Fury over homes snub

Fury over homes snub

From the Wiltshire Times
By David VallisDEMANDS for heads to roll were made this week after council bosses suffered a humiliating defeat in their £600,000 bid to persuade tenants to transfer their homes to a housing association.

The South Wiltshire Defend Council Housing group has called for the resignations of community and housing portfolio holder John Cole-Morgan, and council leader Richard Britton, in the wake of last Thursday’s ballot result.

That showed a massive 71 per cent of Salisbury district council’s 5,400 tenants voted against the proposed transfer.The group also called for the dissolution of the council’s tenants panel, which had recommended backing for the housing stock switch.

But council chiefs remained defiant, claiming the stock transfer was actually thrust upon them by government, and they were right to hold the ballot.

Intense pressure was put on the city and district’s council tenants to opt for a switch and 4,810 (74.2 per cent) of them voted in the ballot, conducted by the Independent Electoral Reform Society.

Of those 3,424 voted in favour of staying with the council and only 1,377 (28.65 per cent) for the transfer A similar defeat was suffered by the council when it balloted tenants on a proposed transfer in 1989, and now the current Tory administration has been accused of “not listening” and wasting taxpayers money.

Labour leader, Steve Fear, who warned the council a year ago it was “bound to lose,” said this week: “All the indications from the start of this process were that council house tenants did not want their homes transferred to a housing association. Despite this, the council spent £600,000 in a pointless effort to change tenants’ minds. That cost now has to be borne by local taxpayers.

“It is now time for the council cabinet to think long and hard about how to provide an improved and cost effective housing service.”

Chairman of South Wiltshire Defend Council Housing, Colin Burden, said: “We are delighted with the result of the ballot and the emphatic rejection by the tenants of the housing stock transfer.

“We hope the council will respect the democratic decision for the second time and join with other councils, who have retained housing, and actively press the government alongside tenants and unions for the fourth option (creating a level financial playing field between councils and housing association).

Mr Burden added an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money had been wasted by the council, and called for the resignations of Cllrs Cole-Morgan and Britton and the dissolution of the tenants’ panel in its present form.

Of his group’s campaign, he insisted: “This is a magnificent victory and a victory of substance over glossy style. It completely illustrates this proposal never represented the tenants’ viewpoint, and was never likely to.”

Councillor Cole-Morgan said: “I am, obviously, deeply disappointed by the overwhelmingly negative ballot, and very concerned by the adverse effect the decision against transfer will have on those living in social housing in Salisbury.

“Clearly, we either did not manage to communicate the benefits that transfer would bring well enough, or those who received the message things could not go on just as before did not believe us. In my view, we could not have done more to put the message over.”

On the issue of whether it was right or wrong to go to ballot, Cllr Cole-Morgan added: “The stock option process was thrust on us by government, and has been monitored by them throughout.

“Half-way through the process, our tenants gave us sufficient grounds to believe a positive outcome was possible. In the light of that, it would have been unfair, indeed improper, not to give them a chance to vote for a transfer which most council members believe would have been greatly to their advantage.”

Wiltshire NHS - The worst Year ever?

Here are three news items relating to the proposed decimation of the health service in Wiltshire. Compare this reality with the comment of Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt that this is “the best year ever” for the NHS.

Heated row over hospital closure
By Charley Morgan (Wiltshire Times)THERE were heated confrontations in Warminster on Tuesday as more than 400 people turned up for a public meeting on the closure of the town’s hospital.

The meeting at the Assembly Rooms began with 200 people shut out because not enough seats had been provided. But when the crowd started chanting Let them in’ they were allowed to stand at the back of the hall to hear what Kennet and North Wilts and West Wilts primary care trusts had to say.Protesters gathered outside the hall before the meeting, with placards and banners chanting Save Warminster Hospital’ as health chiefs arrived. Roger Davey, of Unison, told the crowd on a loudspeaker: “This is the start of a long campaign.

“We are fighting for a hospital service, the NHS and for the elderly. We need the hospital service to keep people alive.” Tessa Atwater, of Friends of Warminster Hospital, said: “There are 16 primary schools that are served by this hospital, who is going to take them to the hospital if they are having an asthma attack and need to be put on a nebuliser?”

Inside, Carol Clarke, chief executive of both PCTs, faced a barrage of questions on the Pathways for Change document, which lists three options, all outlining the closure of Warminster Hospital. Cllr Chris March said: “The hospital belongs to the people. There are no alternatives in place and we will be left with nothing if we are not careful.”

Dr Vivian Stevens, a GP at The Avenue Surgery, Station Road, told the PCT board: “This document reminds me of an Easter egg lots of packaging but very little inside. There are no provisions for palliative and terminal care.”

Protester Michelle Meadows asked the PCT if it were true women from west Wiltshire will not be able to give birth in the district in future, with the maternity unit at Trowbridge Hospital facing the axe. Mrs Clarke simply replied: Yes unless they give birth at home.”

A nurse from Warminster Hospital asked what kind of care could be provided for the elderly at home if they did not have air mattresses to prevent bedsores and hoists to lift them.

Julie Clatworthy, director of clinical governance and chief nurse, said: “People are much more likely to get infections such as MRSA in hospital than they are at home so it’s going to be much better for them.”

Michael Turner, from Warminster Independent Trade Association, said: “This is not a consultation it’s a creditors meeting. If you were a private company you would be bankrupt as it is you are just morally bankrupt.”

Show of strength in hospital battle
By Nigel Kerton (Gazette & Herald)THE people of Marlborough and the surrounding area put on an amazing show of force on Monday to demonstrate to health chiefs their anger at proposed cuts in Savernake Hospital services.

At least 700 people turned out to let the Kennet and North and West Wiltshire Primary Care Trusts see they will not let the hospital close or accept any reduction in services without a fight.

Fewer than 200 people were admitted to the meeting in the Assembly Room, the biggest room in the town hall, because of health and safety limitations on numbers.
More than 500 were turned away including the leader of Kennet District Council Chris Humphries.

He and John Macdonald, who is a member of the Marlborough Area Community Strategic Partnership, counted more than 500 disappointed people who were turned away.
Those in the queue were placated with the promise of another meeting and yesterday the PCT confirmed it would take place on June 26, at 6.30pm in the Memorial Hall at Marlborough College, which seats 450.

There were calls for the PCT chief executive Carol Clark and other trust members to resign.

Anger was also expressed that Mrs Clark gave a presentation lasting 30 minutes when chairman Professor Alastair Bellingham had limited the meeting to just 75 minutes.
Under discussion were three options for the future of healthcare in the district, none of them keeping the minor injuries unit open at Savernake and one of them proposing the hospital should close.

MP Michael Ancram pointed out that option one would leave the whole of Kennet with no hospital, no minor injuries unit and no maternity unit. He said the area had a population of 100,000 and added: “What is proposed is simply not good enough.”
Without blaming the PCT Mr Ancram said: “We are paying the penalty for being underfunded and what we have been asked to accept is unacceptable.”

Dr Jonathon Glover, a Marlborough GP, said the interest in the town was on retaining Savernake Hospital and building on its services.

Dr Glover said the new hospital, which opened in September after a £10million rebuild, had not been given a chance to prove itself and said: “We need the trust of the PCT to help us through the first 18 months and get it running.”

There was applause when Nigel Triptree, a local resident, said the present dire straits the PCT was in was “due to bad management”.

Ray White, president of the Friends of Savernake, revealed they had given more than £500,000 to the hospital over the last 50 years but said its last gift of £60,000 had not even brought a letter of thanks from the PCT.

Make your protest heard now
(Gazette & Herald)

SAVE OUR HEALTH SERVICES: THOUSANDS of fliers and posters are being printed this week urging people to turn out in their hundreds to protest against the threats to Chippenham Hospital at a public meeting next week.

Campaigners want to see maximum turnout at the Neeld Hall meeting on Tuesday evening to prove to the Kennet and North and West Wiltshire Primary Care Trusts just how strong feeling is.

Retired GP Nick Whyatt said a band of protesters would be handing out fliers at supermarkets and sticking posters up around the town.

He urged concerned residents to write to the health trusts now with their fears.

“We can’t accept any type of closure or loss to hospital beds in Chippenham,” said Dr Whyatt. “In fact we must have another meeting to discuss enlargement of the hospital.

“There must be no reduction in beds.

“Chippenham Hospital is a hub of services for the elderly and new plans should be drawn up.”

Dr Whyatt said he couldn’t stress enough the importance of people letting the trusts know how concerned they are.

He said: “The PCT thinks it is not getting any letters, and what we want is an overwhelming number so they can’t ignore them.”

MP James Gray met with protesters and a group of doctors last week to discuss the way forward at next week’s meeting.

He said: “I am by no means convinced that the threat to Chippenham Hospital has receded. It appears that the PCT very much prefers option one, but all three options in the consultation paper would mean the effective destruction of community hospitals across Wiltshire, with only the slenderest resemblance of a hospital left in Chippenham.

“My strong view is that all three options are unacceptable and that everyone must write and campaign to reject all three and call for the preservation of community hospitals in the area.

“I urge all those concerned to come to the Neeld Hall on May 16 at 6.30pm to let their views be known to the PCT.

“I hope to be joined there by doctors Nick Brown and John Barter of the Rowden Partnership, Jamie Brosch of the Hathaway Surgery, Chris Dyer, the geriatric care consultant at Chippenham Hospital and Robert Muir from the Lodge Surgery.”

“People will die as a result of your action”

The report below is from the Wiltshire Times on the crisis of health care in Wiltshire.

HEALTH chiefs came face-to-face with a packed hall of more than 200 angry hospital supporters at the first meeting of the Pathways for Change consultation.

Fears over problems with public transport to distant hospitals and the loss of the maternity unit at Trowbridge were two of the major issues sparking emotional reactions at the meeting held in Matravers School, Westbury, on Tuesday.

The purpose of the meeting, the first of a series across towns in the area, was to discuss the three options put forward for the future of health care by West Wiltshire and Kennet and North Wiltshire PCTs.

Under all three proposals Westbury and Bradford on Avon hospitals will remain shut and those in Trowbridge and Warminster will definitely close.

Under one of the options Melksham Hospital would also close leaving no community hospitals in west Wiltshire.

Before the meeting Westbury mayor Mike Hawkins gave an impassioned speech about the anger felt by many in the town.

“We are angry for what was done and the way it was done. We are angry about the way dedicated staff have been treated,” he said.

“We are angry that having lost certain elements, and having been told these would be provided at neighbouring hospitals, we learn these other hospitals are also threatened.”

Shiena Bowen, chairman of West Wiltshire PCT, told the audience the purpose of the consultation was not to discuss decisions already made but to move forward and look at the options available.

Carol Clarke’s announcement that under one of the options Chippenham Hospital would be the nearest community hospital was met by sarcastic laughter by residents worried about the distance between the two towns.

Cllr John Clegg said: “As far as I can see the access is only available for somebody who has a car. A very large percentage of people don’t have that facility.

“I question whether you have sat down and worked out how long it takes a relative to visit the stroke centre in Chippenham from Westbury.”

Mrs Bowen said they were aware there were transport problems but these could not dictate how changes to health care were made.

“Once we’ve reached conclusions we’ll have to influence the travel in place. We already have a transport group set up investigating patterns,” she said.

“We know it is an issue everyone is concerned with and we will tackle it and make sure people can get from A to B.”

Midwives from the maternity unit at Trowbridge Hospital spoke up and said the proposal to only have one unit in Chippenham would put mothers’ and babies’ lives at risk.

Mrs Clarke refused to answer directly yes or no whether the decision to close community hospitals was based on the financial crisis facing the west Wiltshire and Kennet and north Wiltshire PCTs, which are more than £20m in the red.

She said: “The PCT does have a financial problem which hasn’t been addressed for a number of years but even if this PCT was balanced we’d still be putting the proposals forward because we believe it is the right thing to do for health care.”

Dorian Jones, a member of the Westbury Hospital League of Friends, left the board with a stark message.

“People are going to die as a result of your actions,” he warned.

The second meeting was due to be held in Devizes on Wednesday while a third meeting was held in Bradford on Avon last night.

Future meetings

• May 11: Melksham Assembly Hall
• May 15: Clarendon College, Trowbridge
• May 16: Chippenham Neeld Hall
• May 24: Corsham Town Hall
• June 6: Box Selwyn Hall
• June 7: Calne Town Hall

Rail Cuts – so what about the environmental crisis?

The Evening Advertiser recently carried a story (March 13th) about cuts in train service proposed for the new timetable. Whatever happened to all that talk about tackling the environmental crisis?

The Times described the proposed cuts in rural areas as the biggest since the Beeching era. In Wiltshire we have seen proposed cuts on the Melksham line, Great Bedwyn to London, and local services feeding into major stations. In Cornwall and Devon cuts in services are being made on lines where passenger numbers have increased by up to 40% over the last five years. A train from Truro to Penzance which currently carries 200 people is being cut, producing a 100 minute gap in the service. When First Great Western took over the franchise in 1996 there were 14.5 million train journeys. This increased to 22 million by the end of 2005, reflecting the national upward trend with the 1 billion journey mark broken; the highest level since 1950.

The government and the train companies have blamed each other for the cuts. In fact they are the result of the attempt of the Department for Transport, no doubt under pressure from the Treasury, to cut £1 billion a year from rail expenditure. The DfT has set a timetable specification for the new service which provides fewer trains than the current one. Hence Alison Forster the Director of First Great Western, responding to complaints against proposed cuts, said:

“We can only operate additional services over and above those in the Department of Transport’s specification if services are commercially viable and there is capacity on the rail network.”

This is the context in which we should view the government’s ‘Closures and minor modifications consultation’, much of which deals with the process to push through rail line closures. Overleaf we reproduce a statement by the RMT explaining the government’s consultation.

The decision in relation to closure currently rests with the Secretary of State for Transport. However, it is being handed over to the unelected Office of the Rail Regulator.

The consultation paper says that “as in any industry, changes to service provision will be necessary to reflect passenger and freight demand”. So why cut trains which are full? But the railway, of course, is not just a business like any other. It provides a public service. When New Labour was elected in 1997, John Prescott said that if the government had not succeeded within five years to begin to see a significant shift from road to rail, they would have failed. They have failed, miserably. Moreover, the cuts that are being proposed now are in areas where increasing numbers of people travel by train. Cuts in service, not to mention line closures, can only lead to increased traffic on the roads. What sense does this make given the environmental crisis?

The collapse of Network Rail as a private company quoted on the stock exchange marked the failure of the Tory government’s privatisation. However, because of its free market fundamentalism, the Blair government refused to renationalise Network Rail and the railways, even though they could have simply taken much of it back for nothing as the Rail Companies’ franchises ran out. Gordon Brown insists Network Rail remain a private sector company so that its debt is not counted on the government’s balance sheet. Yet the company depends on government money, and should it collapse then the public purse will take the hit anyway; unless, of course, the government goes down the road of Beeching Mark 2.

Already they have abandoned any attempt to cut road transport. To introduce a new round of cuts on the railways would be a lunacy which would increase cars and emissions, literally fuelling global warming, rather than tackling it.

Swindon TUC is calling on local trade unionists, transport users and anybody concerned with the environmental crisis to do the following:

• Send in a response to the Department for Transport consultation opposing closures and demanding that trades unions and rail users groups have by law to be consulted; opposing the unaccountable ORR determining closures.
Email: ccmconsult@dft.gov.uk

Or write to:
Closures and minor modifications consultation manager
Zone 5/27 Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

• Contact your MP calling for a halt to any cuts and opposing the new closure process.
Email: annesnelgrovemp@parliament.uk
Email: michaelwillsmp@parliament.uk

Or write to them at:
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Department for Transport rail consultation

RMT is working with sister rail unions and other rail campaigners for the protection and expansion of rail services to be at the heart of new procedures. The deadline for responses to a Department for Transport consultation is April 21st April and any organisation or individual can respond, including local campaigners and rail users groups.

The DfT consultation document deals with closure procedures and minor modifications guidance. The document is a direct result of the Railways Act 2005 which promised that the government would consult on new closures guidance before they were introduced into law. RMT members will remember that when the 2005 Act was going through Parliament we raised the criticism that at a time when rail was carrying more passengers than at any time since the 1950s it was bizarre that so much of the Act addressed the closure of lines, services and stations.

Since the Act was passed there have been disturbing press reports that branch lines should be concreted over and that many lightly used stations could be closed.

In 2007 the DfT will produce their High Level Output Specification and also announce how much money they have available in the railway pot. There are indications that the Treasury is seeking to cut £1 billion a year from the railway budget. It is in this context that the closures guidance should be seen.

On the face of it the guidance looks acceptable. Once a closure is proposed, a cost-benefit analysis with monetary values placed on a series of factors including the impact that closure will have on the environment, accessibility, safety and the economy. However, two things are important to bear in mind. Firstly the cost-benefit analysis is already used and all too often is utilised as a barrier to investment on the rail network. Secondly, and probably more importantly, consultants employed to conduct the analysis are likely to come up with the results required by the DfT. Put simply, if the DfT wants figures that support a closure then the consultant will provide them.

Regrettably the guidance once again raises the spectre of bustitution and makes clear that in addition to the money which could be saved by closure the potential value of the land which could be sold as a result of closure should be taken into account by the cost-benefit analysis. Commenting on the procedures, with specific regard to bustitution, the highly respected Rail Business Intelligence journal recently said: “the fundamental problem is the underlying assumption that buses, which obviously incur negligible infrastructure costs, are in principle as good as the rail services they replace. The danger is that bustitution will inevitably emerge as the cheapest option for a substantial proportion of the network as the noose tightens.”

The new guidance scraps the current system where the regional Rail Passengers Committee produces a report on the hardship likely to be caused by the proposed cut. Under the rules to be scrapped the final decision over closure rested with the democratically elected Secretary of State for Transport.

For the future the new procedure will allow Network Rail, Train Operating Companies, or a rail funding authority (DfT, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, PTAs or the Mayor of London) to propose a closure. The decision to go ahead will be made by the unelected Office of the Rail Regulator.

The consultation itself requires that notices are placed in both local and national newspapers and in the stations affected by the proposed closures. Organisations have 12 weeks after the second newspaper notice appears to respond.

Trades Unions and local rail users groups are not in the list of bodies and organisations that have, by law, to be consulted. Significantly there is no obligation that the consultation holds public meetings or hearings to discuss the closure proposals. This is a serious omission. It is vital that local communities and trades unions are able to meet publicly and collectively in order to hold to account those who are proposing the removal of local rail services.

The full closure procedure can be found at the Department for Transport website:

Download a rich text file version of this Bulletin for distribution at: http://uk.geocities.com/swindontuc/railcuts.rtf