Thousands of patients risk contracting potentially deadly superbugs because NHS hospitals are not taking basic steps to stop the spread of infection, the Daily Telegraph reports today.
Independent research by Dr Foster Research, an independent health information company, into the state of infection control at 167 NHS hospital trusts in England exposed chaotic monitoring systems and hospitals losing the battle against MRSA and other deadly infections.
Only 10 of the trusts surveyed could provide data showing that they had isolated more than 90% of individuals with MRSA. This is the level that infection control experts recommend as an essential safeguard in the battle against hospital-acquired bugs.
In half of the trusts surveyed, patients had to wait up to 72 hours for their screening results to be returned, putting thousands of others at risk of contracting an infection. And only five trusts could show that patients were screened and told whether they were infected in less than 24 hours.
The revelations come at a time when cases of C. difficile and MRSA are soaring and deaths linked to hospital superbugs have increased dramatically.
Office for National Statistics figures show that between 2004 and 2005, the number of deaths recorded as associated with MRSA rose 39%. Those that mentioned Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) rose by 69%. Mentions of C. difficile on death certificates rose from 2,247 in 2004 to 3,807 the following year, while mentions of MRSA rose from 1,168 to 1,629.
Patient groups have branded the revelations as "alarming". Michael Summers, of the Patients' Association, accused the Government of not taking the risk of MRSA seriously and blamed NHS cutbacks for the growing problem.
"Cuts in spending in the NHS have had a devastating impact on infection control. People phoning our helpline tell us that bed sheets aren't being washed and that beds are not being cleaned," he said.
"It's not good enough. The number of deaths from MRSA has been rising steadily since 1993 when 51 people died from the bug. In 2005, almost 1,700 people lost their lives from the infection."
Under-capacity in the health service was also blamed for exacerbating the problem. Countries with low rates of hospital-acquired infections, such as the Netherlands, are able to isolate infected patients because their hospitals are less crowded. Bed occupancy rates in the Netherlands are around 60% compared with more than 87% in Britain.
Yet billions of pounds that could be used to tackle this problem - a factor in the deaths of over 5,000 people in 2005 - by providing hospitals with more resources for cleaning, more beds and more isolation facilities, MPs instead plan to hand over to the EU.
Some MPs claim that the billions they want to pay the EU may not, if saved, necessarily be used for this purpose. But this is a feeble excuse for intending to approve obviously wasteful spending while public services clearly need more support.
More public money is required from somewhere and, until they can suggest another source, blocking vastly increased payments to a wasteful and audit-failing body like the EU is an obvious candidate for consideration.
So will MPs take the responsible course and vote against the EU budget deal? Or expose their supposed commitment to improving public services as nothing more than talk?
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Friday, 13 April 2007
Ealing: 23,000 children living in poverty
A staggering 23,000 children in Ealing are living below the poverty line, reports the Ealing Gazette.
They live in poor-quality and overcrowded housing, or temporary accommodation and will probably grow up to be poor adults with emotional issues, according to new figures that show poverty rates across 624 wards in London.
Carey Oppenheim, chair of the London Child Poverty Commission, said the problem would not be solved without major policy changes and improvements to benefits and tax credits.
She said: "Radical improvements in employment for parents of low incomes, rises in national benefits such as child benefit and child tax credit as well as specific measures which improve the incentives for Londoners to take and hold on to jobs are all needed."
Can Ealing MPs Stephen Pound, Andrew Slaughter and Piara Khabra all really intend to vote to approve paying billions of pounds a year to an audit-failing and obviously wasteful body like the EU, with such serious problems in their own backyard?
Are they saying that their constituents living in poverty can do without a share of the £2.5bn a year of public money that the government would save if they voted against the EU budget deal?
If so, they should have a serious look at their priorities. Or at least the thousands of families affected by this problem will likely be looking for change come the next election.
They live in poor-quality and overcrowded housing, or temporary accommodation and will probably grow up to be poor adults with emotional issues, according to new figures that show poverty rates across 624 wards in London.
Carey Oppenheim, chair of the London Child Poverty Commission, said the problem would not be solved without major policy changes and improvements to benefits and tax credits.
She said: "Radical improvements in employment for parents of low incomes, rises in national benefits such as child benefit and child tax credit as well as specific measures which improve the incentives for Londoners to take and hold on to jobs are all needed."
Can Ealing MPs Stephen Pound, Andrew Slaughter and Piara Khabra all really intend to vote to approve paying billions of pounds a year to an audit-failing and obviously wasteful body like the EU, with such serious problems in their own backyard?
Are they saying that their constituents living in poverty can do without a share of the £2.5bn a year of public money that the government would save if they voted against the EU budget deal?
If so, they should have a serious look at their priorities. Or at least the thousands of families affected by this problem will likely be looking for change come the next election.
Friday, 16 March 2007
Bin collections being cut to every fortnight
More homes could see the end of weekly bin collections after a government report played down claims of fortnightly collections causing hygiene problems, reports the BBC.
Many councils have already adopted a policy of collecting general waste fortnightly - with many picking up recyclable rubbish on alternate weeks.
The research into waste collections - funded by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) - found that if waste was properly wrapped there should be no hygiene concerns.
However some residents in areas where rubbish is collected fortnightly have complained of more rats, maggots and nasty odours.
Doretta Cocks, a Hampshire housewife who campaigns against fortnightly collections, says they are "not adequate" and "compromise public health".
She says her bin gives off an "awful smell" after 10 days, despite the rubbish being double-wrapped.
One third of English councils have already phased out weekly collections of general waste. Similarly, half of Welsh councils and many Northern Irish authorities already carry out less frequent collections.
Councils claim that the move to less frequent rubbish collections is more about encouraging recycling than cost-cutting. But is it becoming too much to ask that our streets are kept clean and our bins emptied?
Certainly if local authorities can no longer afford weekly bin collections, the time has come to cut wasteful spending elsewhere. Payments to an audit-failing and extremely wasteful EU must surely be a prime candidate for the chop.
Many councils have already adopted a policy of collecting general waste fortnightly - with many picking up recyclable rubbish on alternate weeks.
The research into waste collections - funded by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) - found that if waste was properly wrapped there should be no hygiene concerns.
However some residents in areas where rubbish is collected fortnightly have complained of more rats, maggots and nasty odours.
Doretta Cocks, a Hampshire housewife who campaigns against fortnightly collections, says they are "not adequate" and "compromise public health".
She says her bin gives off an "awful smell" after 10 days, despite the rubbish being double-wrapped.
One third of English councils have already phased out weekly collections of general waste. Similarly, half of Welsh councils and many Northern Irish authorities already carry out less frequent collections.
Councils claim that the move to less frequent rubbish collections is more about encouraging recycling than cost-cutting. But is it becoming too much to ask that our streets are kept clean and our bins emptied?
Certainly if local authorities can no longer afford weekly bin collections, the time has come to cut wasteful spending elsewhere. Payments to an audit-failing and extremely wasteful EU must surely be a prime candidate for the chop.
Community causes hit to meet soaring costs of Olympics
In a Times report today on the rising costs of the London Olympics, there's greater focus on the effect on the National Lottery and the good causes it supports.
The report claims that "thousands of community projects" covering health, education, arts and sport face cuts or closures over the next five years to fund the new £9.3bn bill, and reveals that, as well as the lottery contributions, Gordon Brown had to raid £5bn more from Whitehall departments.
What impact will that have on the services they provide?
Apparently the Chancellor had been pressing for a much larger contribution of £2bn from the National Lottery. Not surprising, when Tony Blair committed him to handing a net total of £36bn to the EU - completely without justification - between now and 2012.
Though it remains to be seen whether MPs will approve that bad EU budget deal.
The National Lottery was already set to contribute £1.5 billion to the Olympics costs. Further calls on its funds will inevitably have a huge impact on services.
While grants till 2009 will apparently be protected, thousands of new groups applying for cash in the next five years are likely to be turned down.
Big losers
The Big Lottery Fund, which supports tens of thousands of community projects, is to lose 17.5% of its funding, totalling an extra £425 million over four years.
The Arts Council England faces an extra £62 million cut, the Heritage Fund will lose £90 million and Sport England will lose £55 million during the same period.
The Times report also provides more information about where Ken Livingstone will find the extra £300 million he now has to contribute - without putting up council tax.
Livingstone is also said to have pledged to protect transport fares, but his office said the funding would be shared between Transport for London and the London Development Agency.
Peter Hewitt, chief executive of Arts Council England, said he was deeply disappointed that more money was to be diverted away from the arts.
He said, “The impact is likely to be felt across the whole of England and disproportionately by smaller arts organisations, local projects and individual artists — the main recipients of our lottery funds,” Mr Hewitt said.
Dame Liz Forgan, chairwoman of the Heritage Lottery Fund, said that the cuts were “bad news for the UK’s heritage” and that she expected libraries and museums to face serious cutbacks.
She said, “In recent years our lottery money has been the single largest source of support not only for our historic places, museums and galleries but also for our natural heritage and the cultural history of the people of these islands.”
Derek Mapp, the chairman of Sport England, said: “The decision to divert a further £55.9 million of Sport England’s share of lottery income between 2009 and 2012 to fund the Olympics and Paralympics seriously endangers the creation of a sporting legacy from the 2012 Games.”
Sir Clive Booth, chair of the Big Lottery Fund said that the Government’s decision to divert £425 million from its good-causes resources “will be a cause of concern for many organisations across the UK”.
Yet depriving money from good uses and causes in all these areas wouldn't be necessary if the government weren't wasting such an unjustifiably large amount of money on the EU.
Will MPs take the right decision when the EU budget deal comes before Parliament, and choose to countermand Blair's waste, save the money and prevent these cuts instead?
In the real world of finite government resources, MPs must take difficult choices and ask: who deserves those tens of billions of pounds more?
Good causes? Or an organisation with a terrible reputation for waste and fraud, that hasn't had its accounts approved by auditors for twelve years running?
No contest, surely.
The report claims that "thousands of community projects" covering health, education, arts and sport face cuts or closures over the next five years to fund the new £9.3bn bill, and reveals that, as well as the lottery contributions, Gordon Brown had to raid £5bn more from Whitehall departments.
What impact will that have on the services they provide?
Apparently the Chancellor had been pressing for a much larger contribution of £2bn from the National Lottery. Not surprising, when Tony Blair committed him to handing a net total of £36bn to the EU - completely without justification - between now and 2012.
Though it remains to be seen whether MPs will approve that bad EU budget deal.
The National Lottery was already set to contribute £1.5 billion to the Olympics costs. Further calls on its funds will inevitably have a huge impact on services.
While grants till 2009 will apparently be protected, thousands of new groups applying for cash in the next five years are likely to be turned down.
Big losers
The Big Lottery Fund, which supports tens of thousands of community projects, is to lose 17.5% of its funding, totalling an extra £425 million over four years.
The Arts Council England faces an extra £62 million cut, the Heritage Fund will lose £90 million and Sport England will lose £55 million during the same period.
The Times report also provides more information about where Ken Livingstone will find the extra £300 million he now has to contribute - without putting up council tax.
Livingstone is also said to have pledged to protect transport fares, but his office said the funding would be shared between Transport for London and the London Development Agency.
Peter Hewitt, chief executive of Arts Council England, said he was deeply disappointed that more money was to be diverted away from the arts.
He said, “The impact is likely to be felt across the whole of England and disproportionately by smaller arts organisations, local projects and individual artists — the main recipients of our lottery funds,” Mr Hewitt said.
Dame Liz Forgan, chairwoman of the Heritage Lottery Fund, said that the cuts were “bad news for the UK’s heritage” and that she expected libraries and museums to face serious cutbacks.
She said, “In recent years our lottery money has been the single largest source of support not only for our historic places, museums and galleries but also for our natural heritage and the cultural history of the people of these islands.”
Derek Mapp, the chairman of Sport England, said: “The decision to divert a further £55.9 million of Sport England’s share of lottery income between 2009 and 2012 to fund the Olympics and Paralympics seriously endangers the creation of a sporting legacy from the 2012 Games.”
Sir Clive Booth, chair of the Big Lottery Fund said that the Government’s decision to divert £425 million from its good-causes resources “will be a cause of concern for many organisations across the UK”.
Yet depriving money from good uses and causes in all these areas wouldn't be necessary if the government weren't wasting such an unjustifiably large amount of money on the EU.
Will MPs take the right decision when the EU budget deal comes before Parliament, and choose to countermand Blair's waste, save the money and prevent these cuts instead?
In the real world of finite government resources, MPs must take difficult choices and ask: who deserves those tens of billions of pounds more?
Good causes? Or an organisation with a terrible reputation for waste and fraud, that hasn't had its accounts approved by auditors for twelve years running?
No contest, surely.
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
'Screen all for MRSA' experts say
Researchers at Nottingham University have recommended that all patients coming in to hospitals for operations should be tested for the MRSA superbug, according to the BBC.
Experts say that this could cut MRSA rates to the Scandinavian levels of 2% within six years, compared to the UK's current rate of 44%.
They have also developed a test which would identify MRSA in all its forms within hours. The test currently used by NHS trusts to check if someone has basic MRSA takes up to three days.
The Department of Health has itself acknowledged that there should be "universal screening" of patients going into hospital, also saying "Tackling health care acquired infections is a top priority for the government and the health service."
So why isn't this happening? The reason is that universal screening for MRSA means higher costs, and the choice has been left to individual NHS trusts to "determine the most appropriate initial approach to screening for their patient population."
Though with many NHS trusts struggling to recover debts and having to make cuts to services, taking on extra costs - no matter how much the outcome may help patients - is a remote possibility.
Of course, we have a helpful suggestion for where vast amounts of wasted money could be diverted from, to pay for universal MRSA testing and saving unnecessary loss of life.
Bizarrely some MPs seem to think that the audit-failing EU deserves those billions more.
Experts say that this could cut MRSA rates to the Scandinavian levels of 2% within six years, compared to the UK's current rate of 44%.
They have also developed a test which would identify MRSA in all its forms within hours. The test currently used by NHS trusts to check if someone has basic MRSA takes up to three days.
The Department of Health has itself acknowledged that there should be "universal screening" of patients going into hospital, also saying "Tackling health care acquired infections is a top priority for the government and the health service."
So why isn't this happening? The reason is that universal screening for MRSA means higher costs, and the choice has been left to individual NHS trusts to "determine the most appropriate initial approach to screening for their patient population."
Though with many NHS trusts struggling to recover debts and having to make cuts to services, taking on extra costs - no matter how much the outcome may help patients - is a remote possibility.
Of course, we have a helpful suggestion for where vast amounts of wasted money could be diverted from, to pay for universal MRSA testing and saving unnecessary loss of life.
Bizarrely some MPs seem to think that the audit-failing EU deserves those billions more.
Saturday, 24 February 2007
Call for Olympic spending checks
A new study by the BBC has shown that the cost estimates for the London 2012 Olympics continue to rise, with the latest estimate now nearing £9bn.
This is four times the £2.35bn figure set out in the city's bid for the Games, which itself rose 40% to £3.3bn back in November according to the culture secretary Tessa Jowell.
Now the BBC has found that construction alone will equal that figure. A further £2bn construction contingency fund will be set aside, with regeneration costs of £1.8bn and a £1bn VAT bill taking the total higher.
The big question is: where is this money going to come from? The answer seems likely to be an ever greater reliance on contributions from the National Lottery.
But as Shadow culture secretary Hugo Swire said on the BBC's Today programme, "Now the lottery is already having to contribute one and a half billion pounds which is going to mean a lot of the other good causes are going to suffer as a result."
But there is an alternative. By the time the Games come around in 2012, the government will also have paid the EU a net total of £36bn - if the current EU budget deal gets approved by MPs.
That's several times more than the total cost of the Games, even at the level of current upper estimates.
Just an idea, but instead of depriving good causes of lottery money, why not put a stop to those payments to the EU until that organisation can at least get its accounts approved by auditors. Whatever accrues from this source can be put towards plugging the Olympics funding gap.
We'd find there would be lots left over for other useful purposes too, like paying off NHS deficits and preventing further cuts to health services.
There's certainly no justification for continuing to send billions to the EU while auditors can't tell us how the "majority" is being spent. Especially when public money is urgently needed elsewhere.
So who's getting the chop Tessa? Lottery-funded good causes, or the EU?
This is four times the £2.35bn figure set out in the city's bid for the Games, which itself rose 40% to £3.3bn back in November according to the culture secretary Tessa Jowell.
Now the BBC has found that construction alone will equal that figure. A further £2bn construction contingency fund will be set aside, with regeneration costs of £1.8bn and a £1bn VAT bill taking the total higher.
The big question is: where is this money going to come from? The answer seems likely to be an ever greater reliance on contributions from the National Lottery.
But as Shadow culture secretary Hugo Swire said on the BBC's Today programme, "Now the lottery is already having to contribute one and a half billion pounds which is going to mean a lot of the other good causes are going to suffer as a result."
But there is an alternative. By the time the Games come around in 2012, the government will also have paid the EU a net total of £36bn - if the current EU budget deal gets approved by MPs.
That's several times more than the total cost of the Games, even at the level of current upper estimates.
Just an idea, but instead of depriving good causes of lottery money, why not put a stop to those payments to the EU until that organisation can at least get its accounts approved by auditors. Whatever accrues from this source can be put towards plugging the Olympics funding gap.
We'd find there would be lots left over for other useful purposes too, like paying off NHS deficits and preventing further cuts to health services.
There's certainly no justification for continuing to send billions to the EU while auditors can't tell us how the "majority" is being spent. Especially when public money is urgently needed elsewhere.
So who's getting the chop Tessa? Lottery-funded good causes, or the EU?
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Labour MP: Post offices are being bled dry
A Labour MP has spoken out today against the planned closure of 2,500 post offices, reports the Daily Telegraph.
Jim Fitzpatrick, the Post Office Minister, decided before Christmas that the Government would close 2,500 loss-making post offices, despite a Federation of Subpostmasters petition collecting four million signatures against the plan.
It has not yet been decided which offices should close, but many are expected to be in rural areas, leaving pensioners and other vulnerable people struggling.
Today Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall in south London, blamed the increasing closures of post offices on the government taking work away from them, causing many to lose too much money to be viable.
But the government has not been compensating them by increasing subsidies.
Hoey said "It seems that one part of the Government does not know what other parts are doing. There is nothing joined up about the way the Government has been treating the post office".
Age Concern has also warned that older people in rural areas were becoming more isolated as post offices closed. Margaret Creear, the organisation's campaigns project officer, said "The post office ensures local access for older people to the basic essential services.
"The post office is important for social contact – literally a lifeline – for many older people."
The Government defended its plans by claiming that it was continuing to subsidise the rural network, but that there was "widespread recognition that the current size of the network is unsustainable".
However, they did not clarify who this alleged "widespread" body of opinion consisted of, whereas four million signatures against the closures is a quite clearly 'widespread' body of opinion to the contrary.
The truth is that the government is not prepared to increase the subsidy to keep these important rural lifelines open. If the reason is that they haven't the money, then MPs should not even be considering voting billions more than we already pay away to the audit-failing EU.
Jim Fitzpatrick, the Post Office Minister, decided before Christmas that the Government would close 2,500 loss-making post offices, despite a Federation of Subpostmasters petition collecting four million signatures against the plan.
It has not yet been decided which offices should close, but many are expected to be in rural areas, leaving pensioners and other vulnerable people struggling.
Today Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall in south London, blamed the increasing closures of post offices on the government taking work away from them, causing many to lose too much money to be viable.
But the government has not been compensating them by increasing subsidies.
Hoey said "It seems that one part of the Government does not know what other parts are doing. There is nothing joined up about the way the Government has been treating the post office".
Age Concern has also warned that older people in rural areas were becoming more isolated as post offices closed. Margaret Creear, the organisation's campaigns project officer, said "The post office ensures local access for older people to the basic essential services.
"The post office is important for social contact – literally a lifeline – for many older people."
The Government defended its plans by claiming that it was continuing to subsidise the rural network, but that there was "widespread recognition that the current size of the network is unsustainable".
However, they did not clarify who this alleged "widespread" body of opinion consisted of, whereas four million signatures against the closures is a quite clearly 'widespread' body of opinion to the contrary.
The truth is that the government is not prepared to increase the subsidy to keep these important rural lifelines open. If the reason is that they haven't the money, then MPs should not even be considering voting billions more than we already pay away to the audit-failing EU.
Tuesday, 20 February 2007
NHS deficit rises to over £1.3 billion
The Daily Telegraph reports today that the NHS is sliding further into debt, making further cuts to services more likely.
The total NHS deficit has risen from an original estimate of
£500 million when problems first arose to £1.3 billion today.
The NHS budget is set to break even over this financial year, but only after slashing £450 million from the cost of training NHS staff. NHS chief executive David Nicholson has said that the accumulated deficit would however take years to clear.
Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman is quoted as saying "Scores of trusts are under immense pressure to clear historic deficits, and are forced to make cuts in so called 'soft target' services."
There was warning of further trouble ahead for the NHS if such cuts impinge on nurses pay, as a poll for the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) revealed that nearly two-thirds of nurses would be willing to take industrial action if they receive an unsatisfactory pay deal this year.
The Times also carries a report on the worsening situation in the NHS, quoting Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the RCN.
Dr Carter said “Ministers today might try to claim a small NHS surplus but this smoke-and-mirrors figure has only been achieved by raiding essential NHS training budgets, freezing posts, shedding jobs and cutting patient services.”
The reality is that all these problems could be solved in the course of a few weeks by drawing a halt to the vast amounts of money currently being sent to the EU. EU auditors remain unable to explain how the "majority" of that money is being spent, while reports of fraud continue to flow. Billions are being wasted and public services suffer while MPs do not act.
At the very least, MPs need to block Blair's unjustified plan to increase payments to the EU by the 60%, by voting against the EU budget deal when it comes before Parliament in the near future.
The resulting proceeds can be immediately redistributed to more urgent public priorities, like maintaining essential local health services. Or rural post offices. Or increasing pensions...
The total NHS deficit has risen from an original estimate of
£500 million when problems first arose to £1.3 billion today.
The NHS budget is set to break even over this financial year, but only after slashing £450 million from the cost of training NHS staff. NHS chief executive David Nicholson has said that the accumulated deficit would however take years to clear.
Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman is quoted as saying "Scores of trusts are under immense pressure to clear historic deficits, and are forced to make cuts in so called 'soft target' services."
There was warning of further trouble ahead for the NHS if such cuts impinge on nurses pay, as a poll for the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) revealed that nearly two-thirds of nurses would be willing to take industrial action if they receive an unsatisfactory pay deal this year.
The Times also carries a report on the worsening situation in the NHS, quoting Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the RCN.
Dr Carter said “Ministers today might try to claim a small NHS surplus but this smoke-and-mirrors figure has only been achieved by raiding essential NHS training budgets, freezing posts, shedding jobs and cutting patient services.”
The reality is that all these problems could be solved in the course of a few weeks by drawing a halt to the vast amounts of money currently being sent to the EU. EU auditors remain unable to explain how the "majority" of that money is being spent, while reports of fraud continue to flow. Billions are being wasted and public services suffer while MPs do not act.
At the very least, MPs need to block Blair's unjustified plan to increase payments to the EU by the 60%, by voting against the EU budget deal when it comes before Parliament in the near future.
The resulting proceeds can be immediately redistributed to more urgent public priorities, like maintaining essential local health services. Or rural post offices. Or increasing pensions...
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Tuition fees 'may rise to £6,000
A survey of England's university managers has raised fears of tuition fees rising to at least £6,000 a year, with fees for some science courses potentially reaching £10,000 - reports the BBC.
Vice-chancellors from the Russell Group - the top 20 universities which conduct the most research - said maximum fees of £3,000 would have to at least double following a review of the system in 2009.
A questionnaire was sent by the Guardian newspaper to every university in England, almost all of which charge the maximum £3,000 fee. Some 40 vice-chancellors responded - most anonymously
One Russell Group head suggested families should expect to save much more for their children's education.
Comparing the average funds available to teach an undergraduate in England, £7,300, with those available in the United States - some £11,500, he said there were only two ways to bridge the gap.
"One is by increased government grant, which seems unlikely in the present circumstances, the other is by a higher tuition fee charge," he added.
If the government claims that it's not affordable to improve the quality of Britain's university graduates by contributing to resources available to teaching, rather than allowing universities to pile yet more financial burdens on students, then it's clearly time to cut unjustified government spending from elsewhere.
The government claims that education is a top priority. But that doesn't really match with forcing still more debt onto students while planning to waste £115 million every week on payments to the European Union.
Vice-chancellors from the Russell Group - the top 20 universities which conduct the most research - said maximum fees of £3,000 would have to at least double following a review of the system in 2009.
A questionnaire was sent by the Guardian newspaper to every university in England, almost all of which charge the maximum £3,000 fee. Some 40 vice-chancellors responded - most anonymously
One Russell Group head suggested families should expect to save much more for their children's education.
Comparing the average funds available to teach an undergraduate in England, £7,300, with those available in the United States - some £11,500, he said there were only two ways to bridge the gap.
"One is by increased government grant, which seems unlikely in the present circumstances, the other is by a higher tuition fee charge," he added.
If the government claims that it's not affordable to improve the quality of Britain's university graduates by contributing to resources available to teaching, rather than allowing universities to pile yet more financial burdens on students, then it's clearly time to cut unjustified government spending from elsewhere.
The government claims that education is a top priority. But that doesn't really match with forcing still more debt onto students while planning to waste £115 million every week on payments to the European Union.
Monday, 8 January 2007
Struggling midwives left feeling the pain
The Royal College of Midwives today released a survey of heads of midwifery across the country which has revealed that, while births are on the rise, two thirds claim that their units were understaffed and more than one in five saying they had lost staff last year.
Quoted in the Daily Telegraph, Louise Silverton, the deputy general secretary of the college said:
"Heads of midwifery are in charge of making sure that women have a good birthing experience and that is very hard when a third of those who responded to our survey said their maternity services budget had been cut, that a total recruitment freeze was still in place in many units and that newly-qualified midwives are not getting jobs.
"This survey should make it very clear that maternity services are being pared back at a time when the Government's manifesto pledges to give all women choice over where and how they give birth as well as being supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy.
"Unless midwifery services are expanded there is no hope of these manifesto commitments being achieved."
The report goes on to cite cutbacks in the use of qualified staff and in training budgets, with a third saying their training budget had been cut by more than 75% and two thirds by over 50%. 66% of senior midwives who responded also reported that their NHS trusts were in deficit in 2005-06.
MPs need to decide whether, faced with clear shortages such as this, they are going to approve sending billions more pounds to the audit-failing EU when the EU budget deal comes before Parliament, or more properly save that money for such essential services.
Particularly Labour MPs, when such a service relates to a clear manifesto commitment.
Quoted in the Daily Telegraph, Louise Silverton, the deputy general secretary of the college said:
"Heads of midwifery are in charge of making sure that women have a good birthing experience and that is very hard when a third of those who responded to our survey said their maternity services budget had been cut, that a total recruitment freeze was still in place in many units and that newly-qualified midwives are not getting jobs.
"This survey should make it very clear that maternity services are being pared back at a time when the Government's manifesto pledges to give all women choice over where and how they give birth as well as being supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy.
"Unless midwifery services are expanded there is no hope of these manifesto commitments being achieved."
The report goes on to cite cutbacks in the use of qualified staff and in training budgets, with a third saying their training budget had been cut by more than 75% and two thirds by over 50%. 66% of senior midwives who responded also reported that their NHS trusts were in deficit in 2005-06.
MPs need to decide whether, faced with clear shortages such as this, they are going to approve sending billions more pounds to the audit-failing EU when the EU budget deal comes before Parliament, or more properly save that money for such essential services.
Particularly Labour MPs, when such a service relates to a clear manifesto commitment.
Business training for the police to cut £250m
Facing cuts in government funding, police forces are being advised by the Treasury to focus much more on getting 'value for money' from investigations, reports the Daily Telegraph.
One proposal is for officers and every new recruit to be given business management training, as the Treasury is distressed that police officers 'lack business skills'.
The Treasury is looking to save £250 million each year, equating to £37m a year needed to be saved by large forces like those in Devon and Cornwall, with an annual budget of around £248m.
Demonstrating the likely result of such cuts, the reports cites the example of the Durham Constabulary, which recently announced that it is shedding 100 officers.
Yet the savings of £250 million a year that the government is seeking to make, and is likely to have a frontline impact on police performance, represent just over two weeks worth of our contributions of the EU budget (at £115 million a week net, from 2007).
Just two weeks of not paying the EU would prevent these cutbacks having to be made to essential police resources. Where are our MPs' priorities?
One proposal is for officers and every new recruit to be given business management training, as the Treasury is distressed that police officers 'lack business skills'.
The Treasury is looking to save £250 million each year, equating to £37m a year needed to be saved by large forces like those in Devon and Cornwall, with an annual budget of around £248m.
Demonstrating the likely result of such cuts, the reports cites the example of the Durham Constabulary, which recently announced that it is shedding 100 officers.
Yet the savings of £250 million a year that the government is seeking to make, and is likely to have a frontline impact on police performance, represent just over two weeks worth of our contributions of the EU budget (at £115 million a week net, from 2007).
Just two weeks of not paying the EU would prevent these cutbacks having to be made to essential police resources. Where are our MPs' priorities?
Thursday, 4 January 2007
Operations cancelled as NHS runs out of money
In this report on January 4th, The Times summarises the ongoing financial crisis in the NHS and its serious implications for patients.
It cites examples from across the country of how the NHS is having to deny patients basic surgery in order to balance their books before the end of the financial year.
Cutbacks include the cancellation of routine operations that would treat basic but painful problems such as wisdom teeth, bunions, knee complaints and bad backs.
Patients are also being warned to expect long delays before getting appointments - already up to 16 weeks in Yorkshire and 17 weeks in Norfolk.
The cause of these problems remains the deficits many NHS trusts are facing and their attempts to cut their expenditure in order to recover their debts before the end of the financial year in April.
The North York and Yorkshire Primary Care Trust is named as having a deficit of £24 million - which means patients in Yorkshire are being left in pain for months on end for an amount of money that equals less that two days worth of our contributions to the European Union budget.
Would many really notice the effect on their lives if the EU were denied a mere couple of days worth of our payments? Unlikely. Yet thousands of patients in pain would certainly be relieved if the NHS were given the money instead.
MPs need to show where their priorities really lie and vote against the EU budget deal authorising billions more pounds for the already lavishly-funded EU, so that the money can be spent far more effectively on essential public services instead.
It cites examples from across the country of how the NHS is having to deny patients basic surgery in order to balance their books before the end of the financial year.
Cutbacks include the cancellation of routine operations that would treat basic but painful problems such as wisdom teeth, bunions, knee complaints and bad backs.
Patients are also being warned to expect long delays before getting appointments - already up to 16 weeks in Yorkshire and 17 weeks in Norfolk.
The cause of these problems remains the deficits many NHS trusts are facing and their attempts to cut their expenditure in order to recover their debts before the end of the financial year in April.
The North York and Yorkshire Primary Care Trust is named as having a deficit of £24 million - which means patients in Yorkshire are being left in pain for months on end for an amount of money that equals less that two days worth of our contributions to the European Union budget.
Would many really notice the effect on their lives if the EU were denied a mere couple of days worth of our payments? Unlikely. Yet thousands of patients in pain would certainly be relieved if the NHS were given the money instead.
MPs need to show where their priorities really lie and vote against the EU budget deal authorising billions more pounds for the already lavishly-funded EU, so that the money can be spent far more effectively on essential public services instead.
Sunday, 10 December 2006
Thousands more post offices will go
The implications of cuts to government subidies for post offices are being highlighted today by the Daily Telegraph.
The paper is reporting that somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 face the axe out of a total network of 14,500, according to Whitehall sources.
Rural areas are likely to be hit hardest by such cuts, with the local post office often playing a central role in community life. More than 4,000 offices have closed in the past six years and more than 5,000 in the past 10 years. Many of the remaining 14,500 lose money, particularly those in rural areas.
The Government provides a £150 million annual subsidy, but this subsidy is being cut causing the closures.
Royal Mail executives are understood to have given ministers a detailed breakdown detailing how many offices will have to close if the £150 million-a-year subsidy is cut to various levels.
The question is why is this subsidy being cut? It isn't even 10 days worth of the cash Tony Blair has promised to pay the EU from next year - at £115 million a week (net). Were we to Stop the Cheques there'd be money for an increased subsidy and much more besides.
If only the government could get its priorities right and start looking after essential needs like post offices rather than lavishing billions more on an already wealthy but wasteful EU.
The paper is reporting that somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 face the axe out of a total network of 14,500, according to Whitehall sources.
Rural areas are likely to be hit hardest by such cuts, with the local post office often playing a central role in community life. More than 4,000 offices have closed in the past six years and more than 5,000 in the past 10 years. Many of the remaining 14,500 lose money, particularly those in rural areas.
The Government provides a £150 million annual subsidy, but this subsidy is being cut causing the closures.
Royal Mail executives are understood to have given ministers a detailed breakdown detailing how many offices will have to close if the £150 million-a-year subsidy is cut to various levels.
The question is why is this subsidy being cut? It isn't even 10 days worth of the cash Tony Blair has promised to pay the EU from next year - at £115 million a week (net). Were we to Stop the Cheques there'd be money for an increased subsidy and much more besides.
If only the government could get its priorities right and start looking after essential needs like post offices rather than lavishing billions more on an already wealthy but wasteful EU.
Thursday, 19 October 2006
Britain now No 1 al-Qaida target
Britain has become the main target for a resurgent al-Qaida, which has successfully regrouped and now presents a greater threat than ever before, The Guardian reports today.
Counter-terrorist officials have revised their views about the strength of the network abroad, and the methods terrorists are able to use in the UK.
With this apparently growing threat, would it not be more sensible and responsible for the government to spend extra money on ensuring our security, rather than paying billions more to an organisation like the EU. The EU remains beset by reports of waste and fraud and auditors can't explain where the "vast majority" of its money goes.
It's worth remembering that the security services stopped watching one of those involved in the 7th July London bombings due to a lack of resources, according to the official report into those events.
MPs who vote to approve paying billions more to the EU will need to explain their choice to their constituents if lack of funds to support anti-terrorism work compromises our security again.
Counter-terrorist officials have revised their views about the strength of the network abroad, and the methods terrorists are able to use in the UK.
With this apparently growing threat, would it not be more sensible and responsible for the government to spend extra money on ensuring our security, rather than paying billions more to an organisation like the EU. The EU remains beset by reports of waste and fraud and auditors can't explain where the "vast majority" of its money goes.
It's worth remembering that the security services stopped watching one of those involved in the 7th July London bombings due to a lack of resources, according to the official report into those events.
MPs who vote to approve paying billions more to the EU will need to explain their choice to their constituents if lack of funds to support anti-terrorism work compromises our security again.
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Millions petition for post offices
Tony Blair has ruled out further subsidies to safeguard the country's declining post office network despite a petition with four million names demanding urgent action being handed in to 10 Downing Street today, reports The Times.
The PM said that up to £2 billion had already been invested and with current subsidies at £150 million a year, no more money would be made available.
As he spoke, thousands of postmasters attended a rally in Westminster to try and stave off the unravelling Britain's rural network.
Current subsidies at £150 million a year sounds a lot. But it's nothing in context of the cash we pay the EU, without justification given they can't tell us how they spend it.
That post office subsidy will be a bit more than one week's worth of next year's net contribution to the EU at £115 million a week, if MPs vote to approve the EU budget deal Blair did last December when it comes before Parliament.
The government could afford more to keep these vital community services open if such vast amounts weren't being wasted by handing them to the EU.
MPs who vote this money away to the EU will have no defence if their local post office faces closure due to a lack of government support.
The PM said that up to £2 billion had already been invested and with current subsidies at £150 million a year, no more money would be made available.
As he spoke, thousands of postmasters attended a rally in Westminster to try and stave off the unravelling Britain's rural network.
Current subsidies at £150 million a year sounds a lot. But it's nothing in context of the cash we pay the EU, without justification given they can't tell us how they spend it.
That post office subsidy will be a bit more than one week's worth of next year's net contribution to the EU at £115 million a week, if MPs vote to approve the EU budget deal Blair did last December when it comes before Parliament.
The government could afford more to keep these vital community services open if such vast amounts weren't being wasted by handing them to the EU.
MPs who vote this money away to the EU will have no defence if their local post office faces closure due to a lack of government support.
Monday, 16 October 2006
Plea to lift ban on Alzheimer's drugs fails
Alzheimer's campaigners lost an appeal yesterday for drugs to be made available to sufferers in the early stages of the disease, reports the Daily Telegraph.
Campaigners claim that the decision victimised some of the most vulnerable people in society.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) ruled that Aricept (donepezil), Reminyl (galantamine) and Exelon (rivastigmine) should only be used to treat those with moderate Alzheimer's. Ebixa (memantine) is only to be used in clinical studies for moderately severe to severe sufferers.
It means the drugs will not be available on the NHS for sufferers in the early stages of the disease, although those currently on the drug will not have them withdrawn.
The licence holder of one of the drugs attacked the decision, saying it was "perverse" and that they would consider seeking a judicial review.
Campaigners and doctors who had appealed against Nice's initial guidance in July accused the body of penny pinching, saying the drugs cost as little as £2.50 per day per person.
Supplying these drugs would cost a tiny proportion of our £115 million a week contributions to the lavishly-funded EU - who needs our help more?
Campaigners claim that the decision victimised some of the most vulnerable people in society.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) ruled that Aricept (donepezil), Reminyl (galantamine) and Exelon (rivastigmine) should only be used to treat those with moderate Alzheimer's. Ebixa (memantine) is only to be used in clinical studies for moderately severe to severe sufferers.
It means the drugs will not be available on the NHS for sufferers in the early stages of the disease, although those currently on the drug will not have them withdrawn.
The licence holder of one of the drugs attacked the decision, saying it was "perverse" and that they would consider seeking a judicial review.
Campaigners and doctors who had appealed against Nice's initial guidance in July accused the body of penny pinching, saying the drugs cost as little as £2.50 per day per person.
Supplying these drugs would cost a tiny proportion of our £115 million a week contributions to the lavishly-funded EU - who needs our help more?
Friday, 13 October 2006
Chemistry labs 'need £2bn boost'
A small report in the Daily Telegraph today says that plans to upgrade chemistry laboratories in schools will fall a quarter of a century behind a government target unless extra money is earmarked.
According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, almost £2 billion is needed to achieve the right standard and keep the country competitive.
Richard Pike, the RSC chief executive said, "Without something being done to address this slippage, Britain could drift to the margins of world science as potential young talent goes unexploited."
MPs intending to vote three times this amount to be paid to the EU every year until 2013 need to decide who they are elected to represent. Co-operating with other European countries and supporting economic development abroad does not need a vast central EU budget - especially one that auditors cannot sign off as accurate, and which is beset by reports of waste, maladministration and fraud.
According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, almost £2 billion is needed to achieve the right standard and keep the country competitive.
Richard Pike, the RSC chief executive said, "Without something being done to address this slippage, Britain could drift to the margins of world science as potential young talent goes unexploited."
MPs intending to vote three times this amount to be paid to the EU every year until 2013 need to decide who they are elected to represent. Co-operating with other European countries and supporting economic development abroad does not need a vast central EU budget - especially one that auditors cannot sign off as accurate, and which is beset by reports of waste, maladministration and fraud.
Thursday, 3 August 2006
Red tape kills care home
A holiday home that offers respite breaks for hundreds of disabled people is set to close after struggling to cope with the spiralling cost of care, reports the Eastern Daily Press.
The Norfolk-based charity which runs the home has been forced into the move because it can't find the £500,000 needed to meet the strict standards demanded by the government.
Hundreds of families from East Anglia depend on the centre to ease the strain of round-the-clock care.
One parent described her "total despair" if the home can no longer help her severely-disabled daughter.
All 23 staff, several of whom have worked there many years, have been told they face redundancy as the charity looks at a radical overhaul of its service to save money.
Maybe if the government weren't wasting billions of pounds by handing it to an organisation like the EU with a terrible record for waste and fraud, and that hasn't had its accounts approved by auditors for twelve years running, it could afford to make grants to hard-pressed charities like this one - to help them fund work necessary to meet the "strict standards" the government is setting.
The Norfolk-based charity which runs the home has been forced into the move because it can't find the £500,000 needed to meet the strict standards demanded by the government.
Hundreds of families from East Anglia depend on the centre to ease the strain of round-the-clock care.
One parent described her "total despair" if the home can no longer help her severely-disabled daughter.
All 23 staff, several of whom have worked there many years, have been told they face redundancy as the charity looks at a radical overhaul of its service to save money.
Maybe if the government weren't wasting billions of pounds by handing it to an organisation like the EU with a terrible record for waste and fraud, and that hasn't had its accounts approved by auditors for twelve years running, it could afford to make grants to hard-pressed charities like this one - to help them fund work necessary to meet the "strict standards" the government is setting.
Friday, 21 July 2006
Manchester: Troubled NHS trust sells office
A hospital trust which is £28m in debt is to sell off its headquarters to help balance the books, the BBC reports today.
The Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust said its Westhulme building in Oldham - a former infectious diseases hospital - is going on the market. Staff were told on Friday that they will move to offices across the trust's four hospitals.
It is hoped the move will also help reduce the number of posts to be lost, now estimated as 325. The trust said the majority of staff affected will be redeployed and it hopes that less than 100 will actually be made redundant.
Pennine Acute runs North Manchester General, The Royal Oldham, Rochdale Infirmary and Bury's Fairfield General Hospital. It has an annual budget of more than £400m and employs about 10,000 staff.
But it is facing a £21.3m deficit this year and has an underlying recurrent deficit of £28.3m.
As part of its "recovery programme", about 10% of the trust's 2,500 beds will be reduced, but bosses said that this in line with wider NHS forecasts for moving health services into the community.
The 284 Westhulme staff will move to different hospitals, with the management team and official headquarters based at North Manchester.
So this trust is having to chop 250 beds and cut staff with all the implications for patient care and increased suffering that has - all due to a deficit equivalent to less than TWO days worth of our payments to the EU? Surely the EU can spare a couple of days of our cash to save 250 hospital beds.
The Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust said its Westhulme building in Oldham - a former infectious diseases hospital - is going on the market. Staff were told on Friday that they will move to offices across the trust's four hospitals.
It is hoped the move will also help reduce the number of posts to be lost, now estimated as 325. The trust said the majority of staff affected will be redeployed and it hopes that less than 100 will actually be made redundant.
Pennine Acute runs North Manchester General, The Royal Oldham, Rochdale Infirmary and Bury's Fairfield General Hospital. It has an annual budget of more than £400m and employs about 10,000 staff.
But it is facing a £21.3m deficit this year and has an underlying recurrent deficit of £28.3m.
As part of its "recovery programme", about 10% of the trust's 2,500 beds will be reduced, but bosses said that this in line with wider NHS forecasts for moving health services into the community.
The 284 Westhulme staff will move to different hospitals, with the management team and official headquarters based at North Manchester.
So this trust is having to chop 250 beds and cut staff with all the implications for patient care and increased suffering that has - all due to a deficit equivalent to less than TWO days worth of our payments to the EU? Surely the EU can spare a couple of days of our cash to save 250 hospital beds.
Thursday, 20 July 2006
NHS 'lets down allergy patients'
People with allergies often feel let down by the NHS and can wait months to see a specialist, a government review of services has found, highlights the BBC.
The report said charities and other groups were often left to plug the gaps in NHS care. It said more should be done to help the third of people who are affected by allergies at some point in their life.
But doctors said the government could not devolve responsibility for allergy care to local health groups.
The report was compiled after submissions from groups and individuals with an interest in allergy care. It followed criticisms of NHS allergy services by the House of Commons health select committee.
Around a third of the total UK population - 20 million people - suffer from allergies at some stage in their lives.
How much could the £115 million a week leaking away to the EU contribute towards alleviating a problem being suffered by a third of Britain's population?
The report said charities and other groups were often left to plug the gaps in NHS care. It said more should be done to help the third of people who are affected by allergies at some point in their life.
But doctors said the government could not devolve responsibility for allergy care to local health groups.
The report was compiled after submissions from groups and individuals with an interest in allergy care. It followed criticisms of NHS allergy services by the House of Commons health select committee.
Around a third of the total UK population - 20 million people - suffer from allergies at some stage in their lives.
How much could the £115 million a week leaking away to the EU contribute towards alleviating a problem being suffered by a third of Britain's population?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
