A talented teenage singer tipped as the next Michael Buble has been revealed as a late act for this year’s Basildon Festival. Billericay star, Josh Dubovie, will be playing on the main stage at the upcoming two-day festival organised by Basildon Council in Gloucester Park.
The 17-year-old, who recently won the Southend United Blues Idol competition, will be performing a mix of swing music from people such as Frank Sinatra and Michael Buble.
Josh, who is studying at the Billericay School sixth form, is strongly backed to become a future stage and screen star. As well as performing in theatre shows such as Les Miserable and My Fair Lady, he has also appeared in Hollyoaks. His television careers looks set to take off after being shortlisted to play a major role in the third series of the Channel 4 show, Skins.
Josh will be performing on the main stage at the Basildon Festival on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 July at 5pm. Among the other artists booked to appear at the free festival include X-Factor finalists, Journey South, and tribute acts for Amy Winehouse and The Beatles.
Saturday, 21 June 2008
Friday, 20 June 2008
John Baron Condemns EU Leaders' Arrogance
Speaking in the House of Commons today on a proposal to establish an audit of the costs and benefits of UK membership of Europe, John Baron MP highlighted the arrogance of some European leaders who have tried to dismiss the Irish ‘no’ vote on the Lisbon Treaty (otherwise known as the EU Constitution).
Technically, the Treaty has to be ratified by all Member States in order to become law, but some leaders are already looking for a way to circumvent the result of last week’s referendum. The Irish were the only voters in Europe to be given a say on the new Treaty.
During the debate, John highlighted some of the remarks made by EU leaders:
· Wolfgang Schaeuble, German Interior Minister: “a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans”
· Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Euro-Green leader: “it is not truly democratic that less than a million people should decide the fate of half a billion Europeans”
· Axel Schafer, SPD Bundestag leader: “with all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by the minority of a minority of a minority”
· Yves Leterme, Belgian Prime Minister: “we need to examine the existing possibilities to ensure in any case the entry into force of the treaty and to associate Ireland with it”
· Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister: “irrespective of the results of the referendum in Ireland ... Europe will find a way of implementing this treaty”
· Lopez Garrido, Spanish Secretary of State for the EU: the Lisbon Treaty “will be applied, albeit a few months late”
· Jose Barroso, Portuguese President of the European Commission: “the treaty is not dead, the treaty is alive and we will try to work to find a solution”
Technically, the Treaty has to be ratified by all Member States in order to become law, but some leaders are already looking for a way to circumvent the result of last week’s referendum. The Irish were the only voters in Europe to be given a say on the new Treaty.
During the debate, John highlighted some of the remarks made by EU leaders:
· Wolfgang Schaeuble, German Interior Minister: “a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans”
· Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Euro-Green leader: “it is not truly democratic that less than a million people should decide the fate of half a billion Europeans”
· Axel Schafer, SPD Bundestag leader: “with all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by the minority of a minority of a minority”
· Yves Leterme, Belgian Prime Minister: “we need to examine the existing possibilities to ensure in any case the entry into force of the treaty and to associate Ireland with it”
· Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister: “irrespective of the results of the referendum in Ireland ... Europe will find a way of implementing this treaty”
· Lopez Garrido, Spanish Secretary of State for the EU: the Lisbon Treaty “will be applied, albeit a few months late”
· Jose Barroso, Portuguese President of the European Commission: “the treaty is not dead, the treaty is alive and we will try to work to find a solution”
Afterwards, John said: “The arrogance of the European leaders in trying to ignore people’s views on the future direction of the EU is breathtaking and illustrated yet again in their reaction to the Irish ‘no’ vote.
“There is a democratic deficit at the heart of Europe. 26 out of the 27 countries ratifying this treaty will not be given the opportunity to hold a referendum. Gordon Brown bottled out of a referendum after promising one in the Labour Party manifesto of 2005. The Irish were the only people in Europe to have a say and they have spoken for all of us – an inconvenient truth for the European leaders.
“Given that it needed ratification by every nation, the Treaty should now be declared dead once and for after the Irish vote. The fact that it hasn’t proves this democratic deficit exists.”
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Shadow Minister for Health Visits Basildon's Mental health Unit
Stephen Metcalfe, Prospective Conservative Member of Parliament for South Basildon & East Thurrock, today met with Anne Milton MP, Conservative Shadow Minister for Health, Dr Patrick Geoghegan, chief executive of the South Essex Partnership NHS Trust (Sept), and Eunan MacIntyre, Director of Inpatient & Emergency Services and Mrs Lorraine Cabel, Chairman of South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to tour the recently opened facilities at the Basildon Hospital Mental Health Unit.
Anne Milton MP, a former nurse who has a background in caring for those with mental illness was impressed by the facilities and talked at length with Dr Geoghegan and Dr MacIntyre. The changes in procedure and treatment have enabled the centre to deliver better care, more quickly while reducing the need for patients to spend extended periods with the unit.
Stephen Metcalfe said: he too was very impressed with what has been achieved in Basildon, the rapid response to patient needs and the desire to help those with mental illness back in to the community as quickly as appropriate has to be welcomed. He commented that there is a stigma surrounding mental illness and anything that can be done to break down that prejudice and help patients back into the wider community is excellent.
Photo: (LtoR)
Anne Milton, Conservative Shadow Minister for Health, Stephen Metcalfe, Prospective Conservative Member of Parliament for South Basildon & East Thurrock, Mrs Lorraine Cabel, Chairman of South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Dr Patrick Geoghegan, chief executive of the South Essex Partnership NHS Trust (Sept).
Anne Milton MP, a former nurse who has a background in caring for those with mental illness was impressed by the facilities and talked at length with Dr Geoghegan and Dr MacIntyre. The changes in procedure and treatment have enabled the centre to deliver better care, more quickly while reducing the need for patients to spend extended periods with the unit.
Dr Geoghegan has stated: “Mental illness is now the number one reason that people are off work - through anxiety, stress and depression where it used to be back pain. Yet the investment is not going into helping these people and supporting them."
He believes the recently opened facilities in Basildon and Rochford, and the imaginative approach adopted by the unit has seen real improvements in the way patients are cared for and has gone someway to compensate for that lack of investment.
Stephen Metcalfe said: he too was very impressed with what has been achieved in Basildon, the rapid response to patient needs and the desire to help those with mental illness back in to the community as quickly as appropriate has to be welcomed. He commented that there is a stigma surrounding mental illness and anything that can be done to break down that prejudice and help patients back into the wider community is excellent.
Photo: (LtoR)
Anne Milton, Conservative Shadow Minister for Health, Stephen Metcalfe, Prospective Conservative Member of Parliament for South Basildon & East Thurrock, Mrs Lorraine Cabel, Chairman of South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Dr Patrick Geoghegan, chief executive of the South Essex Partnership NHS Trust (Sept).
Government Announces NHS Co-payments Review
During Health Questions in Parliament on Tuesday, in response to a question from John Baron MP (Billericay), Secretary of State Alan Johnson introduced a review of NHS policy on co-payments. This followed the widely-reported recent case of John’s late constituent Mrs Linda O’Boyle. In his follow-up question, John welcomed the news but warned that this review must not be allowed to kick the issue into the long grass. Alan Johnson responded by saying that Cancer Tsar Mike Richards will report back in October.
Commenting afterwards, John said: “I very much welcome this review, as will campaigners up and down the country. It does suggest movement by the Government. The ban on co-payments was cruel, because it resulted in NHS care being withdrawn from dying patients, and illogical because co-payments already exist in the NHS. I hope Mike Richards takes these points into account.
“My only concern is that the review puts this issue on the back-burner, although we have been promised a report in October. The case of Linda O’Boyle proves that patients want to benefit from co-payments now – not in a year’s time.
“I shall be monitoring progress closely and hope to meet with Mike Richards shortly.”Terms of Reference for the Richards review:
The Review will be led by Professor Mike Richards, National Clinical Director for cancer, and will report by October 2008 to the Secretary of State for Health. The Review’s objectives are:
- To examine current policy relating to patients who choose to pay privately for drugs that are not funded on the NHS and who, as a result, are required to pay for the care that they would otherwise have received free on the NHS.
- To make recommendations on whether and how policy or guidance could be clarified or improved.
- In making recommendations, to take into account:
the importance of enabling patients to have choice and personal control over their healthcare; and
the need to uphold the founding principle of the NHS that treatment is based on clinical need not ability to pay, and to ensure that NHS services are fair to both patients and taxpayers.The Review will take account of:
- the Government’s wider strategy for improving the quality and effectiveness of NHS services; and
- developing policy and practice arising from the NHS Next Stage Review and Constitution.
Dial Secures over £330,000
Dial , the advice and information service for the disabled, has been awarded a substantial grant by the National Lottery. Based in the Basildon Centre and supported by the council, the Basildon and south Essex group has won its highest ever award of £330,580.
The cash will go to finance a project to cater for the needs of people with disabilities and their carers in Basildon, Thurrock and Rochford. Dial Basildon and South Essex helps people to access information, in one centre, supplied by staff who know and understand the problems disabled people face.
The project will now recruit more volunteers to provide the service and improve the training available to existing volunteers. It will also extend a home visiting service for housebound people over 55.
The cash will go to finance a project to cater for the needs of people with disabilities and their carers in Basildon, Thurrock and Rochford. Dial Basildon and South Essex helps people to access information, in one centre, supplied by staff who know and understand the problems disabled people face.
The project will now recruit more volunteers to provide the service and improve the training available to existing volunteers. It will also extend a home visiting service for housebound people over 55.
Jan Stevens, who runs the Basildon and south Essex scheme said: “This is great news for Basildon and south Essex. It will allow us to expand this invaluable service and bring added confidence and well being to some of the region’s most vulnerable residents."
Dial will now be looking to recruit two more staff members and additional volunteers.
Carnival Road Closures at Weekend
The following roads will be temporarily closed to allow the Basildon and Pitsea carnival to pass safely:
Leinster Road, Ballards Walk, Great Knightleys, Round Acre, part of the town centre, Link Way, Ghyllgrove and Burnt Mills Road will all be closed between 10am and 4pm on Saturday 21 June.
Motorists are advised to avoid the area or find alternative routes.
Leinster Road, Ballards Walk, Great Knightleys, Round Acre, part of the town centre, Link Way, Ghyllgrove and Burnt Mills Road will all be closed between 10am and 4pm on Saturday 21 June.
Motorists are advised to avoid the area or find alternative routes.
John Baron & the Barn Hall Lobby
John Baron MP and local residents will be lobbying the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government outside on Monday, 23 June at 11.00am.
The aim of this lobby is to illustrate the strength of opposition to the development of Barn Hall, and to present a 3,163 signature petition. The lobby takes place one day before the public inquiry on 24 June (due to last four days) at the St George’s Suite, The Basildon Centre, Basildon.
John wrote last month to Hazel Blears requesting a brief meeting on the day to include local residents, but as yet has not had a response.
The aim of this lobby is to illustrate the strength of opposition to the development of Barn Hall, and to present a 3,163 signature petition. The lobby takes place one day before the public inquiry on 24 June (due to last four days) at the St George’s Suite, The Basildon Centre, Basildon.
John wrote last month to Hazel Blears requesting a brief meeting on the day to include local residents, but as yet has not had a response.
Friday, 13 June 2008
Dartford Crossing Charges Plan
Summary: The cost of Dartford Crossing tolls is to go up to £1.50, Dart-TAG will remain at £1.00 and special rates are to come in for local residents. The new measures will be introduced sometime in the Autumn --- more nearer the date.
Rosie Winterton (Minister of State, Department for Transport) in a written ministerial statement issued on 12th June has outlined Government plans for the new charging regime affecting motorists using the Dartford Crossing.
The statement (sourced from Hansard) reads as follows:
In December 2006 we consulted on proposed changes to charges for use of the Dartford crossing to address continuing congestion pressures. The proposals were to tailor charges better to the conditions at the crossing, including raising cash charges to £1.50 for cars in the daytime and removing charges altogether at night when traffic flows more freely.
In response to that consultation exercise there were calls to introduce a discount scheme for local residents. The Government announced that it would develop a discount scheme for consultation, whilst going ahead with the proposed increases.
We launched a consultation on the local discount scheme on 16 February 2008, and it closed on 16 May 2008. 67 responses were received.
The Government are today publishing a summary of responses and our conclusions following the consultation exercise. I am placing copies in the Library of the House.
The Government have taken careful note of the responses received and have concluded that the scheme should be implemented as proposed, subject to removing to the requirement for an initial sum to be credited to accounts.
The key proposals relating to eligibility, the annual administration fee, entitlement to 50 free journeys, and journeys charged at 20p thereafter, are confirmed.
The Government expect to implement the scheme in the autumn, along with the other changes on which we consulted in 2006-07. This included raising cash charges for cars from £1 to £1.50.
The Government wish to highlight the fact that car drivers who opt to pay via a Dart-TAG and account will still be able to cross for £1, regardless of where they live.
We are aiming to introduce the changes in the autumn and we will confirm the precise date when the order is laid.
Rosie Winterton (Minister of State, Department for Transport) in a written ministerial statement issued on 12th June has outlined Government plans for the new charging regime affecting motorists using the Dartford Crossing.
The statement (sourced from Hansard) reads as follows:
In December 2006 we consulted on proposed changes to charges for use of the Dartford crossing to address continuing congestion pressures. The proposals were to tailor charges better to the conditions at the crossing, including raising cash charges to £1.50 for cars in the daytime and removing charges altogether at night when traffic flows more freely.
In response to that consultation exercise there were calls to introduce a discount scheme for local residents. The Government announced that it would develop a discount scheme for consultation, whilst going ahead with the proposed increases.
We launched a consultation on the local discount scheme on 16 February 2008, and it closed on 16 May 2008. 67 responses were received.
The Government are today publishing a summary of responses and our conclusions following the consultation exercise. I am placing copies in the Library of the House.
The Government have taken careful note of the responses received and have concluded that the scheme should be implemented as proposed, subject to removing to the requirement for an initial sum to be credited to accounts.
The key proposals relating to eligibility, the annual administration fee, entitlement to 50 free journeys, and journeys charged at 20p thereafter, are confirmed.
The Government expect to implement the scheme in the autumn, along with the other changes on which we consulted in 2006-07. This included raising cash charges for cars from £1 to £1.50.
The Government wish to highlight the fact that car drivers who opt to pay via a Dart-TAG and account will still be able to cross for £1, regardless of where they live.
We are aiming to introduce the changes in the autumn and we will confirm the precise date when the order is laid.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Gateway Countdown
Gateway FM goes live on 87.7 on June 23rd to provide the area's brightest, best and most local radio of all.
Courier's Open Day
Basildon's newest courier company is opening the doors at its new Head Office in Stella House, Luckyn Lane, Basildon on Thursday 26 June 2008 from 3.30pm until 6.30pm for any local businesses wishing to discuss their delivery requirements.
Managing Director of Abby Couriers, Mark Giles, said: "Since the press coverage of the opening of our new Head Office in Basildon we have had a number of calls from businesses in the Thames Gateway corridor wanting to visit us, see our operation and discuss their logistical requirements. That high level of interest is why we are now opening our offices for anyone who wishes to come along and see us in action."
Managing Director of Abby Couriers, Mark Giles, said: "Since the press coverage of the opening of our new Head Office in Basildon we have had a number of calls from businesses in the Thames Gateway corridor wanting to visit us, see our operation and discuss their logistical requirements. That high level of interest is why we are now opening our offices for anyone who wishes to come along and see us in action."
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Win a Chance to Perform at Basfest
For bands more used to playing in their garage or local pub, this is the chance of a lifetime. Basildon Council and Essex FM are searching for an amateur group to perform live in front of thousands of revellers at this year’s Basildon Festival.
In a battle of the bands competition, one talented group will win the opportunity to perform a live 45 minute slot on the main stage. They will join a Basfest line up which already includes X-Factor finalists, Journey South, and a band described as the best Beatles tribute act in the world.
Paul Brace, manager of Basildon Council’s cultural services, said: “We’re searching for the best unsigned band in Essex to play live at this year’s Basildon Festival. More than 40,000 people packed out Gloucester Park over two days last year so it won’t be for the faint-hearted.
“This is the first time we have thrown open a slot for an amateur band and we’re inviting groups of all ages and types to apply. Not only will the winners get the chance to perform alongside some seasoned professionals, they could also get the big break they are looking for.”
Five bands will be short listed by a panel of judges before Essex FM listeners vote for a winner. Among the other acts featuring at the festival is the ultra-talented and unusual tribute performer presenting her soul singer 'Amy Winehouse'. Backed by a full band, the Amy Winehouse Experience will perform hits from the award-winning album Back to Black, including Valerie and Rehab.
There will also be a touch of West End glamour as singers and dancers from The Buddy Holly Show celebrate the life of one of the most influential rock n rollers of the early 50s.
The group must be available to play on Sunday 6 July. The free Basildon Festival is taking place in Gloucester Park on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 July from 11am to 7.30pm.
For more information and to apply visit the Essex FM website. Entries must be received by 20 June.
In a battle of the bands competition, one talented group will win the opportunity to perform a live 45 minute slot on the main stage. They will join a Basfest line up which already includes X-Factor finalists, Journey South, and a band described as the best Beatles tribute act in the world.
Paul Brace, manager of Basildon Council’s cultural services, said: “We’re searching for the best unsigned band in Essex to play live at this year’s Basildon Festival. More than 40,000 people packed out Gloucester Park over two days last year so it won’t be for the faint-hearted.
“This is the first time we have thrown open a slot for an amateur band and we’re inviting groups of all ages and types to apply. Not only will the winners get the chance to perform alongside some seasoned professionals, they could also get the big break they are looking for.”
Five bands will be short listed by a panel of judges before Essex FM listeners vote for a winner. Among the other acts featuring at the festival is the ultra-talented and unusual tribute performer presenting her soul singer 'Amy Winehouse'. Backed by a full band, the Amy Winehouse Experience will perform hits from the award-winning album Back to Black, including Valerie and Rehab.
There will also be a touch of West End glamour as singers and dancers from The Buddy Holly Show celebrate the life of one of the most influential rock n rollers of the early 50s.
The group must be available to play on Sunday 6 July. The free Basildon Festival is taking place in Gloucester Park on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 July from 11am to 7.30pm.
For more information and to apply visit the Essex FM website. Entries must be received by 20 June.
New Tools in the Fight Against Local Low-level Crime
Antisocial behaviour, speeding cars, noise, graffiti, litter vandalism and drugs have never been problems local people feel they could tackle with confidence.
But things are changing after Neighbourhood Action Panels (NAPs) started springing up all over Basildon district. They first arrived in 2007 and are made up of local residents and their organisations who feel they have a contribution to make or who just want to get involved in protecting and improving their neighbourhoods and making them pleasant places to live in.
These include representatives from the local community, tenants associations, children and young people, voluntary agencies, schools, churches and others.
The panels are led by Essex police in partnership with the local community safety partnership (CDRP). They cover a fixed area, hold regular meetings, look closely at problems raised by local people or other community engagement methods, agree on local priorities and decide on realistic and achievable action to deal with them.
The key to their success in drawing in public support has been that although police are involved, they do not run the groups. The target problem areas are decided by local residents themselves.
This sense of ownership and being listened to has given a considerable boost to local confidence in the scheme.
The problems raised will be investigated by the local policing team who will then advise residents on an action plan to tackle them. Priorities are set by the community without influence from the police.
The police, through this support which is making these groups possible, are determined this initiative will not be a talking shop - it is designed to produce firm but considered action to deal with those issues deemed by local people as their priorities.
Basildon’s community safety partnership, a major supporter, has praised the success of the scheme so far. The partnership is encouraging residents to monitor the progress and types of problems being dealt with in their area by clicking on to Essex police’s website.
There they will find area by area coverage of the problems local people have raised, the actions being planned to tackle them and the results.
It will also give information on how to get involved and how to contribute – anonymously if necessary – in raising issues which might be tackled.
Essex police can put local residents in touch with their local neighbourhood specialist officer through their non emergency hotline 0300 333 4444, or via the Essex Police website at www.essex.police.uk.
But things are changing after Neighbourhood Action Panels (NAPs) started springing up all over Basildon district. They first arrived in 2007 and are made up of local residents and their organisations who feel they have a contribution to make or who just want to get involved in protecting and improving their neighbourhoods and making them pleasant places to live in.
These include representatives from the local community, tenants associations, children and young people, voluntary agencies, schools, churches and others.
The panels are led by Essex police in partnership with the local community safety partnership (CDRP). They cover a fixed area, hold regular meetings, look closely at problems raised by local people or other community engagement methods, agree on local priorities and decide on realistic and achievable action to deal with them.
The key to their success in drawing in public support has been that although police are involved, they do not run the groups. The target problem areas are decided by local residents themselves.
This sense of ownership and being listened to has given a considerable boost to local confidence in the scheme.
The problems raised will be investigated by the local policing team who will then advise residents on an action plan to tackle them. Priorities are set by the community without influence from the police.
The police, through this support which is making these groups possible, are determined this initiative will not be a talking shop - it is designed to produce firm but considered action to deal with those issues deemed by local people as their priorities.
Basildon’s community safety partnership, a major supporter, has praised the success of the scheme so far. The partnership is encouraging residents to monitor the progress and types of problems being dealt with in their area by clicking on to Essex police’s website.
There they will find area by area coverage of the problems local people have raised, the actions being planned to tackle them and the results.
It will also give information on how to get involved and how to contribute – anonymously if necessary – in raising issues which might be tackled.
Essex police can put local residents in touch with their local neighbourhood specialist officer through their non emergency hotline 0300 333 4444, or via the Essex Police website at www.essex.police.uk.
Council Spends Over £2000 on New Trees for Billericay
MORE than £2,000 is being spent on new tree planting in Billericay. Basildon Council is planning to plant eight trees between the roundabout of the A176 at Great Burstead and the junction of lower Southend Road at a cost of £1,000.
Half the trees will be Scots pine, a native evergreen tree, and the other half will be liquid amber, an American tree chosen for its autumn colour.
The council has also just spent £1,100 planting ten new trees along Noak Hill Road, near The Hoe. The walnut, lime and beach trees cost £1,000.
Half the trees will be Scots pine, a native evergreen tree, and the other half will be liquid amber, an American tree chosen for its autumn colour.
The council has also just spent £1,100 planting ten new trees along Noak Hill Road, near The Hoe. The walnut, lime and beach trees cost £1,000.
John Baron Responds to Article in the Sun
Commenting on the article on him in The Sun today over his opposition to 42-day detention without charge, Billericay and District MP John Baron said:
“I realise how sensitive this issue is for Mr and Mrs Taylor, but 42-day detention without charge would not have prevented the terrible events of 7/7 and will not protect us against a future attack: the Government admits as much, because the purpose of 42 days is to prolong investigation after a plot is uncovered and not to prevent it.
“No evidence has been produced to show that 42 days is necessary. The Director of Public Prosecutions has argued it is not needed and even the Security Services have not called for it. Parliament should legislate on the basis of evidence, not suspicion.
“During my service in Northern Ireland, I saw how internment became a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. 42-day detention would do the same thing. We risk doing the terrorists work for them if we now dismantle our hard-won liberties.
“Figures from Liberty clearly show that throughout Europe and North America, where the terror threat is no less than in Britain, the limit on pre-charge detention is less than one week. Why then do we need six?
John spoke out against proposals for 42-day detention on the Bill’s second reading. He is today seeking an opportunity to speak on the Report stage.
“I realise how sensitive this issue is for Mr and Mrs Taylor, but 42-day detention without charge would not have prevented the terrible events of 7/7 and will not protect us against a future attack: the Government admits as much, because the purpose of 42 days is to prolong investigation after a plot is uncovered and not to prevent it.
“No evidence has been produced to show that 42 days is necessary. The Director of Public Prosecutions has argued it is not needed and even the Security Services have not called for it. Parliament should legislate on the basis of evidence, not suspicion.
“During my service in Northern Ireland, I saw how internment became a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. 42-day detention would do the same thing. We risk doing the terrorists work for them if we now dismantle our hard-won liberties.
“Figures from Liberty clearly show that throughout Europe and North America, where the terror threat is no less than in Britain, the limit on pre-charge detention is less than one week. Why then do we need six?
John spoke out against proposals for 42-day detention on the Bill’s second reading. He is today seeking an opportunity to speak on the Report stage.
Alarming Mortgage Repossession Figures
Richard Spring (West Suffolk, Conservative)asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many mortgage possession orders were made in each county court in the East of England in each of the last five years.
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)stated in a written answer that the following table shows the number of mortgage possession orders made in all county courts in the East of England since 2003.
These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts, since not all the orders will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession.
The civil procedure rules state that all claims for the repossession of land must be commenced in the district in which the land is situated. However, county courts' jurisdictions are not coterminous with the borough boundaries, and therefore any single court's repossession actions are likely to relate to homes in a number of different boroughs.
Number of mortgage( 1) possession orders( 2, 3) made in the county courts ( 4) in the east of England
(1) Mortgage possession data includes all types of lenders whether local authority or private.
(2 ) The court, following a judicial hearing, may grant an order for possession immediately. This entitles the claimant to apply for a warrant to have the defendant evicted. However, even where a warrant for possession is issued, the parties can still negotiate a compromise to prevent eviction.
(3 ) Includes suspended orders and orders made.
(4 ) Does not include the small number of possession actions entered in the High Court.
(5) The rollout of the Possession Claim On-Line (PCOL) system in late 2006 has affected the availability of court-level data on mortgage possession orders. As a result it is only possible to provide court-level figures for those courts with direct on-site PCOL access for 2007. Therefore, upward adjustments have been made for the missing data at HMCS regional level, provided at the end of the table.
Source: Ministry of Justice
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)stated in a written answer that the following table shows the number of mortgage possession orders made in all county courts in the East of England since 2003.
These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts, since not all the orders will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession.
The civil procedure rules state that all claims for the repossession of land must be commenced in the district in which the land is situated. However, county courts' jurisdictions are not coterminous with the borough boundaries, and therefore any single court's repossession actions are likely to relate to homes in a number of different boroughs.
Number of mortgage( 1) possession orders( 2, 3) made in the county courts ( 4) in the east of England
(1) Mortgage possession data includes all types of lenders whether local authority or private.
(2 ) The court, following a judicial hearing, may grant an order for possession immediately. This entitles the claimant to apply for a warrant to have the defendant evicted. However, even where a warrant for possession is issued, the parties can still negotiate a compromise to prevent eviction.
(3 ) Includes suspended orders and orders made.
(4 ) Does not include the small number of possession actions entered in the High Court.
(5) The rollout of the Possession Claim On-Line (PCOL) system in late 2006 has affected the availability of court-level data on mortgage possession orders. As a result it is only possible to provide court-level figures for those courts with direct on-site PCOL access for 2007. Therefore, upward adjustments have been made for the missing data at HMCS regional level, provided at the end of the table.
Source: Ministry of Justice
Parliamentary Debate: NHS Co-payments
The following is a transcript of an important parliamentary debate reported in Hansard, in which local MP, John Baron, raised the important question of co-payments in the NHS as featured in yesterday's News blog on this site.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of my late constituent, Linda O'Boyle, who died earlier this year, sadly, after treatment for bowel cancer. Her case is both terribly sad and hugely frustrating. She was a warm-hearted woman with a great sense of humour who gave much of her life to the national health service and helping others. When she became ill, she had every right to expect that the NHS would be there for her, but it was not. The health service let her down in her hour of need.
Many patients have suffered because the NHS does not allow co-payments, which involve a patient paying privately for a drug not funded by the NHS while continuing to receive the basic NHS package of care. If patients want to top up their care, Government policy requires that free NHS treatment be withdrawn. Often, treatment is eventually delivered within the NHS setting, but the patient is presented with the bill for all aspects of care. Sometimes, as in the O'Boyle case, the patient is forced to go private for everything.
The facts of the case are straightforward. Linda was diagnosed with bowel cancer, and at first her treatment at Basildon and Southend hospitals went well. However, it was decided that she needed a second line of treatment with irinotecan earlier than planned. Then her consultant had to inform the family that treatment was not working, which came as a great shock. The desire to save or extend the life of a loved one is immensely strong. The family were desperate to find another treatment, and the consultant suggested that only cetuximab offered a realistic hope of extending Linda's life.
However, as we know, cetuximab is not available on the NHS, as it was turned down by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Whatever one's views about NICE and the fairness of some of its decisions, the relevant fact is simply that state-funded health care was unable to provide Mrs. O'Boyle with the treatment that her clinician said she needed.
Frank Field (Birkenhead, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman talks about "free" and "state-funded" NHS care. I remind him of his Thatcherite roots. We taxpayers, including Linda, pay for our care.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I accept that point 100 per cent. Mrs. O'Boyle had paid for her care through her taxes, of course, which is why her care should have been free, to use my terminology. She should not have had to pay for it. That is the cause of the problem.
Frank Field (Birkenhead, Labour)
If one accepts that we pay for our NHS care at a different time than we draw the benefit, the false dichotomy that the Government have erected falls to the ground. One wishes to top up the payments that one has already made. Given that the Government want to encourage public-private sector arrangements, I find it extraordinary that they do not want public-individual citizen projects such as the one Linda wished to do.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I fully accept where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. I take his point on board, particularly considering—I shall come to this point later—that in many other areas of the NHS, patients can top up without having their care withdrawn. That is a contradiction that the Government need to resolve.
The family decided to pay privately for the drug. Mrs. O'Boyle had hoped to receive cetuximab at the family's expense at Southend hospital while continuing to receive care as a cancer patient. It is worth emphasising that the family were exceptionally happy at that stage with the care that they had received within the NHS. The issue is not about doctors, nurses or consultants, for they did an excellent job of caring for Linda as far as they were allowed; it is about Government policy, which prevents them from doing their job.
One might have expected the NHS to do everything possible to help Linda O'Boyle—after all, its purpose is to extend life—but the family were told that that would not be the case. The family ended up paying for all the necessary treatment, including care that ought to have been available on the NHS. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the NHS effectively walked away from a dying woman in her moment of need, a woman who had given most of her life to the NHS.
Naturally, the cost to the family was huge. They also had to meet the cost of private consultations, prescription charges and home nursing care and pay the full market price for irinotecan and cetuximab. Taking everything into account, the total cost was around £14,000. It would have been £50,000 if Linda had survived the full six months of treatment. Seeking to extend the life of loved ones is not an aspiration unique to the rich. People are prepared to make great sacrifices to hold on to someone they love.
With the family's consent, I raised the issue with some newspapers, and it has received very good coverage during the past few weeks. Such publicity is never easy for the relatives involved, but Mr. O'Boyle and his sons took the decision to go public because they feel strongly that what happened to Linda was wrong and must not happen to other people. I commend them for that attitude. Mr. O'Boyle and one of his sons have joined us for this debate. Many other patients all over the country find themselves in similar situations. The Sunday Times, among others, has done splendid work to give them a voice. The best-known example is probably the breast cancer patient Colette Mills.
As for the arguments used by the Government to prevent patients from making co-payments, I have the benefit of anticipating some of the Minister's remarks, as I wrote to the Secretary of State earlier in the year about the issue. The reply that I received was, in my view, confused and inhumane. Let us be clear: co-payments are not about taking care from any other patient in order to help another patient go private. A drug is paid for privately, not subsidised by the state. The arrangement represents a move to a Pareto optimum. One patient benefits without any other patient being harmed.
The Government say that co-payments must be banned because otherwise we would be treating patients unfairly and creating a two-tier system, in which all patients would not be treated equally. That argument misses the point. Simply because a patient opts for some non-NHS treatments does not mean that the NHS cannot treat all patients equally in respect of the state-funded care that they receive. Each patient can still receive the same level of NHS care. Patients seeking co-payments are not asking for special favours, preferential treatment or a hand up from the NHS; they are simply asking for their standard package of care to be continued alongside the top-up. Patients whose NHS care has been withdrawn feel, understandably, that they are the ones being discriminated against because of their ability to pay. That cannot be right.
There is a world of difference between treating all patients equally and penalising some patients because they have the means to top up their treatment. It makes a mockery of the Government's second argument for banning co-payments, which is that a ban is somehow needed to keep the NHS free at the point of need. However, in the case of Colette Mills or Linda O'Boyle, the NHS is the very opposite of free at the point of need. Not all drugs are available on the NHS, because NICE turns down some treatments. Also, free NHS care is withdrawn when patients try to top up. That is not care free at the point of need.
The Government have a novel way of trying to get around the problem: they hide behind semantics. The Government argue that NHS guidance states clearly that someone cannot simultaneously be an NHS and a privately funded patient of the same NHS hospital within the same episode of care and that all NHS treatment for the same condition, such as bowel cancer, counts towards the same episode of care. Ostensibly, it is because the Government do not want to mix private and public funding, but that argument is clearly absurd. For one thing, some drugs are available free on the NHS and others are not. How can two treatments be part of the same episode of care if one is free and the other is not?
If the health service itself has chosen to differentiate between treatments through the NICE process, it is hypocritical to condemn patients for seeking to do likewise. Michael Summers of the Patients Association made that point in a similar way. He suggested that the public does not see the same episode of care as being a crucial distinction. At the end of the day, the public will just say that care is care. The Government are hiding behind the semantics of how one defines an episode of care, because they lack the courage, or perhaps even the initiative, to deal with unjust policy. All that is required is an open mind, and then guidance can be changed.
Another reason why the Government's position is perverse is that co-payments are already happening throughout the NHS and other public services. If I go to an optician as an NHS patient, and receive a free pair of glasses, nothing is to prevent me from using my own money to buy contact lenses—NHS care is not withdrawn. Likewise, if I go to a dentist and have an NHS filling, and then pay privately to have teeth cleaning or whitening, NHS care is not withdrawn. Meanwhile, we have private beds in NHS hospitals, using NHS equipment and staff. Again, patients do not have other aspects of care withdrawn. We could look outside the NHS: state education is not withdrawn simply because a child has access to private tuition. The state education system is there for everyone, regardless of whether private tuition takes place—state education is not withdrawn.
What is so different about cancer drugs and treatment? If co-payments are good enough for teeth whitening and contact lenses, why are they not good enough when it comes to prolonging, extending and perhaps even saving life? Many people are asking those questions outside this Chamber, but no one seems to have an answer—certainly not the Government. Britain's cancer survival rates still lag behind the European average, partly because we do not have the same access to the best new drugs. In that respect, we are the poor patients of Europe, which is shameful given that Britain is home to some of the leading drug companies in the world, and to some of the leading cancer research institutes in Europe. The NHS needs all the help that it can get. If anything, we should be empowering, not penalising, patients who opt for co-payments.
This issue will not go away. Many exciting new drugs are coming through the pipeline, and it is forecast that they will be available over the coming decade. Patients and their clinicians will, understandably, want to use them, but NICE will not be in a position to give the thumbs up to all of them. The NHS has a hard choice to make: does it stick with the current policy, born of ideological dogma? Does it hold back patients from accessing the best care for themselves and their families? Does it walk away from dying men and women whose only offence is to use their own money to extend their lives? Or do we, as a nation, do what we can to empower as many people as possible to access the best of the new treatments, without holding back, or penalising, those who cannot afford top-ups? The only civilised answer, for any nation facing this dilemma, is to save, or prolong, life wherever possible. Anything else is a far greater betrayal of the founding principles of the NHS and medicine. This inhumane and illogical policy will one day change. The question is: how long will it take the Government to recognise that, and how many patients will pay the price between now and then?
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on securing this debate, and join him in publicly offering my condolences to Mr. O'Boyle, and his sons, on the loss of his wife. Unless one has been in such a situation, one can never fully understand what it must be like to experience such pain and misery. However, it is easy to talk about Government being inhumane, but I think that it is a cheap shot—nobody in this situation is inhumane. Politicians on both sides of the House have experienced the same situation, and we should try and avoid making party-political jibes. It is an incredibly serious and substantive issue that merits a serious and substantive political and public debate in order to reach the right conclusions.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I think that the Minister misheard. I did not accuse the Government of being inhumane, but the policy. I want to make it clear that I am certainly not trying to play party-politics.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I accept the hon. Gentleman's reassurances. We have some very important and serious issues to address as part of this debate.
It is difficult to explain, but it would not be appropriate to talk about an individual case, so I must keep my remarks general at this stage. However, we must be clear that no one should ever be denied the offer of NHS care. That is a fundamental principle, on which our guidance is clear. Patients are entitled to switch from privately funded to NHS-funded status, and should then receive treatment on the same basis as any other NHS patient, and be offered treatment based on clinical need. Any previous status as a privately funded patient should, as far as is practical, neither disadvantage them nor allow them to access NHS care in a preferential way.
More treatments than ever are now available on the NHS, and cancer treatment and survival rates in this country have improved dramatically. However, any publicly funded health care system will always have to make difficult decisions about what treatments are available, and some treatments are not generally available on the NHS. We set up NICE, which is now regarded as a world leader, to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of drugs and treatments based on the latest evidence. Primary care trusts have a statutory duty to fund the use of drugs that are recommended by NICE technology appraisals, ensuring that proven treatments are available to everybody.
The inevitable consequence of the NICE process, however, is that some PCTS will decide not to fund some treatments. For example, a treatment might not have received a safety licence from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or NICE might find that it does not give patients enough clinical benefit to justify the expense. Those decisions are never taken lightly, and NICE will always find itself in difficulty when making decisions seen to deny people drugs that they genuinely believe will make a difference to the length or quality of their lives. There is never a controversy when NICE approves drugs, but it will inevitably follow some of the incredibly difficult decisions that it must make.
There has been tremendous political consensus about the virtues of having a NICE-type system to make some of those very difficult decisions: it is removed from party-politics and creates an entirely independent process governed by legislation established in this House. It is important to be clear that it would be inappropriate for Ministers to intervene in and undermine every difficult decision that NICE makes.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I accept what the Minister says to a certain extent, but in this context NICE is a bit of a red herring. The point here is about co-payments and access to drugs not available on NICE—not about how it makes its decision. Patients should not be penalised by an NHS that then withdraws care simply because they have access to those drugs.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but for many patients and families, the difficult decisions that NICE makes are sometimes a great source of angst. They can find those decisions hard to understand because they believe that having access to a certain drug would make a massive difference to their chances of living or dying. It is important to contextualise the debate in that sense.
Moving to the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, we are not in the business of denying people access to private treatment if that is what they want. A patient may receive both NHS and private treatment for the same condition, in parallel, as long as—this is the key phrase—the two treatments are in separate episodes of care. Our most recent guidance specifies that a patient cannot be both a private and an NHS patient for the treatment of one condition during a single visit to an NHS organisation, but an in-patient can choose to change their status before the treatment begins provided that they are then assessed to determine their priority for NHS care. I reiterate that that has been the position in this country for at least two decades and is not a consequence of any particular NHS reform by the Labour Government. The position is more difficult when a patient seeks to pay for part of an episode of care while expecting the NHS to pay for the rest. That has never been allowed in the 60 years of the NHS.
The legal basis for the ban on mixing private and public funding is in section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which says that NHS services
"must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed."
That prevents NHS bodies from accepting payments for NHS services unless that is provided for in legislation. It also prevents an NHS body from providing an incomplete package of care that patients then top up. For example, if a patient's treatment is the administration of a particular drug, their treatment includes both the purchase and administration of that drug. If an NHS organisation allows a patient to pay for a drug but administers it on the NHS, it is effectively charging for an NHS service.
Frank Field (Birkenhead, Labour)
May I make a plea to the Minister, who is held in high esteem in this House? I hope that when he goes back he will tell his Department that he does not want to be sent out with a brief like this again. We are arguing not about what the law is—we know what the law is—but for the law to be changed. Will he deal with that?
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I will: I was about to say that section 1 is consistent with the way in which the NHS has considered this issue. My right hon. Friend is not being disingenuous, but it is slightly disingenuous to accuse successive generations of clinicians, politicians and other people who believe passionately in the NHS of not having considered this issue in fundamental depth. Of course, there needs to be a debate on this issue, but it is not a new issue that has emerged in the past few days, weeks or months. It has been a constant debate throughout the 60 years of the NHS.
Ministers have to place on record the legal realities. The hon. Gentleman and others are arguing for a significant change in legislation, which would, arguably, be a significant change in the fundamental ethos that underpins the NHS. That might be a source of difference between us, but to change the legislation and policy in the way that he advocates would be a major shift in policy and legislation. We must also be aware, as I know that my right hon. Friend is, of unintended consequences, which I shall address in a moment.
John Baron (Whip, Whips; Billericay, Conservative)
The Minister talks about a major shift being required, but the only major shift that is required is having an open mind to changing the guidance. Top-ups, or co-payments, already exist in many areas of the NHS—I have cited some examples. Will the Minister address a specific point? The Department's ban on co-payments takes the form of guidance rather than instruction, which means that NHS trusts across the country are using their discretion when such cases arise. If the Minister truly believes his argument against co-payments, why does he not close that loophole? He says that this matter has been discussed for quite some time.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
We would have to be persuaded that that would be right, would be in the interests of patients and would take account of the almost daily advances in medical science for health care in this country and globally. To look at this issue in the context of the situation facing the O'Boyle family, it would be difficult not to feel tremendous empathy with the case being made, but we must consider, if we are to change policy or legislation, that there might be a series of unintended consequences that might not be apparent to the hon. Gentleman.
John Baron (Whip, Whips; Billericay, Conservative)
Will the Minister give way?
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I have given way enough, but I will give way one last time.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
We are not being party political, so we can be generous in giving way. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but the Minister did not address my central point. The Department's policy on co-payments—the ban on them—is in the form of guidance, not instruction. That allows PCTs up and down the country to use their discretion when implementing co-payments or not doing so. If the Minister is absolutely convinced by the case against co-payments, why does not he simply ban them and close that loophole? The Government are allowing the loophole to exist.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
We will have to consider that point as a consequence of this debate. No one is suggesting that we can ignore the sensitive and difficult considerations that the issue of top-ups raises, such as whether NHS guidance is being applied consistently across the country. We have a constant debate in the NHS about the balance between having a universal, national service and having local flexibility, discretion and autonomy. To some extent, the aspiration of all Governments is to minimise postcode lotteries where possible. We know that decisions taken at the local level can, from time to time, be very different depending on the judgments of managers and clinicians, and this matter is no different to that. However, we are willing to consider the implications of the debate in the context of an ever-moving landscape of treatments and drugs that are becoming available.
Dr. Trask is an eminent clinician, and he has highlighted my point about the potential unintended consequences of simply changing law and policy in a way that some would describe as common sense and fair, but that others would define as opening a can of worms. Such a change might lead to a situation that would not be in the interests of patients and the NHS.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
Does the Minister consider that a doctor's professional duty to his patients overrides the Department's guidance—returning to guidance again—where the two may be in conflict?
Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)
Order. I am very sorry, but we have to move on to the next debate.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of my late constituent, Linda O'Boyle, who died earlier this year, sadly, after treatment for bowel cancer. Her case is both terribly sad and hugely frustrating. She was a warm-hearted woman with a great sense of humour who gave much of her life to the national health service and helping others. When she became ill, she had every right to expect that the NHS would be there for her, but it was not. The health service let her down in her hour of need.
Many patients have suffered because the NHS does not allow co-payments, which involve a patient paying privately for a drug not funded by the NHS while continuing to receive the basic NHS package of care. If patients want to top up their care, Government policy requires that free NHS treatment be withdrawn. Often, treatment is eventually delivered within the NHS setting, but the patient is presented with the bill for all aspects of care. Sometimes, as in the O'Boyle case, the patient is forced to go private for everything.
The facts of the case are straightforward. Linda was diagnosed with bowel cancer, and at first her treatment at Basildon and Southend hospitals went well. However, it was decided that she needed a second line of treatment with irinotecan earlier than planned. Then her consultant had to inform the family that treatment was not working, which came as a great shock. The desire to save or extend the life of a loved one is immensely strong. The family were desperate to find another treatment, and the consultant suggested that only cetuximab offered a realistic hope of extending Linda's life.
However, as we know, cetuximab is not available on the NHS, as it was turned down by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Whatever one's views about NICE and the fairness of some of its decisions, the relevant fact is simply that state-funded health care was unable to provide Mrs. O'Boyle with the treatment that her clinician said she needed.
Frank Field (Birkenhead, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman talks about "free" and "state-funded" NHS care. I remind him of his Thatcherite roots. We taxpayers, including Linda, pay for our care.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I accept that point 100 per cent. Mrs. O'Boyle had paid for her care through her taxes, of course, which is why her care should have been free, to use my terminology. She should not have had to pay for it. That is the cause of the problem.
Frank Field (Birkenhead, Labour)
If one accepts that we pay for our NHS care at a different time than we draw the benefit, the false dichotomy that the Government have erected falls to the ground. One wishes to top up the payments that one has already made. Given that the Government want to encourage public-private sector arrangements, I find it extraordinary that they do not want public-individual citizen projects such as the one Linda wished to do.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I fully accept where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. I take his point on board, particularly considering—I shall come to this point later—that in many other areas of the NHS, patients can top up without having their care withdrawn. That is a contradiction that the Government need to resolve.
The family decided to pay privately for the drug. Mrs. O'Boyle had hoped to receive cetuximab at the family's expense at Southend hospital while continuing to receive care as a cancer patient. It is worth emphasising that the family were exceptionally happy at that stage with the care that they had received within the NHS. The issue is not about doctors, nurses or consultants, for they did an excellent job of caring for Linda as far as they were allowed; it is about Government policy, which prevents them from doing their job.
One might have expected the NHS to do everything possible to help Linda O'Boyle—after all, its purpose is to extend life—but the family were told that that would not be the case. The family ended up paying for all the necessary treatment, including care that ought to have been available on the NHS. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the NHS effectively walked away from a dying woman in her moment of need, a woman who had given most of her life to the NHS.
Naturally, the cost to the family was huge. They also had to meet the cost of private consultations, prescription charges and home nursing care and pay the full market price for irinotecan and cetuximab. Taking everything into account, the total cost was around £14,000. It would have been £50,000 if Linda had survived the full six months of treatment. Seeking to extend the life of loved ones is not an aspiration unique to the rich. People are prepared to make great sacrifices to hold on to someone they love.
With the family's consent, I raised the issue with some newspapers, and it has received very good coverage during the past few weeks. Such publicity is never easy for the relatives involved, but Mr. O'Boyle and his sons took the decision to go public because they feel strongly that what happened to Linda was wrong and must not happen to other people. I commend them for that attitude. Mr. O'Boyle and one of his sons have joined us for this debate. Many other patients all over the country find themselves in similar situations. The Sunday Times, among others, has done splendid work to give them a voice. The best-known example is probably the breast cancer patient Colette Mills.
As for the arguments used by the Government to prevent patients from making co-payments, I have the benefit of anticipating some of the Minister's remarks, as I wrote to the Secretary of State earlier in the year about the issue. The reply that I received was, in my view, confused and inhumane. Let us be clear: co-payments are not about taking care from any other patient in order to help another patient go private. A drug is paid for privately, not subsidised by the state. The arrangement represents a move to a Pareto optimum. One patient benefits without any other patient being harmed.
The Government say that co-payments must be banned because otherwise we would be treating patients unfairly and creating a two-tier system, in which all patients would not be treated equally. That argument misses the point. Simply because a patient opts for some non-NHS treatments does not mean that the NHS cannot treat all patients equally in respect of the state-funded care that they receive. Each patient can still receive the same level of NHS care. Patients seeking co-payments are not asking for special favours, preferential treatment or a hand up from the NHS; they are simply asking for their standard package of care to be continued alongside the top-up. Patients whose NHS care has been withdrawn feel, understandably, that they are the ones being discriminated against because of their ability to pay. That cannot be right.
There is a world of difference between treating all patients equally and penalising some patients because they have the means to top up their treatment. It makes a mockery of the Government's second argument for banning co-payments, which is that a ban is somehow needed to keep the NHS free at the point of need. However, in the case of Colette Mills or Linda O'Boyle, the NHS is the very opposite of free at the point of need. Not all drugs are available on the NHS, because NICE turns down some treatments. Also, free NHS care is withdrawn when patients try to top up. That is not care free at the point of need.
The Government have a novel way of trying to get around the problem: they hide behind semantics. The Government argue that NHS guidance states clearly that someone cannot simultaneously be an NHS and a privately funded patient of the same NHS hospital within the same episode of care and that all NHS treatment for the same condition, such as bowel cancer, counts towards the same episode of care. Ostensibly, it is because the Government do not want to mix private and public funding, but that argument is clearly absurd. For one thing, some drugs are available free on the NHS and others are not. How can two treatments be part of the same episode of care if one is free and the other is not?
If the health service itself has chosen to differentiate between treatments through the NICE process, it is hypocritical to condemn patients for seeking to do likewise. Michael Summers of the Patients Association made that point in a similar way. He suggested that the public does not see the same episode of care as being a crucial distinction. At the end of the day, the public will just say that care is care. The Government are hiding behind the semantics of how one defines an episode of care, because they lack the courage, or perhaps even the initiative, to deal with unjust policy. All that is required is an open mind, and then guidance can be changed.
Another reason why the Government's position is perverse is that co-payments are already happening throughout the NHS and other public services. If I go to an optician as an NHS patient, and receive a free pair of glasses, nothing is to prevent me from using my own money to buy contact lenses—NHS care is not withdrawn. Likewise, if I go to a dentist and have an NHS filling, and then pay privately to have teeth cleaning or whitening, NHS care is not withdrawn. Meanwhile, we have private beds in NHS hospitals, using NHS equipment and staff. Again, patients do not have other aspects of care withdrawn. We could look outside the NHS: state education is not withdrawn simply because a child has access to private tuition. The state education system is there for everyone, regardless of whether private tuition takes place—state education is not withdrawn.
What is so different about cancer drugs and treatment? If co-payments are good enough for teeth whitening and contact lenses, why are they not good enough when it comes to prolonging, extending and perhaps even saving life? Many people are asking those questions outside this Chamber, but no one seems to have an answer—certainly not the Government. Britain's cancer survival rates still lag behind the European average, partly because we do not have the same access to the best new drugs. In that respect, we are the poor patients of Europe, which is shameful given that Britain is home to some of the leading drug companies in the world, and to some of the leading cancer research institutes in Europe. The NHS needs all the help that it can get. If anything, we should be empowering, not penalising, patients who opt for co-payments.
This issue will not go away. Many exciting new drugs are coming through the pipeline, and it is forecast that they will be available over the coming decade. Patients and their clinicians will, understandably, want to use them, but NICE will not be in a position to give the thumbs up to all of them. The NHS has a hard choice to make: does it stick with the current policy, born of ideological dogma? Does it hold back patients from accessing the best care for themselves and their families? Does it walk away from dying men and women whose only offence is to use their own money to extend their lives? Or do we, as a nation, do what we can to empower as many people as possible to access the best of the new treatments, without holding back, or penalising, those who cannot afford top-ups? The only civilised answer, for any nation facing this dilemma, is to save, or prolong, life wherever possible. Anything else is a far greater betrayal of the founding principles of the NHS and medicine. This inhumane and illogical policy will one day change. The question is: how long will it take the Government to recognise that, and how many patients will pay the price between now and then?
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on securing this debate, and join him in publicly offering my condolences to Mr. O'Boyle, and his sons, on the loss of his wife. Unless one has been in such a situation, one can never fully understand what it must be like to experience such pain and misery. However, it is easy to talk about Government being inhumane, but I think that it is a cheap shot—nobody in this situation is inhumane. Politicians on both sides of the House have experienced the same situation, and we should try and avoid making party-political jibes. It is an incredibly serious and substantive issue that merits a serious and substantive political and public debate in order to reach the right conclusions.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I think that the Minister misheard. I did not accuse the Government of being inhumane, but the policy. I want to make it clear that I am certainly not trying to play party-politics.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I accept the hon. Gentleman's reassurances. We have some very important and serious issues to address as part of this debate.
It is difficult to explain, but it would not be appropriate to talk about an individual case, so I must keep my remarks general at this stage. However, we must be clear that no one should ever be denied the offer of NHS care. That is a fundamental principle, on which our guidance is clear. Patients are entitled to switch from privately funded to NHS-funded status, and should then receive treatment on the same basis as any other NHS patient, and be offered treatment based on clinical need. Any previous status as a privately funded patient should, as far as is practical, neither disadvantage them nor allow them to access NHS care in a preferential way.
More treatments than ever are now available on the NHS, and cancer treatment and survival rates in this country have improved dramatically. However, any publicly funded health care system will always have to make difficult decisions about what treatments are available, and some treatments are not generally available on the NHS. We set up NICE, which is now regarded as a world leader, to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of drugs and treatments based on the latest evidence. Primary care trusts have a statutory duty to fund the use of drugs that are recommended by NICE technology appraisals, ensuring that proven treatments are available to everybody.
The inevitable consequence of the NICE process, however, is that some PCTS will decide not to fund some treatments. For example, a treatment might not have received a safety licence from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or NICE might find that it does not give patients enough clinical benefit to justify the expense. Those decisions are never taken lightly, and NICE will always find itself in difficulty when making decisions seen to deny people drugs that they genuinely believe will make a difference to the length or quality of their lives. There is never a controversy when NICE approves drugs, but it will inevitably follow some of the incredibly difficult decisions that it must make.
There has been tremendous political consensus about the virtues of having a NICE-type system to make some of those very difficult decisions: it is removed from party-politics and creates an entirely independent process governed by legislation established in this House. It is important to be clear that it would be inappropriate for Ministers to intervene in and undermine every difficult decision that NICE makes.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
I accept what the Minister says to a certain extent, but in this context NICE is a bit of a red herring. The point here is about co-payments and access to drugs not available on NICE—not about how it makes its decision. Patients should not be penalised by an NHS that then withdraws care simply because they have access to those drugs.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but for many patients and families, the difficult decisions that NICE makes are sometimes a great source of angst. They can find those decisions hard to understand because they believe that having access to a certain drug would make a massive difference to their chances of living or dying. It is important to contextualise the debate in that sense.
Moving to the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, we are not in the business of denying people access to private treatment if that is what they want. A patient may receive both NHS and private treatment for the same condition, in parallel, as long as—this is the key phrase—the two treatments are in separate episodes of care. Our most recent guidance specifies that a patient cannot be both a private and an NHS patient for the treatment of one condition during a single visit to an NHS organisation, but an in-patient can choose to change their status before the treatment begins provided that they are then assessed to determine their priority for NHS care. I reiterate that that has been the position in this country for at least two decades and is not a consequence of any particular NHS reform by the Labour Government. The position is more difficult when a patient seeks to pay for part of an episode of care while expecting the NHS to pay for the rest. That has never been allowed in the 60 years of the NHS.
The legal basis for the ban on mixing private and public funding is in section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which says that NHS services
"must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed."
That prevents NHS bodies from accepting payments for NHS services unless that is provided for in legislation. It also prevents an NHS body from providing an incomplete package of care that patients then top up. For example, if a patient's treatment is the administration of a particular drug, their treatment includes both the purchase and administration of that drug. If an NHS organisation allows a patient to pay for a drug but administers it on the NHS, it is effectively charging for an NHS service.
Frank Field (Birkenhead, Labour)
May I make a plea to the Minister, who is held in high esteem in this House? I hope that when he goes back he will tell his Department that he does not want to be sent out with a brief like this again. We are arguing not about what the law is—we know what the law is—but for the law to be changed. Will he deal with that?
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I will: I was about to say that section 1 is consistent with the way in which the NHS has considered this issue. My right hon. Friend is not being disingenuous, but it is slightly disingenuous to accuse successive generations of clinicians, politicians and other people who believe passionately in the NHS of not having considered this issue in fundamental depth. Of course, there needs to be a debate on this issue, but it is not a new issue that has emerged in the past few days, weeks or months. It has been a constant debate throughout the 60 years of the NHS.
Ministers have to place on record the legal realities. The hon. Gentleman and others are arguing for a significant change in legislation, which would, arguably, be a significant change in the fundamental ethos that underpins the NHS. That might be a source of difference between us, but to change the legislation and policy in the way that he advocates would be a major shift in policy and legislation. We must also be aware, as I know that my right hon. Friend is, of unintended consequences, which I shall address in a moment.
John Baron (Whip, Whips; Billericay, Conservative)
The Minister talks about a major shift being required, but the only major shift that is required is having an open mind to changing the guidance. Top-ups, or co-payments, already exist in many areas of the NHS—I have cited some examples. Will the Minister address a specific point? The Department's ban on co-payments takes the form of guidance rather than instruction, which means that NHS trusts across the country are using their discretion when such cases arise. If the Minister truly believes his argument against co-payments, why does he not close that loophole? He says that this matter has been discussed for quite some time.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
We would have to be persuaded that that would be right, would be in the interests of patients and would take account of the almost daily advances in medical science for health care in this country and globally. To look at this issue in the context of the situation facing the O'Boyle family, it would be difficult not to feel tremendous empathy with the case being made, but we must consider, if we are to change policy or legislation, that there might be a series of unintended consequences that might not be apparent to the hon. Gentleman.
John Baron (Whip, Whips; Billericay, Conservative)
Will the Minister give way?
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
I have given way enough, but I will give way one last time.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
We are not being party political, so we can be generous in giving way. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but the Minister did not address my central point. The Department's policy on co-payments—the ban on them—is in the form of guidance, not instruction. That allows PCTs up and down the country to use their discretion when implementing co-payments or not doing so. If the Minister is absolutely convinced by the case against co-payments, why does not he simply ban them and close that loophole? The Government are allowing the loophole to exist.
Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)
We will have to consider that point as a consequence of this debate. No one is suggesting that we can ignore the sensitive and difficult considerations that the issue of top-ups raises, such as whether NHS guidance is being applied consistently across the country. We have a constant debate in the NHS about the balance between having a universal, national service and having local flexibility, discretion and autonomy. To some extent, the aspiration of all Governments is to minimise postcode lotteries where possible. We know that decisions taken at the local level can, from time to time, be very different depending on the judgments of managers and clinicians, and this matter is no different to that. However, we are willing to consider the implications of the debate in the context of an ever-moving landscape of treatments and drugs that are becoming available.
I conclude by quoting Dr. Colin Trask, the director of clinical oncology at Southend hospital, whose comments are important. He has said: "At Southend hospital, our annual budget for drugs has gone from £1 million to £6million over the past decade. We have the money to spend on drugs. It's not about cost. It's about what is best, not just for a patient's life but for their quality of life...If it was in their interests, they would get the drug"
He went on: "Even if it is not available on the NHS, we would try to find a way to get it for them, by referring them somewhere they could get it, perhaps as part of a drug trial. But if it wouldn't help them, we would explain the drug is very toxic and would mean them spending their last bit of time in hospital feeling very ill ... Also, with cancer treatments, it can be extremely dangerous to mix certain drugs, so there are genuine safety concerns behind these co-payment regulations...these days, people hear of drugs through the media which are hyped as miracle cures when really that not the case."
Dr. Trask is an eminent clinician, and he has highlighted my point about the potential unintended consequences of simply changing law and policy in a way that some would describe as common sense and fair, but that others would define as opening a can of worms. Such a change might lead to a situation that would not be in the interests of patients and the NHS.
John Baron (Billericay, Conservative)
Does the Minister consider that a doctor's professional duty to his patients overrides the Department's guidance—returning to guidance again—where the two may be in conflict?
Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)
Order. I am very sorry, but we have to move on to the next debate.
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Small Businesses Seek Thames Gateway Support to Upgrade the A12
Essex FSB (Federation of Small Businesses) is asking the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership to pledge its support to the campaign to upgrade the A12.
The FSB represents more than 211,000 business people across the United Kingdom and is the largest single organisation representing business interests in the country.
The Essex Region of the FSB represents small businesses in the areas covered by Essex County Council and the London Boroughs of Havering and Redbridge.
Essex FSB Transport Spokesman, Ian Cass, said: "Although the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership covers the south of the county many of the businesses based there and the residents who live there travel elsewhere in Essex and that inevitably means they will use the A12.
"If the projected growth in housing and economic prosperity in the Thames Gateway is to be achieved then the transport infrastructure needs to be right.
"At the moment the A12 is the main trunk road serving Essex, providing a direct link to the motorway network yet it is being used at well over its planned capacity and the slightest problem on the road causes major delays for hundreds of motorists including a significant number of Essex businesses.
"Using the A12 often leads to lost time and frustration caused by the inadequacy of the current road network which costs businesses a large amountof money each year as well as adding to the stress of drivers using the road.
"Essex FSB is asking the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership to work with Essex County Council to persuade Government to allocate the funds necessary to upgrade the A12 as such improvements would have direct benefits on the attractiveness of firms and individuals to relocate to the area."
The FSB represents more than 211,000 business people across the United Kingdom and is the largest single organisation representing business interests in the country.
The Essex Region of the FSB represents small businesses in the areas covered by Essex County Council and the London Boroughs of Havering and Redbridge.
Football:- Essex Senior Cup Finalists Collect Prize Cheques
Two local senior clubs had their bank accounts boosted to the tune of thousands of pounds as reward for one of the most successful ever FansFocus.Com Essex Senior Cup Finals when Southend United narrowly defeated Chelmsford City at Roots Hall on 1st April.
The Board of Directors at Chelmsford were delighted to receive £3,750 towards club coffers at their Melbourne home recently, consisting of £3,000 worth of gate receipts from the showpiece and £750 prize money for finishing as runners-up.
First Team Shrimpers Manager Steve Tilson, meanwhile, took hold of Southend’s equivalent £4,000 cheque as winners of the competition.
United claimed the silverware in front of 2,995 enthralled spectators, with Hungarian defender Zoltan Liptak’s solitary close-range strike on 27 minutes meaning the side picked-up their first Senior Cup in eleven years. Essex County Football Association Chief Executive, Phil Sammons, was thrilled to be able to contribute such large sums to the finalists, which were unprecedented figures in recent competition history.
The Board of Directors at Chelmsford were delighted to receive £3,750 towards club coffers at their Melbourne home recently, consisting of £3,000 worth of gate receipts from the showpiece and £750 prize money for finishing as runners-up.
First Team Shrimpers Manager Steve Tilson, meanwhile, took hold of Southend’s equivalent £4,000 cheque as winners of the competition.
United claimed the silverware in front of 2,995 enthralled spectators, with Hungarian defender Zoltan Liptak’s solitary close-range strike on 27 minutes meaning the side picked-up their first Senior Cup in eleven years. Essex County Football Association Chief Executive, Phil Sammons, was thrilled to be able to contribute such large sums to the finalists, which were unprecedented figures in recent competition history.
John Baron Slams Inhumane NHS Policy
John Baron MP has used today's debate in Parliament to challenge the Government’s ban on co-payments in the NHS. Co-payments, or “top-ups”, are when patients attempt to top-up their standard care with privately-funded drugs not available on the health service without losing NHS care.
The issue was highlighted locally when cancer patient Linda O’Boyle died after the NHS refused to fund or administer a life-extending treatment and she was forced to go private.
Commenting after the debate in the House of Commons, John said: “The ban on co-payments is wrong because it means withdrawing free NHS care from dying patients simply because they paid privately to obtain a drug not available on the NHS. Such a policy is inhumane.
Comment: What sort of crazy State is it that refuses a patient the right to supplement State provided medicines at their own cost with medications the State system is unable to supply, even though the physician recommends the use of those medicines? John is right --- the issue needs to be resolved quickly. This is not an issue of preferential treatment, budget availability or cost of treatment.It is an issue of respect for life.
Everyone understands that the NHS operates within a range of guidelines and financial constraints. However, it beggars belief that any government would knowingly have passed legislation giving rise to the outrageous co-payment ban if aware of the implications for families such as that of Linda O'Boyle.
The issue was highlighted locally when cancer patient Linda O’Boyle died after the NHS refused to fund or administer a life-extending treatment and she was forced to go private.
Commenting after the debate in the House of Commons, John said: “The ban on co-payments is wrong because it means withdrawing free NHS care from dying patients simply because they paid privately to obtain a drug not available on the NHS. Such a policy is inhumane.
“Patients seeking to top-up are not asking for favours or preferential treatments: no NHS care is taken away from other patients. Therefore the health service should be doing everything it can to help save or extend life.
“There are many examples of patients topping up NHS care already. If I go to an NHS dentist and then pay privately for teeth whitening, free NHS care is not withdrawn. So why is cancer any different? It is even more important to allow top-ups where they can save life.
“The family of Linda O’Boyle has been very courageous in speaking out against the ban on co-payments. We hope that in future patients will not have to go through the same thing.”
Comment: What sort of crazy State is it that refuses a patient the right to supplement State provided medicines at their own cost with medications the State system is unable to supply, even though the physician recommends the use of those medicines? John is right --- the issue needs to be resolved quickly. This is not an issue of preferential treatment, budget availability or cost of treatment.It is an issue of respect for life.
Everyone understands that the NHS operates within a range of guidelines and financial constraints. However, it beggars belief that any government would knowingly have passed legislation giving rise to the outrageous co-payment ban if aware of the implications for families such as that of Linda O'Boyle.
Monday, 9 June 2008
New Base for Old Soldiers
The Royal British Legion (RBL) is to be offered the lease of the newly rebuilt Triangle Community Centre after last year’s disastrous fire.
Local residents were canvassed and the centre was widely advertised when the building once again became available to let. A search was mounted to find a suitable organisation to take on the lease and to find out which other community groups might be interested in regular hirings.
The legion was one of six organisations to express an interest in taking on the lease. Their secure financial position and management resources as well as strong supporting ties with their membership of a national organisation and commitment to the local community could not be matched by any rival group.
The RBL has long had a base in Laindon but lost their last premises under a compulsory purchase order. They were keen to find another property to maintain their close local ties. For the British Legion, the Triangle will become their headquarters building, housing administrative and branch meetings.
It will be a centre for social events and a meeting place for ex-service men and women as well as offering support and advisory services. It will become the nerve centre for its famous annual poppy appeal for the Basildon and Laindon branch which raises £40,000 a year as part of the national effort.
Detailed lease negotiations will now take place to finalise the deal.
Other organisations that expressed an interest in the lease will be put in touch with the RBL to see if hiring accommodation there might meet their needs.
Local residents were canvassed and the centre was widely advertised when the building once again became available to let. A search was mounted to find a suitable organisation to take on the lease and to find out which other community groups might be interested in regular hirings.
The legion was one of six organisations to express an interest in taking on the lease. Their secure financial position and management resources as well as strong supporting ties with their membership of a national organisation and commitment to the local community could not be matched by any rival group.
The RBL has long had a base in Laindon but lost their last premises under a compulsory purchase order. They were keen to find another property to maintain their close local ties. For the British Legion, the Triangle will become their headquarters building, housing administrative and branch meetings.
It will be a centre for social events and a meeting place for ex-service men and women as well as offering support and advisory services. It will become the nerve centre for its famous annual poppy appeal for the Basildon and Laindon branch which raises £40,000 a year as part of the national effort.
Detailed lease negotiations will now take place to finalise the deal.
Other organisations that expressed an interest in the lease will be put in touch with the RBL to see if hiring accommodation there might meet their needs.
Councillor Andrew Baggott, cabinet member for community services, said: “Our aim has been to ensure that this centre is properly managed and financed and that it gives local people a social hub with a sustainable future.
“The Royal British Legion will provide a secure and worthwhile anchor for this splendidly refurbished centre.
“Their plans should make it possible for the Triangle to become a lively focus for local residents of all ages and interests, a place to relax and enjoy and a place to get help and advice.”
Major John Hawkins, chairman of the RBL branch, said : “I am grateful and indebted to Basildon Council’s councillors and staff for helping us to achieve our aim of securing a home in the district.
“We are very much looking forward to working with the local community and catering for local needs”.
Friday, 6 June 2008
Basildon Council Promotes Advice for Home Buyers
Following the success of a drop-in session last July, Basildon Council has arranged for its partner housing association, Moat Homes Limited, to run another session to answer questions on low cost home owning options for people living or working within the district.
Staff from Moat will be on hand in the foyer at the Basildon Centre, between 11am and 3pm, Wednesday 18 June. No appointment is necessary.
Moat can offer advice on a number of different schemes depending on your circumstances and will also be explaining two new products, Ownhome and MyChoiceHomeBuy.
Both are interest free equity loan schemes which allow people to buy the home of their choice on the open market at a price they can afford.
Information on these schemes and more will be available free at the Basildon Centre on 18 June.
Staff from Moat will be on hand in the foyer at the Basildon Centre, between 11am and 3pm, Wednesday 18 June. No appointment is necessary.
Moat can offer advice on a number of different schemes depending on your circumstances and will also be explaining two new products, Ownhome and MyChoiceHomeBuy.
Both are interest free equity loan schemes which allow people to buy the home of their choice on the open market at a price they can afford.
Information on these schemes and more will be available free at the Basildon Centre on 18 June.
Sporting Village Approved as Potential Paralympic Venue
International wheelchair fencers, boccia, goalball and paralympic athletes could be gracing Basildon in the run up to the 2012 Paralympic Games.
This follows the announcement today by the by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) that the Basildon Sporting Village is considered suitable to host National Paralympic Committee’s (NPC’s). The facility will now be included in the London 2012 Pre-Games Training Camp Guide for Paralympic Sport. It is one of only 10 in the entire Eastern region to be included.
In March it was confirmed that the Sporting Village and South Essex Gymnastics Centre would be included in the pre-Games training camp guide for a number of Olympic sports. Today’s news has revealed that the Sporting Village will be included in the NPC’s guide for the sports of Paralympic Athletics, Boccia, Goalball, Paralympic Judo and Wheelchair Fencing.
The Guide will be released this summer and will promote facilities for preparation of international athletes in the lead up to the London 2012 Games. It will be an online facility in partnership with VisitBritain, and the guide will allow National Olympic Committee’s (NOC’s) and National Paralympic Committee’s (NPC’s) to search for training camps on a sporting and geographical basis.
The guide will be launched to NOC’s and NPC’s at a series of invitational events during the Beijing Olymoic and Paralympic Games later this year.
The Sporting Village, which is supported by funding from Essex County Council and Communities and Local Government, will include modern facilities including a 50 metre Olympic sized pool, and is due to be completed by 2010.
This follows the announcement today by the by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) that the Basildon Sporting Village is considered suitable to host National Paralympic Committee’s (NPC’s). The facility will now be included in the London 2012 Pre-Games Training Camp Guide for Paralympic Sport. It is one of only 10 in the entire Eastern region to be included.
In March it was confirmed that the Sporting Village and South Essex Gymnastics Centre would be included in the pre-Games training camp guide for a number of Olympic sports. Today’s news has revealed that the Sporting Village will be included in the NPC’s guide for the sports of Paralympic Athletics, Boccia, Goalball, Paralympic Judo and Wheelchair Fencing.
The Guide will be released this summer and will promote facilities for preparation of international athletes in the lead up to the London 2012 Games. It will be an online facility in partnership with VisitBritain, and the guide will allow National Olympic Committee’s (NOC’s) and National Paralympic Committee’s (NPC’s) to search for training camps on a sporting and geographical basis.
The guide will be launched to NOC’s and NPC’s at a series of invitational events during the Beijing Olymoic and Paralympic Games later this year.
Cllr Stephen Horgan, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Green Issues, says: “This is fantastic news and follows up the announcement in March that we will also be included for Olympic sports. After receiving official Government backing for the project last week, it is pleasing to see the good news keeps on coming. We are delighted to be included in the guide for Paralympic sports, and believe that the Basildon Sporting Village and Gymnastic Centre will offer teams the ideal facilities to prepare for the 2012 London Games in a great location only 30 minutes from the Olympic site in Stratford.”
The Sporting Village, which is supported by funding from Essex County Council and Communities and Local Government, will include modern facilities including a 50 metre Olympic sized pool, and is due to be completed by 2010.
Wat Tyler Regeneration Go-ahead
Local Company wins £2.2M Wat Tyler contract
The regeneration of Wat Tyler Country Park has taken a major step forward today, following the agreement by Basildon Council’s cabinet to award the £2.2 million construction works contract to Forest Gate Construction, a company based on the Southfield industrial area. The award keeps both the money and work within the local economy.
Work will begin almost immediately to turn a former munitions factory into a heritage interpretation centre that forms the central focus of the major regeneration of Wat Tyler country park.
The centre, powered by renewable energy is due to be open by March 2009 and it is expected that visitor numbers to the centre will increase from an average of 200,000 a year to 350,000 a year within three years of its opening.
There are also plans to create an RSPB regional headquarters and return hundreds of acres of brownfield land back for public use. Funding for the project has come from EEDA, The Heritage Lottery Fund, and Veolia ES Cleanaway Pitsea Marshes Trust.
Forest Gate Construction is a long-established main contractor with an outstanding track record in the public sector as well as an emerging commercial portfolio. Established in 1948, it combines a strong building heritage with extensive contracts experience to deliver the technical skills and management competence demanded by a project such as Wat Tyler.
The regeneration of Wat Tyler Country Park has taken a major step forward today, following the agreement by Basildon Council’s cabinet to award the £2.2 million construction works contract to Forest Gate Construction, a company based on the Southfield industrial area. The award keeps both the money and work within the local economy.
Work will begin almost immediately to turn a former munitions factory into a heritage interpretation centre that forms the central focus of the major regeneration of Wat Tyler country park.
The centre, powered by renewable energy is due to be open by March 2009 and it is expected that visitor numbers to the centre will increase from an average of 200,000 a year to 350,000 a year within three years of its opening.
There are also plans to create an RSPB regional headquarters and return hundreds of acres of brownfield land back for public use. Funding for the project has come from EEDA, The Heritage Lottery Fund, and Veolia ES Cleanaway Pitsea Marshes Trust.
Councillor Stephen Horgan, cabinet member for regeneration and green issues says: “We are delighted that this fantastic project can now begin. Regeneration is so much more than redeveloping town centres and housing, and this project will rejuvenate and regenerate an already popular country park.
"Quality of life for our residents is key, and the new heritage centre and improvements to the open space will increase this. I am also pleased that a Basildon based company will carry out this work, ensuring that the benefits are kept within the local economy. We appreciate the efforts of all of our partners that have meant this project is now becoming a physical reality.”
Forest Gate Construction is a long-established main contractor with an outstanding track record in the public sector as well as an emerging commercial portfolio. Established in 1948, it combines a strong building heritage with extensive contracts experience to deliver the technical skills and management competence demanded by a project such as Wat Tyler.
Royal Court Redevelopment Plans at Final Stage
Plans to demolish two unpopular and hard to let blocks of flats and transfer the land surrounding them to Family Mosaic Housing Association, have been approved in principle at last night’s (5 June) meeting of the cabinet of Basildon Council..
A grant of £1.25m funded by other developments in the district will also be made to Mosaic to help move the current tenants, demolish and rebuild the estate.
Royal Court's blocks were built in the 1960s forming part of the King Edward estate in Laindon and have been subject to detailed consideration since a recommendation to redevelop the site was made in 2006.
The blocks have suffered social and vandalism problems. The fabric of the buildings has deteriorated to the extent that though it would be possible to bring them up to a decent standard, the costs would be prohibitive.
Residents were consulted and endorsed the view that the 96 flats and council owned shop should be demolished and replaced with new flats, shop and a community centre.
The plan seeks to replace the blocks with 127 new homes. A bid has been made by the Council to the Housing Corporation for funds to carry through the preferred scheme. The outcome of the bid will determine what proportion of the new homes will be for rent or sale.
Meanwhile, current tenants and owners are being consulted on their individual re-housing needs and voluntary sale of their properties.
A grant of £1.25m funded by other developments in the district will also be made to Mosaic to help move the current tenants, demolish and rebuild the estate.
Royal Court's blocks were built in the 1960s forming part of the King Edward estate in Laindon and have been subject to detailed consideration since a recommendation to redevelop the site was made in 2006.
The blocks have suffered social and vandalism problems. The fabric of the buildings has deteriorated to the extent that though it would be possible to bring them up to a decent standard, the costs would be prohibitive.
Residents were consulted and endorsed the view that the 96 flats and council owned shop should be demolished and replaced with new flats, shop and a community centre.
The plan seeks to replace the blocks with 127 new homes. A bid has been made by the Council to the Housing Corporation for funds to carry through the preferred scheme. The outcome of the bid will determine what proportion of the new homes will be for rent or sale.
Meanwhile, current tenants and owners are being consulted on their individual re-housing needs and voluntary sale of their properties.
Councillor Tony Ball, the council’s deputy leader and responsible for housing strategy, said: “We have been working hard behind the scenes for some time to finalise the plans for this complex piece of regeneration.
“We hope that this scheme will not only rid the district of buildings which have a poor reputation and been hard to let for almost thirty years, but also replace them with a modern, energy efficient development, new facilities for residents, and more open space.
“All of this will regenerate the area and turn what has been a depressing environment for some into a pleasant and comfortable place where people will want to live and one which meets the aspirations of our residents.”
Rare Orchids in a Laindon Rec
Hundreds of rare orchids have been discovered – on a recreation ground in Laindon.
The prized flowers, which require rather special conditions, are normally found hidden deep in the countryside. But visitors to the playing field, off New Avenue, can enjoy a spectacular display of green-winged orchids, said to be one of the best in Essex.
The delicate flowers, which take three years to grow a leaf and four to bloom, have transformed the boundaries of the ground into a carpet of purple. However, would-be admirers will have to be quick to catch a glimpse of them as they only survive for three weeks.
The orchids have been springing up every year following a conservation plan devised by the Basildon Natural History Society and Basildon Council. Put into action more than 30 years ago, the plan involves cutting and collecting the grass in late summer to create impoverished soil conditions orchids need to thrive.
Terry Simmons, from Basildon Council’s parks and cleansing department, said: “This is one of the biggest displays of wild orchids in Essex and for them to have taken hold and survived in a popular recreation ground is great.
“We have been doing our best to protect and nurture them after being told of their importance by the Basildon Natural History Society. The conservation plan we devised together has ensured they bloom in a blaze of colour every year, and we hope lots of people enjoy them.”
Gordon Reid, chairman of the Basildon Natural History Society, said: “It’s very unusual to find so many orchids growing in one place, especially at a recreation ground in the middle of town.
“When we drew the council’s attention to them, they agreed to avoid mowing the outfield until late in the year to give the flowers a chance to seed. It is a real treasure to have the orchids growing here and the council deserves praise for helping them to survive.”
Expanding Courier Company Wants Drivers
Basildon newest courier company is looking for more drivers to join its
expanding team and is holding an Open Evening on Wednesday 11 June 2008 from 7.00pm at its new Head Office in Stella House, Luckyn Lane, Basildon.
Abby Couriers moved to their new Head Office in Basildon last month and already reports benefits for their business accruing from the move.
With almost 200 people working for it the firm has more than 175 drivers on the road providing Same Day Delivery Services across the United Kingdom and Europe for key clients who include DHL, FEDEX and TNT.
Managing Director mark Giles asks that anyone interested should either attend the Open Evening or ring him on 01268 330330 or email mark.giles@abbycouriers.com.
expanding team and is holding an Open Evening on Wednesday 11 June 2008 from 7.00pm at its new Head Office in Stella House, Luckyn Lane, Basildon.
Abby Couriers moved to their new Head Office in Basildon last month and already reports benefits for their business accruing from the move.
With almost 200 people working for it the firm has more than 175 drivers on the road providing Same Day Delivery Services across the United Kingdom and Europe for key clients who include DHL, FEDEX and TNT.
Managing Director mark Giles asks that anyone interested should either attend the Open Evening or ring him on 01268 330330 or email mark.giles@abbycouriers.com.
Thursday, 5 June 2008
St George's Response to Audit Commission Report
A joint statement from John Robb, Chair of the Board, and Steve Shynn, Interim Chief Executive of St Georges Community Housing in response to the 'fair' housing inspection report from the Audit Commission reads as follows:
"As many of you will know, the Audit Commission inspected St Georges Community Housing in January 2008. The results of that inspection have said that we provide a one-star ‘fair’ service, with promising prospects for improvement.
"The Audit Commission findings are generally positive, recognising the many strengths of the organisation and the improvements SGCH has already made. These include:
"1. Improved customer satisfaction, with particularly high satisfaction with Sheltered, Home Ownership, Voids and Aids and Adaptations services.
"2. Local offices are welcoming, staff are helpful and information provided for residents is of a good quality.
"3. Effective partnerships are in place, working to deal with anti-social behaviour, with flexible resources to improve tenancy enforcement and estate environments.
"The Audit Commission also said that the organisation has a robust system of performance management, which ensures areas for improvement are identified and it was acknowledged that significant progress has been made against key performance indicators and the aims of the Annual Improvement Plan.
"St Georges Community Housing is now well placed to achieving two stars, which will release the £143 million bid for government funding that will be used to improve the condition of Council homes. An early re-inspection has been requested.
"The Audit Commission have highlighted areas where we can enhance our services, and we will focus on these areas over the coming months. These improvements include:
"1. Increasing resident involvement, offering a menu of options so that they can have more say in how SGCH is run.
"2. Improve processes for identifying and supporting vulnerable residents.
"3. Review responsive and planned repairs services to meet customer needs and provide value for money.
"SGCH will also be improving the way it deals with and learns from customer complaints.
"The report concluded that SGCH has a positive and constructive relationship with the Council and has the leadership and staff commitment to deliver changes and improvements. We are committed to making sure our residents receive the best services possible, while achieving the government’s Decent Homes standard."
The following is extracted from the Audit Commission's own summary of the findings of the report:
1 St Georges Community Housing provides a fair service, which has promising prospects for improvement.
2 Satisfaction with services provided has improved markedly for tenants and leaseholders. Local housing offices and the Tenant Resource Centre provide a comfortable and welcoming environment for customers. The ALMO has created a distinct identity, which is reinforced through good quality publicity. SGCH works well with its partners, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour. Sheltered housing is popular with residents. There is a corporate commitment to equalities and diversity, and the profiling of residents is making it possible to tailor services to individual needs through, for example, floating support services. Smaller aids and adaptations are provided quickly to those in need.
3 However, there are a number of areas which require further improvement. The level of complaints, although reduced, remains high, and there are significant areas of dissatisfaction in terms of leasehold service, responsive repairs and major works. More than 90 per cent of telephone calls (excluding the repairs call centre) are answered within target times; however, telephone answering at the repairs call centre does not meet targets. Frontline staff are not always fully aware of policies and procedures. Residents are consulted, but not fully involved in, decision making, and the current structure of resident participation makes it difficult to engage the wider body of residents and hard-to-reach groups. The ALMO has been slow to take action against tenants who have not allowed access for gas servicing, and tenants wait a long time for major aids and adaptations. The quality of cleaning is variable, and residents are unsure what standard of cleaning to expect. Value for money considerations are not fully embedded in the operation or plans of the organisation. The proportion of rent collected has remained static.
4 There are promising prospects for further improvement in services. The ALMO has a constructive relationship with the Council. There have been measurable improvements since the ALMO was set up. Progress has been made against many key performance indicators, and against the aims of the improvement plan. The ALMO is developing the ways it learns from residents, and these are feeding into its service plans. Good capacity at management and board level are helping to drive these improvements.
5 However, there are some barriers to improvement. In some areas, performance has not improved. Not all plans are fully developed, and many do not address value for money to any significant extent. The Council and ALMO have a commitment to realising the benefits of procurement, partnering and improved information technology, but have not yet fully developed their approach to these areas.
Scoring the service
6 We have assessed St Georges Community Housing as providing a ‘fair’, one-star service that has promising prospects for improvement. Our judgements are based on the evidence obtained during the inspection and are outlined below.
7 We found the service to be fair because it has a range of strengths including:
- overall satisfaction with services among tenants is high;
- residents have a wide range of ways to pay rent and otherwise contact the ALMO;
- there is a generally welcoming and comfortable environment at local offices, and staff are helpful;
- information provided to residents is generally of a good quality;
- the process of profiling the needs of residents is progressing well, and floating support services are tailored towards individual needs;
- there is a positive relationship with Housing Benefits and organisations providing welfare benefits services;
- the Tenants Resource Centre provides useful services to local residents;
- effective partnership working to deal with ASB is producing measurable outcomes for residents;
- the Community Warden service provides a flexible and effective resource to improve tenancy enforcement and estate environments;
- the repairs handyperson provides a helpful and popular service for older residents;
- estate inspections are thorough;
voids repairs are carried out to a standard agreed with residents, and satisfaction is high;
- sheltered housing services, including the emergency call-out line, is popular with residents;
- satisfaction with the Home Ownership Team is high;
- the review of Service Level Agreements has identified substantial savings;
- voids partnering has reduced costs;
- minor aids and adaptations are carried out quickly, and satisfaction is high once adaptations are fitted;
- residents have benefited from an active programme of installing new boilers and double glazing;
- the ALMO has robust data to inform its improvement programmes.
8 However, there are some areas which require improvement. These include:
- local offices have limited opening hours;
- the time taken to answer telephones at the repairs call centre does not meet targets;
- there are high levels of complaints;
- the proportion of rent collected has remained static;
- residents have to wait for some weeks for an appointment at the welfare benefits surgery;
- the process of collecting rent is not adequately targeted to prevent and address arrears;
- staff do not consistently have adequate knowledge of policies and procedures;
- the current resident participation structure does not encourage the involvement of hard-to-reach groups;
- the focus of participation is on consulting residents, rather than involving them in the decision-making process;
- legal action in cases of non-access for gas servicing is limited;
- the ALMO has not developed links between housing management and the gas/asbestos programmes to address issues of non-access and vulnerability;
- tenants wait for long periods for major aids and adaptations works;
- the level of post inspections is high;
- the level of planned works is declining, and is not focussed on resident priorities;
- satisfaction rates for major and planned works is not high;
- processes to deal with disputes with leaseholders are limited;
- examples of outcomes form partnering and joint procurement are limited;
- value for money is not fully embedded across the organisation;
- a complex system of estate cleaning has resulted in variable standards, and a lack of accountability;
- the level of responsive repairs relative to planned repairs is high;
- residents have not been actively involved in prioritising Decent Homes works;
- the outcomes of equal opportunity and diversity policies are not fully developed.
9 The service has promising prospects for improvement because:
- there has been significant improvement in the satisfaction of tenants and leaseholders with overall services;
- there has been progress against key performance targets, particularly those relating to repairs;
- the organisation has developed a distinct identity, for example through revised and improved publications;
- public offices have been re-branded and improved;
- there is measurable progress against the aims of the annual improvement plan, including the introduction of mystery shopping, development of Equality Impact Assessments and customer profiling;
- a robust system of performance management allows the organisation to identify areas which need improvement;
- learning from complaints has improved;
- there is good capacity at management level, and within the Management Board;
- there is a constructive relationship with the Council;
- the training plan is robust, and links well to organisational aims;
- partnership working has improved capacity to achieve progress.
10 However, there are a number of barriers to improvement. These include:
- some performance targets have not been achieved, and performance in some areas has worsened;
- there are significant issues of dissatisfaction in terms of leasehold services and repairs;
- not all plans are SMART (Specific, measurable, achievable, resourced, time-bound);
- plans are not integrated with VFM targets;
- there has been limited progress in procurement and partnering;
- there is no ICT strategy in place.
"As many of you will know, the Audit Commission inspected St Georges Community Housing in January 2008. The results of that inspection have said that we provide a one-star ‘fair’ service, with promising prospects for improvement.
"The Audit Commission findings are generally positive, recognising the many strengths of the organisation and the improvements SGCH has already made. These include:
"1. Improved customer satisfaction, with particularly high satisfaction with Sheltered, Home Ownership, Voids and Aids and Adaptations services.
"2. Local offices are welcoming, staff are helpful and information provided for residents is of a good quality.
"3. Effective partnerships are in place, working to deal with anti-social behaviour, with flexible resources to improve tenancy enforcement and estate environments.
"The Audit Commission also said that the organisation has a robust system of performance management, which ensures areas for improvement are identified and it was acknowledged that significant progress has been made against key performance indicators and the aims of the Annual Improvement Plan.
"St Georges Community Housing is now well placed to achieving two stars, which will release the £143 million bid for government funding that will be used to improve the condition of Council homes. An early re-inspection has been requested.
"The Audit Commission have highlighted areas where we can enhance our services, and we will focus on these areas over the coming months. These improvements include:
"1. Increasing resident involvement, offering a menu of options so that they can have more say in how SGCH is run.
"2. Improve processes for identifying and supporting vulnerable residents.
"3. Review responsive and planned repairs services to meet customer needs and provide value for money.
"SGCH will also be improving the way it deals with and learns from customer complaints.
"The report concluded that SGCH has a positive and constructive relationship with the Council and has the leadership and staff commitment to deliver changes and improvements. We are committed to making sure our residents receive the best services possible, while achieving the government’s Decent Homes standard."
The following is extracted from the Audit Commission's own summary of the findings of the report:
1 St Georges Community Housing provides a fair service, which has promising prospects for improvement.
2 Satisfaction with services provided has improved markedly for tenants and leaseholders. Local housing offices and the Tenant Resource Centre provide a comfortable and welcoming environment for customers. The ALMO has created a distinct identity, which is reinforced through good quality publicity. SGCH works well with its partners, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour. Sheltered housing is popular with residents. There is a corporate commitment to equalities and diversity, and the profiling of residents is making it possible to tailor services to individual needs through, for example, floating support services. Smaller aids and adaptations are provided quickly to those in need.
3 However, there are a number of areas which require further improvement. The level of complaints, although reduced, remains high, and there are significant areas of dissatisfaction in terms of leasehold service, responsive repairs and major works. More than 90 per cent of telephone calls (excluding the repairs call centre) are answered within target times; however, telephone answering at the repairs call centre does not meet targets. Frontline staff are not always fully aware of policies and procedures. Residents are consulted, but not fully involved in, decision making, and the current structure of resident participation makes it difficult to engage the wider body of residents and hard-to-reach groups. The ALMO has been slow to take action against tenants who have not allowed access for gas servicing, and tenants wait a long time for major aids and adaptations. The quality of cleaning is variable, and residents are unsure what standard of cleaning to expect. Value for money considerations are not fully embedded in the operation or plans of the organisation. The proportion of rent collected has remained static.
4 There are promising prospects for further improvement in services. The ALMO has a constructive relationship with the Council. There have been measurable improvements since the ALMO was set up. Progress has been made against many key performance indicators, and against the aims of the improvement plan. The ALMO is developing the ways it learns from residents, and these are feeding into its service plans. Good capacity at management and board level are helping to drive these improvements.
5 However, there are some barriers to improvement. In some areas, performance has not improved. Not all plans are fully developed, and many do not address value for money to any significant extent. The Council and ALMO have a commitment to realising the benefits of procurement, partnering and improved information technology, but have not yet fully developed their approach to these areas.
Scoring the service
6 We have assessed St Georges Community Housing as providing a ‘fair’, one-star service that has promising prospects for improvement. Our judgements are based on the evidence obtained during the inspection and are outlined below.
7 We found the service to be fair because it has a range of strengths including:
- overall satisfaction with services among tenants is high;
- residents have a wide range of ways to pay rent and otherwise contact the ALMO;
- there is a generally welcoming and comfortable environment at local offices, and staff are helpful;
- information provided to residents is generally of a good quality;
- the process of profiling the needs of residents is progressing well, and floating support services are tailored towards individual needs;
- there is a positive relationship with Housing Benefits and organisations providing welfare benefits services;
- the Tenants Resource Centre provides useful services to local residents;
- effective partnership working to deal with ASB is producing measurable outcomes for residents;
- the Community Warden service provides a flexible and effective resource to improve tenancy enforcement and estate environments;
- the repairs handyperson provides a helpful and popular service for older residents;
- estate inspections are thorough;
voids repairs are carried out to a standard agreed with residents, and satisfaction is high;
- sheltered housing services, including the emergency call-out line, is popular with residents;
- satisfaction with the Home Ownership Team is high;
- the review of Service Level Agreements has identified substantial savings;
- voids partnering has reduced costs;
- minor aids and adaptations are carried out quickly, and satisfaction is high once adaptations are fitted;
- residents have benefited from an active programme of installing new boilers and double glazing;
- the ALMO has robust data to inform its improvement programmes.
8 However, there are some areas which require improvement. These include:
- local offices have limited opening hours;
- the time taken to answer telephones at the repairs call centre does not meet targets;
- there are high levels of complaints;
- the proportion of rent collected has remained static;
- residents have to wait for some weeks for an appointment at the welfare benefits surgery;
- the process of collecting rent is not adequately targeted to prevent and address arrears;
- staff do not consistently have adequate knowledge of policies and procedures;
- the current resident participation structure does not encourage the involvement of hard-to-reach groups;
- the focus of participation is on consulting residents, rather than involving them in the decision-making process;
- legal action in cases of non-access for gas servicing is limited;
- the ALMO has not developed links between housing management and the gas/asbestos programmes to address issues of non-access and vulnerability;
- tenants wait for long periods for major aids and adaptations works;
- the level of post inspections is high;
- the level of planned works is declining, and is not focussed on resident priorities;
- satisfaction rates for major and planned works is not high;
- processes to deal with disputes with leaseholders are limited;
- examples of outcomes form partnering and joint procurement are limited;
- value for money is not fully embedded across the organisation;
- a complex system of estate cleaning has resulted in variable standards, and a lack of accountability;
- the level of responsive repairs relative to planned repairs is high;
- residents have not been actively involved in prioritising Decent Homes works;
- the outcomes of equal opportunity and diversity policies are not fully developed.
9 The service has promising prospects for improvement because:
- there has been significant improvement in the satisfaction of tenants and leaseholders with overall services;
- there has been progress against key performance targets, particularly those relating to repairs;
- the organisation has developed a distinct identity, for example through revised and improved publications;
- public offices have been re-branded and improved;
- there is measurable progress against the aims of the annual improvement plan, including the introduction of mystery shopping, development of Equality Impact Assessments and customer profiling;
- a robust system of performance management allows the organisation to identify areas which need improvement;
- learning from complaints has improved;
- there is good capacity at management level, and within the Management Board;
- there is a constructive relationship with the Council;
- the training plan is robust, and links well to organisational aims;
- partnership working has improved capacity to achieve progress.
10 However, there are a number of barriers to improvement. These include:
- some performance targets have not been achieved, and performance in some areas has worsened;
- there are significant issues of dissatisfaction in terms of leasehold services and repairs;
- not all plans are SMART (Specific, measurable, achievable, resourced, time-bound);
- plans are not integrated with VFM targets;
- there has been limited progress in procurement and partnering;
- there is no ICT strategy in place.
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Free Football Training for Wickford Youngsters
Wickford Town FC and Basildon’s community safety partnership have got together to set up free football training sessions at Wickford Memorial park.
It is all part of the ActiveBasildon community sports and activities network designed to get sports clubs into the local community and make youngsters more active.
The sessions will be held every Thursday from 6.30pm to 7.30pm at Wickford Memorial park (Tablehouse).
They are open to young people of all ages and talents. They just need to turn up and benefit from the training by qualified coaches from Wickford Town FC.
For further information contact Tracey Davies of the sports development team on 01268 465 444.
It is all part of the ActiveBasildon community sports and activities network designed to get sports clubs into the local community and make youngsters more active.
The sessions will be held every Thursday from 6.30pm to 7.30pm at Wickford Memorial park (Tablehouse).
They are open to young people of all ages and talents. They just need to turn up and benefit from the training by qualified coaches from Wickford Town FC.
For further information contact Tracey Davies of the sports development team on 01268 465 444.
William Hague Visits Vange
Stephen Metcalfe, Prospective Member of Parliament for South Basildon & East Thurrock and William Hague MP, senior member of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, yesterday visited the South Anglia Housing and Essex Police Neighbourhood Office in Pitseaville Grove.
Both William and Stephen heard first hand how the partnership between the Housing Association and the Police was working and the benefits it has brought for the local community.
They toured the offices, chatted with staff about the new arrangements, met with local Police Officers and also heard about the recent successes with operation Leopard which saw Police target youths and known offenders responsible for anti-social behaviour. Those identified were warned that their actions would not be tolerated.
The results were spectacular! Crime across the whole area fell to almost nothing and whilst there has been a small increase since the operation finished, now that funding has been secured the operation can continue for at least another year.
William Hague was impressed with the results and said that he would certainly be talking to his shadow cabinet colleagues about the successes here in Basildon and would encourage David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, to look closely at the Partnership, the operation and its results.
Stephen Metcalfe said: “I have been immensely impressed by the success of Operation Leopard. As is often the case, it is simplest ideas that are the best, such as the idea of coming out of the police station, targeting persistent offenders and photographing them. Their activities seem to have paid real dividends and have made a real difference to the lives of the 2,500 local residents who have been affected by the actions of a small minority.”
Stephen added that there are a number of other Police Forces looking at the results in Basildon and wanting to try similar operations in their own areas. He said he would like to see this kind of Policing adopted not only across the whole of Basildon and Thurrock, but also seen as best practice across the whole country.
Photos:
Top: William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary.
Centre: Stephen Metcalfe, Prospective Conservative Member of Parliament for South Basildon & East Thurrock talking to Police Sgt Gavin Brook.
Bottom: Stephen Metcalfe, William Hague and Vange Local Councillor Luke Mackenzie.
John Baron Congratulates Local Nominee for Business Award
John Baron MP recently attended in Parliament the International Association of Book-keepers (IAB) annual business awards to congratulate his constituent Robert Head for being nominated for the Business Enterprise Awards 2008.
Robert has led his business (Robert Lewis Accountants Group, Basildon) to unprecedented growth in a short period of time, whilst maintaining excellent customer service.
Robert has led his business (Robert Lewis Accountants Group, Basildon) to unprecedented growth in a short period of time, whilst maintaining excellent customer service.
John said: “My congratulations go to Robert on his nomination for this prestigious national award. It is a reflection of his hard work and initiative, and I am sure that he and his company will go from strength to strength.”
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Creative Clay Workshop in Eastgate Centre
Shoppers young and old are being invited to take part in the last of the Clay Workshops being run at the Eastgate Centre between 9am and 12 noon on Thursday.
The workshop is free and forms a part of the hugely successful Green Business Forum's Art Challenge event exhibition being held downstairs also in the Eastgate Centre.
The aim is to make enough clay pieces for a mural that will become a permanent piece of artwork somewhere in Basildon town centre.
The task is suitable for everyone and all ages. Great artistic skills are not necessary. Plaster moulds are used to form the shapes and these can be decorated with the range of textures. It's easy and lots of fun.
Young children should have an adult with them. The work is messy but it washes out.
Join in and you will be able to identify your work when it’s all fired, glazed and installed in the town.
For more information, the organiser is Lisa Hawker of the ceramics and sculpture company of the same name based in Rayliegh, 01268 741352.
The workshop is free and forms a part of the hugely successful Green Business Forum's Art Challenge event exhibition being held downstairs also in the Eastgate Centre.
The aim is to make enough clay pieces for a mural that will become a permanent piece of artwork somewhere in Basildon town centre.
The task is suitable for everyone and all ages. Great artistic skills are not necessary. Plaster moulds are used to form the shapes and these can be decorated with the range of textures. It's easy and lots of fun.
Young children should have an adult with them. The work is messy but it washes out.
Join in and you will be able to identify your work when it’s all fired, glazed and installed in the town.
For more information, the organiser is Lisa Hawker of the ceramics and sculpture company of the same name based in Rayliegh, 01268 741352.
Paws in the Park
Dog lovers can enjoy a day of canine capers at Wick Country Park this weekend.
Families are invited to Paws in the Park being held at the beauty spot off Tresco Way in Wickford on Sunday 8 June. Owners can enter their four legged friends into a fun dog show with categories ranging from the scruffiest mutt to the cutest puppy.
The Billericay Dog Training School will also be putting their dogs and owners through their paces with an obedience and agility display.
Children can get creative with craft activities in the Pavilion and take part in a quiz which will get them exploring the park. There will also be a number of stalls and exhibits.
The event is being organised for the second year running by the Friends of the Wick Country Park, supported by Basildon Council.
It is aimed at promoting responsible dog ownership and encouraging people to get out and about, and enjoy their local park.
Admission is free and food and refreshments will be available. The event runs from 11am to 4pm, though keen dog walkers can join a dog ramble before the event from 10.30am to 11am. All dogs must be on a lead for this walk.
For more information about the event or about the Friends of Wick Country Park, telephone Nikki on 01268 734293
Families are invited to Paws in the Park being held at the beauty spot off Tresco Way in Wickford on Sunday 8 June. Owners can enter their four legged friends into a fun dog show with categories ranging from the scruffiest mutt to the cutest puppy.
The Billericay Dog Training School will also be putting their dogs and owners through their paces with an obedience and agility display.
Children can get creative with craft activities in the Pavilion and take part in a quiz which will get them exploring the park. There will also be a number of stalls and exhibits.
The event is being organised for the second year running by the Friends of the Wick Country Park, supported by Basildon Council.
It is aimed at promoting responsible dog ownership and encouraging people to get out and about, and enjoy their local park.
Admission is free and food and refreshments will be available. The event runs from 11am to 4pm, though keen dog walkers can join a dog ramble before the event from 10.30am to 11am. All dogs must be on a lead for this walk.
For more information about the event or about the Friends of Wick Country Park, telephone Nikki on 01268 734293
Andrew MacKinlay Queries Covert Recording in Prison
Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour) has asked the Secretary of State for Justice whether the discussions held between the hon. Member for Thurrock and his constituent Michael John Smith at Full Sutton Prison, York on 1 September 1999 and 30July 2001 were covertly (a) recorded, (b) transmitted and (c) monitored in some other way by or on behalf of any Government Department or agency; and if he will make a statement.
Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor, responded that it is not our policy to confirm or deny surveillance operations in prisons. Since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) came into force, all forms of covert surveillance are subject to a strict and rigorous statutory regime for authorisations, and are conducted in accordance with the guidance set out in the statutory Codes of Practice. Independent oversight is provided, and is overseen by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal was established to investigate and rule on any complaints.
He further pointed out that as the Home Secretary made clear in her statement on 21 February 2008, Official Report, column 536, Sir Christopher Rose's inquiry into the surveillance of visits at Woodhill prison found "no trace in recent years in prison records or anywhere else of any person known to be a Member of Parliament having been monitored during a prison visit".
Should an MP's confidential discussions with constituents be privileged, whether in prison or elsewhere? Are you reassured by independent oversight overseen by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner, or does this all smack of a Kafka-esque administrative machine shoring up a paranoid state using 'security' as a catch-all excuse playing upon public anxieties over terrorism and crime in order to develop a state security apparatus unmatched in any state claiming to be a democracy.
What do you think?
Baron Concerned About Possibility of Titan Prison for Basildon
John Baron MP has submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Government after Ministers refused to rule out the possibility of locating one of three new “Titan” prisons in Basildon District.
Asked about plans in a recent Parliamentary question, Justice Minister David Hanson MP merely replied that “no decisions on sites have been taken.” A Titan prison would house 2,500 inmates – more than double the size of Britain’s current prisons. A statement to Parliament is now expected on Thursday.
On 20th May John Baron asked the Secretary of State for Justice whether he is considering introducing a Titan prison (a) in Basildon district and (b) in south Essex; and when a decision will be taken.
David Hanson MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, responded that no decisions on sites have been taken. The priority search areas for sites are London and the south-east, the north-west and the west midlands.
In the light of this non-committal response, John posted a Freedom of Information Request to the Government dated 20 May 2008. It read as follows:
Further to the Parliamentary written answer I received today, a copy of which is attached, please would you list each of the sites currently being considered for the introduction of Titan prisons?
I believe disclosure would be in the public interest because there is understandable public concern about the housing of offenders in local communities.
Asked about plans in a recent Parliamentary question, Justice Minister David Hanson MP merely replied that “no decisions on sites have been taken.” A Titan prison would house 2,500 inmates – more than double the size of Britain’s current prisons. A statement to Parliament is now expected on Thursday.
Commenting, John said: “We do urgently need more prison places to tackle chronic overcrowding, but Titan prisons are not the right way to go. The evidence shows that smaller, local prisons provide better rehabilitation outcomes, and experience of Titan prisons in France is far from positive.
“The Government has refused to answer my questions on whether it is planning a Titan prison for Basildon, but I will be pressing Ministers to ensure that local residents are properly consulted before any decision is taken. What we saw with the ClearSprings saga was the Government tying to dodge consultation, and that must not be allowed to happen again.”
On 20th May John Baron asked the Secretary of State for Justice whether he is considering introducing a Titan prison (a) in Basildon district and (b) in south Essex; and when a decision will be taken.
David Hanson MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, responded that no decisions on sites have been taken. The priority search areas for sites are London and the south-east, the north-west and the west midlands.
In the light of this non-committal response, John posted a Freedom of Information Request to the Government dated 20 May 2008. It read as follows:
Further to the Parliamentary written answer I received today, a copy of which is attached, please would you list each of the sites currently being considered for the introduction of Titan prisons?
I believe disclosure would be in the public interest because there is understandable public concern about the housing of offenders in local communities.
Bootleg Beatles & Amy Winehouse Tribute to Headline Basildon Festival
A great line-up of tribute acts led by the Amy Winehouse Experience and The Bootleg Beatles will headline at this year’s Basildon Festival.
Organisers have revealed an exciting range of top singers and bands for the live performance at the free two-day event in Gloucester Park.
Basildon Council is hoping the mixture of old and new music will help attract even more visitors than last year’s record-breaking crowd of 40,000 people.
Among the tribute acts on the main stage is one devoted to the ultra-talented and unusual soul singer Amy Winehouse.
Backed by a full band, the Amy Winehouse Experience will perform hits from the award-winning album Back to Black, including Valerie and Rehab.
Also on the main stage will be a group widely acknowledged as the best Beatles tribute act in the world.
The Bootleg Beatles have been acclaimed for their “flawless” authenticity by Mojo magazine and have sold out concerts from the US to Russia.
It will see the return of Beatlemania as the group run through the band’s greatest hits such as She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand.
Other bands planned for the main stage include X-Factor finalists, Journey South. The heartthrob duo will be singing some of the songs that saw them win over Simon Cowell and thousands of TV viewers.
There will also be a touch of West End glamour as singers and dancers from The Buddy Holly Show celebrate the life of one of the most influential rock n rollers of the early 50s with hits such as That’ll be the day, Peggy Sue and Heartbeat.
Other bands booked to appear include Indie groups E.Verto, who have already appeared on MTV, and Ease Spring due to release their first single.
The Basildon Festival is part of an extended Summer Festival, taking in events happening from June to September.
The free Basildon Festival takes place in Gloucester Park on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 July from 11am to 7.30pm.
Organisers have revealed an exciting range of top singers and bands for the live performance at the free two-day event in Gloucester Park.
Basildon Council is hoping the mixture of old and new music will help attract even more visitors than last year’s record-breaking crowd of 40,000 people.
Among the tribute acts on the main stage is one devoted to the ultra-talented and unusual soul singer Amy Winehouse.
Backed by a full band, the Amy Winehouse Experience will perform hits from the award-winning album Back to Black, including Valerie and Rehab.
Also on the main stage will be a group widely acknowledged as the best Beatles tribute act in the world.
The Bootleg Beatles have been acclaimed for their “flawless” authenticity by Mojo magazine and have sold out concerts from the US to Russia.
It will see the return of Beatlemania as the group run through the band’s greatest hits such as She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand.
Paul Brace, manager of cultural services for Basildon Council, said: “We have booked a fantastic line up of acts spanning the decades from rock and roll to reality TV. Amy Winehouse is one of the biggest stars around today and is well known for her quirky style and unique brand of music.
“She will be one of the most anticipated tribute acts this year. Not only is she a brilliant performer, she is also a local girl from Southend who is over the moon to be playing in Basildon.
“The Bootleg Beatles are also one of the most successful tribute bands in the world and have won critical acclaim as the Fab Four.
“It’s taken us four years to sign them, which proves just how popular they are, and their timeless music is guaranteed to be a crowd pleaser.
“We hope thousands of revellers come along to enjoy two days of great music and free entertainment.”
Other bands planned for the main stage include X-Factor finalists, Journey South. The heartthrob duo will be singing some of the songs that saw them win over Simon Cowell and thousands of TV viewers.
There will also be a touch of West End glamour as singers and dancers from The Buddy Holly Show celebrate the life of one of the most influential rock n rollers of the early 50s with hits such as That’ll be the day, Peggy Sue and Heartbeat.
Other bands booked to appear include Indie groups E.Verto, who have already appeared on MTV, and Ease Spring due to release their first single.
The Basildon Festival is part of an extended Summer Festival, taking in events happening from June to September.
The free Basildon Festival takes place in Gloucester Park on Saturday 5 and Sunday 6 July from 11am to 7.30pm.
Make a Date to Support Royal Court Fun Day
A fun day for all the family will be taking place on Saturday 7th June from 10am to 2pm at King Edward Hall and surrounding area.
The event is being organised by Basildon District Council and Family Mosaic and supported by various partners will have something for everyone.
Activities will include face painting, bouncy castle, balloon modelling, sports, arts and crafts and music by local DJ’s.
Agencies attending include the Fire Brigade, Fitness First, Gateway FM, West Basildon Children’s Centre, Age Concern and many more offering information and freebies to all.
Local residents will have the chance to win a brand new television just for attending and will also have the opportunity to see the plans for the new community hall and have their say on what activities or services they would like to see run from the building. Any resident that completes a survey will be entered into a free prize draw with the chance of winning a digital camera.
The Gateway FM Roadshow crew will be there with music, fun and to provide the announcements. It's all part of Gateway's commitment to the community.
The event is being organised by Basildon District Council and Family Mosaic and supported by various partners will have something for everyone.
Activities will include face painting, bouncy castle, balloon modelling, sports, arts and crafts and music by local DJ’s.
Agencies attending include the Fire Brigade, Fitness First, Gateway FM, West Basildon Children’s Centre, Age Concern and many more offering information and freebies to all.
Local residents will have the chance to win a brand new television just for attending and will also have the opportunity to see the plans for the new community hall and have their say on what activities or services they would like to see run from the building. Any resident that completes a survey will be entered into a free prize draw with the chance of winning a digital camera.
The Gateway FM Roadshow crew will be there with music, fun and to provide the announcements. It's all part of Gateway's commitment to the community.
International Day at Frypa Hall --- a Great Success
Saturday's international fun day organised by the Friends of Craylands group turned out to be a great success despite the best efforts of our English weather. It didn't exactly rain --- but just managed to present a threatening face.
Nevertheless, a good turn out of visitors of all ages at Frypa Hall witnessed some electrifying African dance and drumming along with a range of exhibits from around the world, plus a chance to taste the foods of other nations and to participate in a range of different activities.
It was one of those good humoured social events that mark the passage of our summer season. Of course, Gateway FM was there with the roadshow team providing background music and announcements. Our very own celebrity chef, Matthew Warner was coooking up tasty treats for visitors --- you'll hear more from him when we are back on 87.7FM from June 23rd!
The photos capture the line dancing --- complete with dancing police --- good on them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)