Health chiefs have revealed plans to downgrade Bridlington hospital so that it will no longer treat heart patients or medical emergencies - reports the BBC.
The site will become a community hospital under proposals announced by the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Primary Care Trust (PCT).
Cardiac and acute patients will instead be treated at Hull or Scarborough.
Elsewhere in East Yorkshire, the NHS received news of a £20m funding boost, including a new hospital in Beverley.
However, this extra money - while welcome - is little more than a day's worth of money the government now pays into the EU's audit-failing budget at £115 million every single week.
The government investment will also fund a new healthcare facility in Hornsea and major refurbishment work at Driffield's Albert Bean Hospital.
So imagine what could be achieved with the equivalent of just one more day's payment to the EU, if our massive financial contribution to that audit-failing organisation were diverted instead to essential health services.
The investment is the largest single award in the latest wave of the Department of Health's £750m capital investment programme for community hospitals and services (NHS improvements being worth only six and a half weeks' worth of our payments to the EU, in the government's eyes).
On the future role of Bridlington Hospital, the Scarborough and North Yorkshire PCT said: "During the public consultation run by the trust earlier this year the support and passion for Bridlington Hospital was extremely well voiced by local people.
"Whilst recognising the level of public interest and concern...it would be neither prudent clinically, professionally nor financially to maintain services in their current format in the long term.
"Overall the number of patients served by both hospitals [Bridlington and Scarborough] is relatively small and having services duplicated across sites affects future sustainability of those services."
In September, health union officials warned that if the cardiac unit at Bridlington was closed, lives would be put at risk as patients would have to travel further for treatment.
Earlier this year, the trust revealed it intended to cut 600 jobs in an attempt to reduce its £20m deficit and cut costs.
But the losses were averted at the last minute after an agreement was reached between the trust and the strategic health authority to write off the debts.
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Police to vote on right to strike
Every police officer in the UK is to be balloted over whether they want to lobby for the right to strike, reports the BBC.
Officers are furious at Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's decision not to backdate a 2.5% pay rise for police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
At a meeting, Police Federation members also passed a vote of no confidence in Ms Smith and demanded she resign.
Chairwoman Jan Berry said: "I don't remember such a call by the Police Federation being made previously but I also don't remember a home secretary who has betrayed the police service in the way that this home secretary has."
The 2.5% pay deal was decided through the independent Police Arbitration Tribunal.
But officers say if it is introduced this month and not backdated to September, an entry level police constable will lose £131, and a sergeant will lose £206.
Critics say that without backdating, it amounts in real terms - due to inflation - to an increase of only 1.9%.
The retail prices index, on which many pay deals are based, puts the current level of inflation at 4.2%.
Some 78 MPs have signed a motion tabled by the home affairs select committee chair, Keith Vaz, urging a rethink on the issue.
The BBC's Julian Joyce said the decision to call on the home secretary to resign appeared to be popular among the rank and file.
Neil Cratchley, general secretary of the Police Federation's largest branch - the Metropolitan Police, said: "This is a process that has gone on for seven months and it's now crystal clear that she never had any intention of honouring the agreement.
"We are dealing here with matters of trust and the home secretary has breached that trust."
Jacqui Smith said the move would save £30 million, equivalent to 800 police officers, and was justified by a general policy towards controlling public sector pay.
This is another example of our government's misplaced priorities, lavishing £2.5 billion a year extra on the fraud-ridden EU while hitting the pay of hard-pressed police officers in a bid to save £30 million.
That's not even two days worth of the extra money they're gifting the EU, whose auditors haven't been able to explain how it spends the "majority" of the public money it is given for thirteen years running.
Every single MP who voted to approve the European Communities (Finance) Bill is responsible for public money shortfalls like this for essential services. See the updated list of those MPs here.
What's the betting plenty of those 78 MPs who have signed the EDM urging the government to 'think again' on police pay also voted to waste billions extra on the EU?
Officers are furious at Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's decision not to backdate a 2.5% pay rise for police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
At a meeting, Police Federation members also passed a vote of no confidence in Ms Smith and demanded she resign.
Chairwoman Jan Berry said: "I don't remember such a call by the Police Federation being made previously but I also don't remember a home secretary who has betrayed the police service in the way that this home secretary has."
The 2.5% pay deal was decided through the independent Police Arbitration Tribunal.
But officers say if it is introduced this month and not backdated to September, an entry level police constable will lose £131, and a sergeant will lose £206.
Critics say that without backdating, it amounts in real terms - due to inflation - to an increase of only 1.9%.
The retail prices index, on which many pay deals are based, puts the current level of inflation at 4.2%.
Some 78 MPs have signed a motion tabled by the home affairs select committee chair, Keith Vaz, urging a rethink on the issue.
The BBC's Julian Joyce said the decision to call on the home secretary to resign appeared to be popular among the rank and file.
Neil Cratchley, general secretary of the Police Federation's largest branch - the Metropolitan Police, said: "This is a process that has gone on for seven months and it's now crystal clear that she never had any intention of honouring the agreement.
"We are dealing here with matters of trust and the home secretary has breached that trust."
Jacqui Smith said the move would save £30 million, equivalent to 800 police officers, and was justified by a general policy towards controlling public sector pay.
This is another example of our government's misplaced priorities, lavishing £2.5 billion a year extra on the fraud-ridden EU while hitting the pay of hard-pressed police officers in a bid to save £30 million.
That's not even two days worth of the extra money they're gifting the EU, whose auditors haven't been able to explain how it spends the "majority" of the public money it is given for thirteen years running.
Every single MP who voted to approve the European Communities (Finance) Bill is responsible for public money shortfalls like this for essential services. See the updated list of those MPs here.
What's the betting plenty of those 78 MPs who have signed the EDM urging the government to 'think again' on police pay also voted to waste billions extra on the EU?
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Councils turn backs on care for older people
In the same week as MPs voted in favour of gifting the audit-failing European Union a massive and unjustifiable increase in funding of £7bn, it has been revealed that nearly three-quarters of local authorities in England are rationing social services to exclude tens of thousands of vulnerable people from help with the basic tasks of daily living.
The Guardian reports today that official figures obtained by the charity Mencap reveal the worsening plight of people who cannot wash, dress, prepare a meal or go to the shops unaided - a growing problem this blog has been recording now for more than a year.
It said the problem affected older people and adults with learning disabilities in areas where cash-strapped councils have decided they can no longer afford to provide services to everyone in need.
The information, from the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), found 73% of local authorities were planning to refuse care to everyone whose needs were not considered to be "substantial".
The government's definition of substantial covers people who "cannot carry out the majority of their personal care or domestic routines" and do not have anyone available to provide voluntary help.
It excludes people with "moderate" needs who may not be able to carry out several daily routines such as getting up in the morning, bathing and doing the washing up.
The CSCI found four local authorities intending to ration services even more tightly to provide care only to people whose needs are "critical".
Under this definition, people would not get support unless their life was in danger or they were at risk of serious abuse or neglect.
The four were Northumberland, Surrey, West Berkshire and Wokingham councils. They are about to be joined by the London borough of Harrow, which yesterday defended plans to tighten its eligibility criteria at a judicial review in the high court.
Dame Jo Williams, chief executive of Mencap, said: "These figures show the true extent of the crisis in social care. It is unacceptable in the UK in the 21st century that local authorities are refusing support to very vulnerable people with a learning disability who have no one else to turn to.
"Last month the government gave an increase of less than 1% for social services. Given rises in demand, we will just see more and more cash-strapped councils cutting back."
The tightening up of council funding means the number of households across England receiving local authority care fell from 528,500 in 1991 to 345,000 this year, despite growing numbers of older people.
The CSCI data showed rationing has become much tighter over the past two years. In 2005-06, 54% of authorities restricted services to people whose needs were deemed "substantial".
This increased to 62% in 2006-07 and - according to councils' official plans - would reach 73% by the end of March.
Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said: "Chronic under-funding of home care services means people are being deprived of the help they need until they reach crisis point ... We need a better system for paying for care to end the postcode lottery and the unfair way people on low and modest incomes are charged."
The Local Government Association said: "Councils want to provide the services vulnerable people need but are increasingly unable to do so because central government funding has not kept pace with the demands of an ageing population."
David Rogers, chairman of the association's community wellbeing board, added: "Ministers need to turn with urgency to the long-term overhaul of the future funding of adult care services ... It is unjust that people have to wait until their life is threatened, or suffer from a serious mental and physical illness, before they receive care.
"If society is to meet people's needs and aspirations, the social care system needs root and branch reform, giving individuals choice, independence, dignity and control over their lives."
Harrow council last night defended its decision to save £2m by withholding services from people in substantial need. Chris Mote, the leader, said it received less from the government than other London boroughs and had to concentrate support on the most vulnerable.
"We were forced to take action ... to balance the budget" he said.
The Guardian reports today that official figures obtained by the charity Mencap reveal the worsening plight of people who cannot wash, dress, prepare a meal or go to the shops unaided - a growing problem this blog has been recording now for more than a year.
It said the problem affected older people and adults with learning disabilities in areas where cash-strapped councils have decided they can no longer afford to provide services to everyone in need.
The information, from the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), found 73% of local authorities were planning to refuse care to everyone whose needs were not considered to be "substantial".
The government's definition of substantial covers people who "cannot carry out the majority of their personal care or domestic routines" and do not have anyone available to provide voluntary help.
It excludes people with "moderate" needs who may not be able to carry out several daily routines such as getting up in the morning, bathing and doing the washing up.
The CSCI found four local authorities intending to ration services even more tightly to provide care only to people whose needs are "critical".
Under this definition, people would not get support unless their life was in danger or they were at risk of serious abuse or neglect.
The four were Northumberland, Surrey, West Berkshire and Wokingham councils. They are about to be joined by the London borough of Harrow, which yesterday defended plans to tighten its eligibility criteria at a judicial review in the high court.
Dame Jo Williams, chief executive of Mencap, said: "These figures show the true extent of the crisis in social care. It is unacceptable in the UK in the 21st century that local authorities are refusing support to very vulnerable people with a learning disability who have no one else to turn to.
"Last month the government gave an increase of less than 1% for social services. Given rises in demand, we will just see more and more cash-strapped councils cutting back."
The tightening up of council funding means the number of households across England receiving local authority care fell from 528,500 in 1991 to 345,000 this year, despite growing numbers of older people.
The CSCI data showed rationing has become much tighter over the past two years. In 2005-06, 54% of authorities restricted services to people whose needs were deemed "substantial".
This increased to 62% in 2006-07 and - according to councils' official plans - would reach 73% by the end of March.
Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said: "Chronic under-funding of home care services means people are being deprived of the help they need until they reach crisis point ... We need a better system for paying for care to end the postcode lottery and the unfair way people on low and modest incomes are charged."
The Local Government Association said: "Councils want to provide the services vulnerable people need but are increasingly unable to do so because central government funding has not kept pace with the demands of an ageing population."
David Rogers, chairman of the association's community wellbeing board, added: "Ministers need to turn with urgency to the long-term overhaul of the future funding of adult care services ... It is unjust that people have to wait until their life is threatened, or suffer from a serious mental and physical illness, before they receive care.
"If society is to meet people's needs and aspirations, the social care system needs root and branch reform, giving individuals choice, independence, dignity and control over their lives."
Harrow council last night defended its decision to save £2m by withholding services from people in substantial need. Chris Mote, the leader, said it received less from the government than other London boroughs and had to concentrate support on the most vulnerable.
"We were forced to take action ... to balance the budget" he said.
MPs have a moral obligation to be far more responsible with scarce public money than gifting it to EU, which has a terrible reputation for waste, fraud and mismanagement.
They must choose to stand up for properly-funded care for vulnerable people and vote against the European Communities (Finance) Bill at its final reading in a few weeks time.
Labels:
council cuts,
elderly care,
harrow,
social services
'Cost-cutting' a factor in loss of data
The Government has today been accused of putting cost-cutting ahead of security as the fall out from the HM Revenue and Customs scandal continues to escalate - reports the Daily Telegraph.
Internal HMRC emails show that officials were concerned about incurring additional costs after receiving a request by the National Audit Office for details of its child benefit database.
In an email dated 13 March, with all named blanked out, an NAO official said: "I do not need address, bank or parent details in download - are these removable to make the file smaller?"
However, a subsequent internal HMRC email stated: "I must stress we must make use of data we hold and not over burden the business by asking them to run additional data scans/filters that may incur a cost to the department."
According to the Daily Telegraph, the procedure to delete the details - which would have removed much of the threat of identity fraud - would have cost just £5,000.
When the NAO asked for further copies of the files for an audit in October, an official wrote: "Last time we had 100 zipped files on 2 CDs. Please could you ensure that the CDs are delivered to the NAO as safely as possible due to their content."
The CDs were then sent by a 23-year-old junior official from HMRC through courier TNT, neither recorded nor registered.
Following the release of the emails, Liberal Democrat acting leader Vince Cable accused the Government of putting "minor cost-cutting" ahead of security.
"IT experts point out it is possible to strip out data for a modest sum but the Government's short-sightedness has led to millions of personal details getting lost in the post. This is simply unacceptable," he said.
The news that this administrative disaster rested on a desperation by the Customs & Revenue service to save a matter of £5,000 puts the decision of MPs to lavish an extra £7bn of public funds on the audit-failing European Union in stark context.
MPs simply cannot justify giving such vast sums to an organisation - the "majority" of whose annual spending remains unverifiable by auditors - while witnessing these catastophic results of drastic cost-cutting at home.
Each MP who now exhibits such misplaced priorities and votes to approve the European Communities (Finance) Bill at its final reading in Parliament in a few weeks time will have to shoulder the blame for the consequences of public money running out, like those we've seen this week.
Internal HMRC emails show that officials were concerned about incurring additional costs after receiving a request by the National Audit Office for details of its child benefit database.
In an email dated 13 March, with all named blanked out, an NAO official said: "I do not need address, bank or parent details in download - are these removable to make the file smaller?"
However, a subsequent internal HMRC email stated: "I must stress we must make use of data we hold and not over burden the business by asking them to run additional data scans/filters that may incur a cost to the department."
According to the Daily Telegraph, the procedure to delete the details - which would have removed much of the threat of identity fraud - would have cost just £5,000.
When the NAO asked for further copies of the files for an audit in October, an official wrote: "Last time we had 100 zipped files on 2 CDs. Please could you ensure that the CDs are delivered to the NAO as safely as possible due to their content."
The CDs were then sent by a 23-year-old junior official from HMRC through courier TNT, neither recorded nor registered.
Following the release of the emails, Liberal Democrat acting leader Vince Cable accused the Government of putting "minor cost-cutting" ahead of security.
"IT experts point out it is possible to strip out data for a modest sum but the Government's short-sightedness has led to millions of personal details getting lost in the post. This is simply unacceptable," he said.
The news that this administrative disaster rested on a desperation by the Customs & Revenue service to save a matter of £5,000 puts the decision of MPs to lavish an extra £7bn of public funds on the audit-failing European Union in stark context.
MPs simply cannot justify giving such vast sums to an organisation - the "majority" of whose annual spending remains unverifiable by auditors - while witnessing these catastophic results of drastic cost-cutting at home.
Each MP who now exhibits such misplaced priorities and votes to approve the European Communities (Finance) Bill at its final reading in Parliament in a few weeks time will have to shoulder the blame for the consequences of public money running out, like those we've seen this week.
Norfolk: Bed crisis sparks hospitals alert
Hospitals across the east of England have been placed on "black alert" as staff and wards are overwhelmed by high patient numbers - reports the BBC.
Non-urgent cases have been sent home after up to 10 ambulances were left queuing outside one hospital.
Few or no beds are free at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, and the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, both in Norfolk.
People with minor injuries have been urged not to attend A&E.
The alert status means plans designed to enable staff to cope with major incidents, such as terrorist attacks and train crashes, are put into action.
At the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH), which announced it had reached the emergency status on Wednesday afternoon, managers worked with other agencies to discharge non-urgent patients from the 1,000-bed hospital to create space.
However, the hospital said that between 60 and 70 beds were still being blocked because patients who were medically fit to leave had no where to go.
Paramedics treated patients in ambulances outside the NNUH on Wednesday evening.
A spokesman for the East of England Ambulance Service said: "Most things we can manage - it only becomes critical to get someone out of the ambulance and into the hospital if someone is bleeding to death or in full cardiac arrest needing resuscitation.
"There were serious condition patients but they were being treated at the NNUH by hospital staff."
NNUH spokesman Andrew Stronach said there was no single incident that brought on the beds crisis.
"It's just general run of the mill problems, like chest pains, collapses, diarrhoea and vomiting."
The James Paget hospital and the Queen Elizabeth in Kings Lynn said there were sufficient beds, but a sudden change in the weather was putting extra pressure on them.
Norman Lamb, MP for North Norfolk, said the hospital was regularly well above the safe occupancy level of 85%.
He said: "If there was to be a flu epidemic this winter then we've got a major crisis.
"Across the country we're seeing occupancy rates increasing. There's also evidence that you run an increased risk of hospital acquired infections if you've got a hospital that's literally full.
"This is a serious problem and yet there appears to be nothing being done to increase the capacity to ensure that there's enough beds to treat patients."
Milton Keynes and Hertfordshire health officials have said they are not on alert, but Bedford Hospital has been on red alert since Friday.
In Suffolk, Ipswich Hospital said it had very few beds but was managing the situation and a spokesman for the West Suffolk Hospital said its alert had been caused by sickness bugs.
Norfolk MPs Norman Lamb and Henry Bellingham can fairly claim to be doing their best to ensure local hospital services have the facilities and resources they need to avoid situations like this developing - by opposing the payment of an extra £7bn to the audit-failing European Union.
However, Tony Wright MP for Great Yarmouth and Ian Gibson MP for Norwich North both voted on Monday to approve this unjustifiable extra multi-billion-pound spending on the wasteful EU, so can hardly claim to be doing their best for essential local services.
Local voters need only wait a likely 18 months for the next general election, to let them know what they think of such irresponsible decision-making.
Non-urgent cases have been sent home after up to 10 ambulances were left queuing outside one hospital.
Few or no beds are free at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, and the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, both in Norfolk.
People with minor injuries have been urged not to attend A&E.
The alert status means plans designed to enable staff to cope with major incidents, such as terrorist attacks and train crashes, are put into action.
At the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH), which announced it had reached the emergency status on Wednesday afternoon, managers worked with other agencies to discharge non-urgent patients from the 1,000-bed hospital to create space.
However, the hospital said that between 60 and 70 beds were still being blocked because patients who were medically fit to leave had no where to go.
Paramedics treated patients in ambulances outside the NNUH on Wednesday evening.
A spokesman for the East of England Ambulance Service said: "Most things we can manage - it only becomes critical to get someone out of the ambulance and into the hospital if someone is bleeding to death or in full cardiac arrest needing resuscitation.
"There were serious condition patients but they were being treated at the NNUH by hospital staff."
NNUH spokesman Andrew Stronach said there was no single incident that brought on the beds crisis.
"It's just general run of the mill problems, like chest pains, collapses, diarrhoea and vomiting."
The James Paget hospital and the Queen Elizabeth in Kings Lynn said there were sufficient beds, but a sudden change in the weather was putting extra pressure on them.
Norman Lamb, MP for North Norfolk, said the hospital was regularly well above the safe occupancy level of 85%.
He said: "If there was to be a flu epidemic this winter then we've got a major crisis.
"Across the country we're seeing occupancy rates increasing. There's also evidence that you run an increased risk of hospital acquired infections if you've got a hospital that's literally full.
"This is a serious problem and yet there appears to be nothing being done to increase the capacity to ensure that there's enough beds to treat patients."
Milton Keynes and Hertfordshire health officials have said they are not on alert, but Bedford Hospital has been on red alert since Friday.
In Suffolk, Ipswich Hospital said it had very few beds but was managing the situation and a spokesman for the West Suffolk Hospital said its alert had been caused by sickness bugs.
Norfolk MPs Norman Lamb and Henry Bellingham can fairly claim to be doing their best to ensure local hospital services have the facilities and resources they need to avoid situations like this developing - by opposing the payment of an extra £7bn to the audit-failing European Union.
However, Tony Wright MP for Great Yarmouth and Ian Gibson MP for Norwich North both voted on Monday to approve this unjustifiable extra multi-billion-pound spending on the wasteful EU, so can hardly claim to be doing their best for essential local services.
Local voters need only wait a likely 18 months for the next general election, to let them know what they think of such irresponsible decision-making.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
'Inadequate care' in half of A&E trauma cases
Less than half the patients admitted to accident and emergency departments with severe injuries get adequate care - according to the Daily Telegraph.
A Government-funded report has found that 20% of hospitals have no dedicated trauma team and that care standards drop significantly at night, adding that trauma patients are being treated by inexperienced staff who display little urgency and make incorrect clinical decisions.
The Government is expect to seize on the findings to support a White Paper published last year advocating centralising trauma care in specialist regional centres, at the price of local A&E departments.
Critics suspect the proposals are more about cost-cutting than patient care and say the move could see 29 hospitals closed. They argue this will jeopardise the survival of patients, who will be put at risk by travelling the extra distance to a trauma centre.
Their fears are backed by recent research which suggested that mortality rates increase by 1% for every extra six miles travelled.
Commenting on the report, Dr Jonathan Fielden, of the British Medical Association, said: "It must not be taken to support closing local units, it should be used to improve patient care. There need to be more consultants employed in the NHS to lead trauma teams."
The report, "Trauma: Who Cares?", published today by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, says hospital trusts must ensure a trauma team is available 24 hours a day with an experienced consultant as leader.
Sadly this is unlikely to be affordable while MPs splash so much public cash on the audit-failing European Union.
On Monday, MPs voted to approve a massive £7bn increase in funds, taking our annual EU payments to an astonishing £10.5bn gross every year.
But while the "majority" of the EU's spending remains unverifiable by auditors, and reports of EU waste and fraud continue, there is absolutely no justification for rewarding the EU with such a huge increase in payments.
No wonder the government is having to consider centralising trauma care in regional centres, instead of properly equipping local A&E departments. Where are our MPs' priorities?
A Government-funded report has found that 20% of hospitals have no dedicated trauma team and that care standards drop significantly at night, adding that trauma patients are being treated by inexperienced staff who display little urgency and make incorrect clinical decisions.
The Government is expect to seize on the findings to support a White Paper published last year advocating centralising trauma care in specialist regional centres, at the price of local A&E departments.
Critics suspect the proposals are more about cost-cutting than patient care and say the move could see 29 hospitals closed. They argue this will jeopardise the survival of patients, who will be put at risk by travelling the extra distance to a trauma centre.
Their fears are backed by recent research which suggested that mortality rates increase by 1% for every extra six miles travelled.
Commenting on the report, Dr Jonathan Fielden, of the British Medical Association, said: "It must not be taken to support closing local units, it should be used to improve patient care. There need to be more consultants employed in the NHS to lead trauma teams."
The report, "Trauma: Who Cares?", published today by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, says hospital trusts must ensure a trauma team is available 24 hours a day with an experienced consultant as leader.
Sadly this is unlikely to be affordable while MPs splash so much public cash on the audit-failing European Union.
On Monday, MPs voted to approve a massive £7bn increase in funds, taking our annual EU payments to an astonishing £10.5bn gross every year.
But while the "majority" of the EU's spending remains unverifiable by auditors, and reports of EU waste and fraud continue, there is absolutely no justification for rewarding the EU with such a huge increase in payments.
No wonder the government is having to consider centralising trauma care in regional centres, instead of properly equipping local A&E departments. Where are our MPs' priorities?
Cash crunch will stop Forces doing their job, says ex-Army chief
The former head of the Army has warned that the Armed Forces are facing a cash "crisis" - reports the Daily Telegraph.
The news comes as, just two days ago, MPs voted to approve the government's pledge of an extra £7bn to the EU's budget, despite last week's revelation that the EU Court of Auditors has been unable to verify the "majority" of the EU's spending for the 13th year in a row.
Gen Sir Mike Jackson said recent spending commitments by the Chancellor were likely to prove insufficient to ensure the country's "national insurance policy", raising doubts over whether the military will be able to pay for future operations or major equipment projects.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "I detect, I fear, some crisis ahead in defence spending, if things go on as they are in terms of what we do, what we might have to do and the money allocated"
He hinted that there might be bad news ahead for one of the military's main procurement projects, such as new destroyers or submarines.
Since resigning, Sir Mike has also criticised the MoD's treatment of soldiers, particularly the standards of pay and living accommodation.
The MoD is currently battling with the Treasury over funding of equipment projects and "urgent operational requirements" of kit needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are also worries that without proper funding the military is going to continue to lose substantial numbers of troops who are fed up with poor pay, accommodation and constant operations.
MPs need to think again about whether gifting the EU billions of pounds extra is either affordable or justifiable while a "majority" of its spending cannot be verified, in advance of the Third Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Those who vote for such large-scale waste of public funds will then have to bear personal responsibility for the consequences of shortfalls of funds elsewhere, many examples of which are already in evidence.
The news comes as, just two days ago, MPs voted to approve the government's pledge of an extra £7bn to the EU's budget, despite last week's revelation that the EU Court of Auditors has been unable to verify the "majority" of the EU's spending for the 13th year in a row.
Gen Sir Mike Jackson said recent spending commitments by the Chancellor were likely to prove insufficient to ensure the country's "national insurance policy", raising doubts over whether the military will be able to pay for future operations or major equipment projects.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "I detect, I fear, some crisis ahead in defence spending, if things go on as they are in terms of what we do, what we might have to do and the money allocated"
He hinted that there might be bad news ahead for one of the military's main procurement projects, such as new destroyers or submarines.
Since resigning, Sir Mike has also criticised the MoD's treatment of soldiers, particularly the standards of pay and living accommodation.
The MoD is currently battling with the Treasury over funding of equipment projects and "urgent operational requirements" of kit needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are also worries that without proper funding the military is going to continue to lose substantial numbers of troops who are fed up with poor pay, accommodation and constant operations.
MPs need to think again about whether gifting the EU billions of pounds extra is either affordable or justifiable while a "majority" of its spending cannot be verified, in advance of the Third Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Those who vote for such large-scale waste of public funds will then have to bear personal responsibility for the consequences of shortfalls of funds elsewhere, many examples of which are already in evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
