Letter to Secretary of State DCLG re BioMass Incinerator in Davyhulme, Manchester UK
Mike Cordingley
One Nation Labour is beginning to find its voice in new policies as we prepare for the General Election in 2015. Kate Green has already written in praise of Andy Burnham’s take on what health care will look like under One Nation Labour. I can only echo the points she makes. And post an embedded version of the video of his speech. Not the best sound quality – but the quality of the content more than makes up for this
Full council meets once every two months or so. At this time of the year it’s a little more often, because it’s the time of setting budgets, but the full council meeting perhaps surprisingly, is not a major part of the councillor’s workload. And for that small mercy I’m thankful, because I find it frustrating and often pointless.
I don’t want to single out Trafford. Most councillors I meet from other towns tell me similar stories. And if you Google ‘Council Chamber’ and click on images, your screen fills with thumbnails of identikit forums facing a throne upon which the mayor presides from Aberystwyth to York. The lack of variety is striking but Trafford is the place I know.
For anyone that’s not witnessed Trafford’s full council (i.e. nearly everyone I’ve ever met), it’s a mixture of mock ceremony and fake heritage going all the way back to the 1974 local government reorganisation. Admittedly the template goes back a lot further than that, as the painting of Cromwell in parliament attests. It’s a bit amateur-dramatics in an endearing sort of way. When we speak we strike heroic or accusing poses. We do have some good speakers on both sides of the chamber but limits of 2 or 3 minutes on speeches make it a difficult discipline to master. It is confrontational and the chamber layout is designed to support that.
Does it serve the public?
Very doubtful.
Should it change?
Most certainly.
Will it change?
Not in the next hundred years!
I thought it was interesting a few years back just as I was elected in 2006 that the Conservatives had such a reaction to their proposal to move the town hall to a new site apparently/allegedly at no cost. There was a real public outcry. The familiar town hall on Talbot Road became a listed building in answer to the threat and battle lines were drawn. However, there was almost no discussion about what 21st century democracy would look like. There was very little debate about whether a new building was an opportunity to reframe the relationship with voters? Wherever we had a town hall we were going to get a council chamber on the lines of what had preceded it and that exists in every other town hall in this country. It seems people like the tradition.
I think you could label me an iconoclast.
Dave Acton spoke very well on the need to maintain a fire service for the whole of Greater Manchester. And Laurence Walsh spoke powerfully on the threat to care standards in contracts to private providers if we didn’t build into those contracts a commitment to good employment practices such as the living wage.
In terms of decisions – Council adopted the Council Tax support scheme it has designed to replace the Council Tax Benefit that the Tory Government has abolished. It’s yet another cut affecting the poorest. I hate the idea of devolving benefit design to local authorities. It is a waste of resources to all be redesigning benefits at the same time plus it creates anomalies. This should have stayed with central government.
It’s striking that in this same week the leader of Trafford Council is having to plead with ministers on behalf of all of Greater Manchester for an extra High Speed Rail station at the airport. The Government is delegating things like benefits to councils but when it comes to stations on a strategic line, we have to go begging. The Government is getting so much wrong it’s causing real hardship and delaying the recovery.
Mike Cordingley
These are my views – feel free to comment
Tory Cllrs Jonathon Coupe&Alan Mitchell walked out of public meeting as #savesurestartintrafford group began to speak #surestart #trafford
— Sarah Haughey (@sarahhaughey) November 12, 2012
Sorry yes…it was a single item agenda. I think someone gave you the wrong information but you need to ask them why
— Jonathan Coupe (@CllrJRCoupe) November 12, 2012
I agree Jonathan. Valuable meeting re Waste proposals and good questions asked. Pity Chair didn’t stick to the agreed agenda!
— Alan Mitchell (@AlanMitchell5) November 12, 2012
@cllrjrcoupe meeting scheduled ’til 8. We were on the agenda, you left at 7.30? Am i wrong?#trafford #surestart #savesurestartintrafford
— Sarah Haughey (@sarahhaughey) November 12, 2012
@cllrjrcoupe @alanmitchell5 it was an agenda item agreed prior to the meeting. The Chair quite clearly set out business as meeting started.
— Tom Ross (@TomWRoss) November 12, 2012
I wasn’t at the meeting but I too can confirm it was on the agenda at residents’ request. I don’t think that is the point though – neighbourhood forums are exactly what it says on the tin. Too often the Tories have tried to dictate the debate. There has to be an expectation that Councillors who sit on the Council’s cabinet are willing to answer for their policies. Yet again it seems they’ve turned tail and run away. Not good enough.
The integrated care model is the only way forward in improving health outcomes. The recent research showing that a quarter of instances of bowel cancer are only diagnosed after admission to A&E highlights that accessibility to health provision is not where it should be. We do not have easy convenient access. Many people are only seeing a health professional as a last resort.
Once in the hospital machinery we know that patients (particularly the frail) are staying in hospital for too long without clinical need for them to be there. The only alternatives offered are discharge to the expensive care industry or inadequate support at home.
I am concerned too that there seems to have been very little research into the assimilation of mental health care into the integrated care pathway. What little I could find on the web suggests positive outcomes but also suggests the need for more thinking in this area.
For example see the evidence review made by York University for Leeds NHS trust which concludes that the evidence base is insufficient.
We know that early intervention works. We know that the quality of care provided by GPs for patients with mental health problems is inconsistent and can be a contributory factor in variations of likelihood for presentation at A&E.
I very much support the integrated care model but would want to see greater consideration to mental health aspects than is contained within the consultation. I am also disappointed that progress towards an integrated care model is framed in the consultation as an alternative to local provision of A&E. There are many positives in respect of integrated care but it should not be seen as an ‘either or’ with A&E.
I can not ignore my own suspicion and widely held by my constituents that there will be insufficient funding to provide an effective provision of integrated care. I see little evidence within the consultation paper suggesting that the remodelling will do other than reduce the financial deficit; Â rather than free up funds to enhance improved community provision. There is an argument that in reality a quality integrated care model will be so financially demanding that the benefits in tackling health inequalities will never be realised.
I fully support the vision but I’m gravely sceptical about the delivery. The amount of investment needed in Gorse Hill, Firswood and Old Trafford to deliver even a basic level of care under the current model is huge. The standards expected for the integrated care model raise the financial demand to unreachable levels without a contribution from National bodies.
I have serious reservations about this view
The Guardian reported on 24th October 2012 that only a small number of trusts were breaking even on their Accident and emergency departments. This suggests to me that the funding regime for accident and emergency treatment is out of kilter. We obviously can not close every accident and emergency dept that is in deficit. I do not therefore accept the financial case.
The safety and quality issues are weightier, but here again there are reservations. Anecdotal evidence has challenged the figures used for attendances at the hospital’s A&E. It is clear to me that there is sufficient scepticism within the community over the figures for overnight admissions that the case is not yet made. We do need authoritative figures.
And the quality/safety argument has to include consideration of accessibility/travel-times to alternative provisions. We know that the ambulance service is already stretched. We know that links to Partington, Carrington and Woodsend by public transport to other centres are poor and will need to improve.
By definition any changes in provision at Trafford General will have an impact on other centres. I am extremely disappointed in the extent to which these other centres have engaged in the consultation. For residents in Gorse Hill Ward, Trafford General is their primary Accident and Emergency Unit. It is the nearest unit for most but not all residents within the ward; as some will be nearer to either Salford Royal or MRI. We have heard very little about the effect on capacity at these two hospitals. Certainly it seems anecdotally, that Salford does not want additional Trafford Patients. The commissioners have focused on Wythenshawe given its relationship to the South of Trafford, but for many in the North of the borough, Wythenshawe is only the fourth closest hospital. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, should Trafford surrender some of its provision, the finances released will not be put to safe quality care accessible to patients displaced from Trafford General.
The overall impression is that Trafford residents are being thrown to the wind. The plan lacks a cohesive steer and that is neither reassuring on quality nor safety. Perhaps the cohesion in the plan will come from the forthcoming ‘Healthier Together’ review across Greater Manchester but that makes the argument compelling for this proposal to be only considered as part of the wider review. How can we be assured that quality will improve, when it is not certain how provision will be allocated across the city region?
I support it with some reservations
The proposals are welcome. Suggestions for utilisation of the facilities at the former Greater Manchester Surgical Centre are particularly encouraging, and steps must be taken to ensure they’re fully realised. However we learned from the surgical centre that a contributing factor is the inaccessibility of Trafford General for the rest of the conurbation and whether we like it or not, there will be resistance from patients in other parts of the city.
We will want to ensure that Trafford General raises its reputation beyond those in the locality.
I support it with some reservations
I believe this is a positive aspect and would expect improved out patient treatment with greater outreach care undertaken. The integrated care model should include this aspect within the design. Consultants should not be an add-on but integrated into the model.
The effective delivery of good or excellent outpatient care in a community setting is constrained by the shamefully poor quality of health infrastructure in many parts of the borough, particularly Gorse Hill and Old Trafford. The Gorse Hill Surgery together with Seymour Grove, Stretford Memorial and many other locations are not appropriate settings for 21st Century health provision.
I do not support it
I have more difficulty with this question than any other aspect within the consultation. I have to be mindful that the low numbers does place a question mark over the quality and safety of provision. It is a compelling argument.
Nevertheless, the ‘Healthier Together’ review next year has to look at provisions across Greater Manchester and in my view we should look at what Trafford General’s role is within the revised specification before withdrawing services.
I do not support it
Again the decision should be deferred until the ‘Healthier Together’ review is undertaken.
However additionally, we have not been given any assurance from the ambulance service given the extra mileage and possible additional waiting times. Nor do we have assurance that other centres can cope. There is a case to be made for investment in Wythenshawe as it is already over capacity. Reducing A&E provision will mean more patients admitted to other hospitals and there is no good public transport provision to any of them for visitors or aftercare.
Public Transport and better signposting both literally and figuratively. We know that severe trauma cases will already be ambulanced away from TGH. How is the parent driving a sickly child to know the quickest route to the most appropriate hospital?
How do we provide a quality response to Partington?
I simply want to highlight the urgent need for better quality facilities in Gorse Hill, Firswood and Old Trafford.
I feel that A&E has dominated the debate, but there are other issues including additional pressure on the GP’s out of hours service that have struggled to get a hearing.
Manchester has become the latest body to question whether the plans to downgrade A&E at Trafford General are viable without the assurance of investment in other services across the region.
Most significantly, the City Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee joined calls from Kate Green for Trafford’s health provision to be looked at in conjunction with the wider “Case for Change†review across Greater Manchester rather than in isolation.
The Committee agreed with Kate that Community Care urgently “needs to be resolvedâ€. This is absolutely vital. Too often patients are admitted to hospital when they could be better treated at home if only the investment was in place. Everyone seems to agree on improving community care, but just closing A&Es doesn’t make it happen. It’s ludicrous to be cutting the strings to the parachute before we’re safely on the ground.
If we’re moving to new models of care and treatment delivery, we need to see firm commitments rather than vague aspiration. And again, Trafford should not; and indeed can not evolve in isolation. This transformation has be considered across the city-region.
Manchester has raised genuine concerns over the impact that changes in Trafford will have on availability of health provision for Manchester residents. They are right to do so, We need investment in Wythenshawe Hospital’s A%E capacity today, as Kate Green, Paul Goggins MP, and reiterated here by the council’s scrutiny committee.
We need to be assured too about the impact on other services and Manchester has cited the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital.
The City Council has produced an excellent report which alongside Trafford’s similar excellent report under the chairmanship of my colleague Cllr Judith Lloyd and ably supported by Labour members, Cllrs Sophie Taylor, Joanne Harding and Kevin Procter.
These two reports will feed into the combined Scrutiny Report across the two councils and to be submitted to the consultation.. The committee meets tomorrow night (Monday, 29th October at 6:30pm in Committee Room 11, Manchester Town Hall).
The closing date for the consultation is 31st October. You can still submit your views online on The new health deal for Trafford website until 5pm on that day.
Mike Cordingley