decided that co-operation and communication were the key to persuading government to drop the plans and instead invest in flood defences.
Councillors from across Suffolk and Norfolk coastal areas and from all levels of local government met for a conference in Southwold today.
Also among more than 100 delegates were coastal pressure groups, Natural England, Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer and Euro MP Geoffrey Van Orden.
They were united in wanting to stop the Environment Agency's policy of “managed retreat”, or letting nature take its course as sea levels rise and coastal erosion continues.
The conference focused on the Blyth estuary, one of the areas which will be most affected by the policy, but also heard of concerns elsewhere on the Suffolk coast and in Norfolk.
Delegates decided that co-operation and communication were the key to persuading government to drop the plans and instead invest in flood defences.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Norfolk: Fire chief warns of flood threat
A senior fire office last night issued a stark warning that a repeat of the 1953 floods - which killed 100 in Norfolk - would have a more devastating impact today because of a lack of specialist crews - reports the Eastern Daily Press.
East Anglia has been identified as one of the least protected areas of the country in a report which reveals a national shortage of firefighters trained in flood rescues.
Paul Hayden, who coordinates flood rescues for the Chief Fire Officers' Association and is the former deputy chief fire officer for Norfolk, called for additional training and equipment so more firefighters can respond to major flooding disasters.
East Anglia has been identified as one of the least protected areas of the country in a report which reveals a national shortage of firefighters trained in flood rescues.
Paul Hayden, who coordinates flood rescues for the Chief Fire Officers' Association and is the former deputy chief fire officer for Norfolk, called for additional training and equipment so more firefighters can respond to major flooding disasters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
