If The Price is Right

[steveL]

The Mail article of 20th October told us that 'angry councillors' are set to write to health bosses about their concerns over proposals to scrap enhanced sickness payments for staff. This follows the news that officials at North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust are proposing to cut extra payments to staff who call in sick while rostered to work unsocial hours, during the night or on weekends, or on bank holidays. Union bosses have previously accused the Trust of "incredibly provocative, bullying tactics" when 5,452 staff were issued with HR1 forms.

We are also told that members of Hartlepool Borough Council's Health Scrutiny Forum have slammed what they have dubbed a "threatening" letter which was sent to staff and, indeed, Labour councillor Stephen Akers-Belcher, Chairman of the Health Forum, is to write to Alan Foster, the hospital trust's Chief Executive. Coun Akers-Belcher has said the matter has implications for lowest paid members of staff in particular, adding: "Staff morale is low and it will be even lower if this goes ahead.

Whatever your views on the moves by North Tees and Hartlepool Hospital Trust to alter the terms and conditions of employment of its staff, it's impossible not to compare and contrast the attitude shown by HBC's Health and Scrutiny Forum to this issue with its attitude on the more general issue of the continuing loss of services at the University of Hartlepool.

So let's compare the attitude of these 'angry' councillors with the approach they adopted towards the loss of services issue.

In the latter case, we have constantly been told by the Health and Scrutiny Forum, under Cllr Akers-Belcher's Chairmanship and by HBC more generally, that any decision to transfer services or even to close the local A&E Department was a matter for the Trust alone and that Hartlepool Council had no say in the matter. If so, is the same not true on how the Trust deals with its own staff?

Similarly, while there would seem to be no problem in sending a letter to the Trust over the staff contract changes, Cllr Akers-Belcher himself voted against sending a letter to the Trust informing them of the no confidence motion passed by the full council. In addition, who could forget those public questions to the trust that mysteriously 'went astray' before reaching their destination.

While Labour councillor Marjorie James described the move on terms and conditions as "unacceptable"; Putting Hartlepool First group leader, Geoff Lilley, presumably with the rather obvious difference in approach in mind, questioned whether it was in the remit of the forum to challenge the trust over this particular issue. However, Councillor James said it that in this case, it was "perfectly legitimate" for an elected councillor to express their concern.

Confused? You don't need to be.

The main hospital union is UNISON, the same union whose representatives enjoy taxpayer subsidised employment within HBC at a public cost once estimated by former Chief Executive, Paul Walker to be £100,000 per year. One of those employees also happens to be the current President of the local Constituency Labour Party on which all Labour Councillors rely to gain selection in elections. UNISON also happens to be the biggest contributor to Labour Party funds.

What all of this tells us is that the local Labour Group are far more responsive to the concerns of their paymasters, or should that be puppet masters, than to those of the general public who they are supposed to represent. To the Hospital Campaigners, they at least now know that the Labour Group is available for hire - if the price is right.

[for fawkes sake]

They must really hate you, Steve 

[Julie noted]

Steve, that posting is so succinct. 
In a nutshell, it informs readers just how twentytwo faced they are in the kremlin. Now THAT is what ought to be on a leaflet and handed out at the bottom of the ramp. 

[fred c]

I keep hoping that the decent Labour Councillors will at long last grow a pair & stand up for what is right..... However I am beginning to think i will have a long wait, the more we see the more we realise that things are worse than we all think.

Self serving no goods are obviously more prevelent that i thought.

If the Peer Review Groups final repeort is as bad as the "Interim Report" suggets, surely there should be a panel of Inquiry set up....... An Independent Inquiry Panel........... that will look long & hard into what has been going on in Hartlepool for several years now.

The danger is that "The Mob" are allowed to have anything to do setting up an Inquiry, if they do, the members they chose will probably be issued with buckets of Emulsion & a Roller each.

The way "The Mob" have handled the Hospital closure is a disgrace, it seems to me that they would be ok with the Hospital closing, so they could blame the Con/Libs for the event & then crow about it at the next election, cynical in the extreme, but par for the course.

[St Paul]

I agree this all puts things into perspective. I wonder how much it costs to save a hospital? Perhaps the Labour people will have an offer on in the run-up to Christmas.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

I agree this all puts things into perspective. I wonder how much it costs to save a hospital? Perhaps the Labour people will have an offer on in the run-up to Christmas.

Maybe they'll enter into some sort of Faustian pact?  If we're looking for something seasonal, remember that Santa is an anagram of Satan; mind you, doubt that some of them have souls left to sell...

[SRMoore]

I agree this all puts things into perspective. I wonder how much it costs to save a hospital? Perhaps the Labour people will have an offer on in the run-up to Christmas.

I remember watching Simon Burns answer a question put to him by Wrighty in the commons. Wright was upset because the Wynyard hospital that he'd 'dug' the foundation for during the 2010 election had been scrapped.
Mr Burns proceeded to give Wrighty a few figures. Whilst I don't have them to hand now, a quick check on Hansard later will provide them.
Basically Wrighty was told that maintaining our current two hospitals and updating them over a 35 year period will still be CHEAPER than building the as then planned hospital in Wynyard.

[SRMoore]

Taken from Hansard as a record of a debate held on July 5th 2010

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing the debate on the future of the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust and its hospitals. I join him, with the greatest pleasure, in congratulating clinicians, GPs, ancillary workers and all those who work so hard on Teesside, in the north-east and in the rest of the country to provide a first-class quality health care service for the people of this nation.

The decision to cancel the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust proposal has to be seen within the context of the wider economic climate. This year's budget deficit of £155 billion-inherited, I gently remind Opposition Members, from the previous Government-illustrates the scale of the economic challenge facing this Government. As part of this Government's determination to face that challenge head on, the Treasury and other Departments have reviewed every significant spending decision made between 1 January and the general election on 6 May. As the proposed new hospital scheme at the foundation trust received the previous Government's approval only in March, the North Tees decision formed part of that review.

In these tough economic times, it is essential that all major hospital building schemes be affordable. On 17 June, as the hon. Member for Stockton North rightly said, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced to this House the decisions of the Government's review of spending commitments. The review cancelled 12 projects throughout Government and considered four major NHS capital investment schemes with a total capital value of more than £1.2 billion.

The size and funding of the schemes were considered in relation to the nature of the organisations concerned. The aim of granting foundation trust status is to give such bodies greater financial independence. As well as being able to keep any internally generated resources, foundation trusts have greater freedom to borrow from either the public or the private sectors, and, by requiring an allocation of public dividend capital from the
5 July 2010 : Column 150
Department of Health of more than £400 million, the proposals were not consistent with that financial independence.

Mr Iain Wright: What local clinical advice did the Minister and his ministerial team take prior to the decision to scrap the new hospital?

Mr Burns: If the hon. Gentleman waits, as I develop my argument I shall continue to explain the reasons for cancelling the scheme within the public spending review.

Treasury and Department of Health Ministers, myself included, decided that, overall, these factors-affordability within the changed economic climate and the foundation trust status-weighed more against the scheme for North Tees and Hartlepool than against the other three schemes for the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. For those reasons, the Government withdrew their support for the scheme.

If I may, I shall just answer one question that was mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Stockton North. The question was, "Why North Tees and Hartlepool and not the three other schemes?" After looking into the situation, we found that, for example, the Royal Liverpool university hospital building is not compliant with fire safety regulations, and that its mechanical and engineering services are more than 30 years old and at increasing risk of failure. Some 94% of St Helier hospital's buildings are more than 50 years old, and the 2007-08 data show that the total maintenance backlog for the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital is £53.8 million; for Epsom and St Helier it is £23.8 million; for the Royal Liverpool it is £16.3 million; and for North Tees and Hartlepool it is £3.5 million.

Grahame M. Morris: On the point about affordability and the Minister's suggestion that the foundation trust look towards PFI, how would such a proposal be more affordable when the evidence suggests that PFIs are 14 to 20% more expensive to deliver? The need certainly exists, and we need to deliver quality health care, but affordability suggests that the public purse is the best way to do it.

Mr Burns: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Earlier today, his right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made the point that it would be cheaper to have a new hospital than to maintain the existing two ageing hospitals. I do not believe that that is accurate. The business case actually showed that the whole-life costs of continuing to operate and provide services from the two hospitals were very similar, but slightly lower than the whole-life of costs of operating and providing services from the proposed new facility. Over the appraisal period of 35 years, the total net present cost-that is, the whole-life cost-of building, maintaining and operating the new facility was £5.033 billion, but the cost of repairing defects, maintaining, operating and providing services from the two existing buildings was £5.024 billion.

However, the North East strategic health authority, Hartlepool primary care trust and Stockton-on-Tees primary care trust have pledged to continue working closely with North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation
5 July 2010 : Column 151
Trust to plan and develop the best possible health services for the local population of Hartlepool and North Tees. I understand that the chief executive of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust is currently reappraising the available options. As I have said, NHS foundation trusts have greater financial independence, which includes consideration of the private finance initiative. I am advised that the chief executive of the trust has already said that the PFI is one of the options that he is looking at, but any new proposals must be realistic, affordable and provide value for money. I cannot in any way give any guarantees that such a scheme would or would not be approved. Like all schemes, any proposals that might come forward would have to be considered on its merits and in the light of the economic climate at that time.

The local health economy is also ensuring that the wider momentum project, which involves bringing health care services closer to communities, will continue. I am delighted that on 10 May this year, the new integrated care centre known as One Life Hartlepool, located in Hartlepool town centre, opened its doors to patients. Hartlepool primary care trust has transferred a range of community services into this new £20 million facility. The PCT is working with North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust to agree a programme for moving a range of out-patient services into the building. In addition, work is continuing on the outline business cases for integrated care centres in Billingham and Stockton.

In conclusion, any new proposals to develop-


5 July 2010 : Column 152
Alex Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Burns: I am very short of time, but yes.

Alex Cunningham: I have just one question. Will the funding for those two centres in Stockton and Billingham be guaranteed?

Mr Burns: As I understand it, the finance is in place, and I assume that the measures will proceed on that basis.

Any new proposals to develop local NHS services must be affordable, but they must also now take into account the further criteria on service reconfiguration recently set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that it is vital that any proposals focus on improving patient outcomes, are based on sound clinical evidence, increase choice for patients, and have the backing of GP commissioners. I, like the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends and everyone else in this country, want a high-quality NHS that is accountable to patients and led and controlled locally. This Government have been elected on a platform of real-terms increases in the NHS budget for every year of this five-year Parliament. But hand in hand with that, we must have an NHS that puts patients at the centre of high-quality care and delivers care that is efficient, productive and, importantly, affordable. This must be the case nationally; it must also be the case locally, including for the people of Stockton North and Teesside.

Question put and agreed to.

10.49 pm

House adjourned.

[Julie noted]

I see our useless MP joined in the 'protest' rally in London yesterday.
Complaining over 'cuts' that have had to be initiated because of HIS party's inept handling of the economy.
His unison paymasters must be well pleased with him and the other loons that accompanied him.

What a pity he couldn't make the effort and have joined in the 'save our hospital rally' which was held in Hartlepool town centre. 

I could throw my slipper at the television every time I see his self-satisfied, smug face, watching himself on the TV monitors in parliament. 
What a pompous ass.

[SRMoore]

It was ironic really Julie as people like Wrighty thought they'd be welcomed with open arms to that protest. That was until Red Ed was forced to admit (in front of an anti cuts demo) that any future Labour government would need to continue with austerity. Doh! What a way to get booed off stage

[Julie noted]

What a shame this country can't find a party that is an amalgam of the best of labour (there are one or two) and the best of Tory (there are one or two). Cameron out...David Davis in, for instance! 

Slightly off topic but does my memory serve me correct....when we had that unholy alliance of wallace & price, didn't Cleveland police vehicles drive around with 'vote labour' stickers on them? 
That just goes to show the debilitating hold labour had on Cleveland police.
A service that should ALWAYS be non-political.
In short-a scandal. 

[SRMoore]

What a shame this country can't find a party that is an amalgam of the best of labour (there are one or two) and the best of Tory (there are one or two). Cameron out...David Davis in, for instance! 

Ahh a woman after my own heart... I voted for David Davis in the leadership contest, the man is very under valued under Cameron.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Speaking of prices, today's Northern Echo carries a bit more about the financial implications of the Wynyard Hospital affair; the apparent willingness to leap lemming-like into vast debt creates a distinct feeling of deja vue...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10001435.New_hospital_project_continues_to_gather_momentum/