Author: Mike Cordingley

I attended a presentation from the Environment Agency last night along with Labour colleagues and other councillors. The presentation also included an update from Simon Castle, Trafford’s Chief Planning Officer. I’ll deal with Simon’s presentation first:

• There is no date set for when the application will come to committee. It could be a few months before that happens.
• Although the consultation period is closed, representations are still being received and will be taken into account right up to the decision.
• The Health Protection Agency have been added to the standard consultees, although there’s been no request for a Health Impact Assessment (see letter from the Director of Public Health in previous post)

Presentation from Environment Agency

The slides from last night’s presentation will be added as soon as I receive them. The main point is that the Environment Agency’s permitting scheme is a parallel process to planning but runs entirely separately to the planning process. The project needs to pass both hurdles in order for it to operate. If the project was to gain its Environment Agency approval but be refused planning (after appeal), the project will not go ahead. The converse is also true.

• The application for a permit has not yet been accepted as ‘received’. There’s a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing as the final details of the application are refined.
• When it is received there will be a 20 day consultation exercise.
• Unlike planning, the regulating authority issues a draft permit for consultation – so it’s a two stage process
• Permits can change over time and the Environment Agency apply ‘Best Available Technique‘ standard to their permits. As technology improves, the operator must apply that technology. (This particular issue raised questions from Labour Councillors over Plasma Gasification which has been mooted by opponents as a cleaner and environmentally friendly means of extracting energy from waste). The Environment Agency representatives had received no guidance on Plasma Gasification and it seems they do not consider it is yet sufficiently mainstream for a view to be offered. It’s clear to me that the Best Available Technique is a notion that only applies to elements within a process and not to the nature of the process itself. I do not believe that even were plasma gasification to become be accepted as mainstream and the preferred model, that the Environment Agency would order the plant to be rebuilt to adopt that process. I do not say this right, I just believe it to be the reality.
  

  My view is that we have to be assured that the plant is safe from its inception and not take a view that it will become safer as technology develops. I take no comfort from the Environment Agency’s adherence to Best Available Technique.

• There was a lot of discussion around the inspection regime that will operate. Clearly this has become a contentious subject and views are polarised. I’m not reassured that even were the inspection regime be foolproof, that the poor air quality we already experience will not be impaired further and there’s the rub. It is already accepted that our air quality is shortening lives (in reality that means some of us are dying early as a consequence). Our focus should be on improving that air quality – actions to reduce road traffic etc, not allowing the air quality to deteriorate further.

I think the main message from last night’s presentation is that we will have to follow the progress of the Permit Application and contribute to the consultation process. I am particularly interested in any Health impact Assessment that is submitted with their application. If I understand the Friends of the Earth Guidance (page 6), there will be such an assessment submitted – although it may be called something else.

The Environment Agency will notify us when the application is accepted and we’ll be able to view details at the Environment Agency Consultations Pages

I have received a reply from the Director of Public Health who has made enquiries of the Health Protection Agency. The reply infers the strong causality between airborne pollution and reduced life expectancy of 6months per newborn baby nationally (Clearly this will be more where particulate pollution is more). Whilst acknowledging that the additional emissions in themselves may not exceed allowable levels the reply does confirm that “any increase in particle concentrations should be assumed to be associated with some effect on health”.

Mike Cordingley

I’ve lived near Trafford General Hospital all my life. The hospital was opened as Park Hospital by Labour’s Aneurin Bevan on July 5 1948 and we can all feel proud of what was set in motion that day – a National Health Service, the first in the world promising universal ‘cradle to grave’ healthcare.

Now, more than 60 years on that is looking more and more like an empty promise. There’s talk of funding shortfalls and the possibility of Trafford Healthcare Trust having to link up with other hospital trusts to make economies. There’s talk of the ‘temporary closure’ of the extremely popular and successful walk-in centre at Trafford General, too. And there’s a very clear threat to other hospital and general health services.

Living close to Trafford General, I’ve always felt safe in the knowledge that if a member of my family fell ill or had an accident there was a hospital on the doorstep where we would receive treatment. It’s a secure feeling, one which I am sure has been shared by many local people. But today I feel that little bit more apprehensive- and I don’t like it.

Nye Bevan described the start of the NHS as giving this country “the moral leadership of the world” and he was right. We judge a society by how we look after one another and how we care for the sick and vulnerable. We all know about the need for cutbacks in public services but in my view the cuts being made to our NHS go far too far – and may cause severe injury not only to individuals but to society as a whole.

The NHS is being made to manage within an overall budget which falls well below inflation, one which will not reflect the increased demand made on hospital services as people, hopefully, live longer.

Our predecessors 60 and more years ago had to fight for a free health service. That right was largely won, but we should never take it for granted. We should never forget the dedication of people – nurses, doctors, police, firefighters and many more – who work unsociable hours to help keep us safe and well. We owe them all a big thank you.

I would also like to wish everyone all the very best for the new year.

Image MikeDaveLaurence.jpg Author’s

I’ve a guilty admission. I do have a lot of time for Liberal Democrats and the old Liberal Party. Apart from my shared support for the Alternative Vote, I would cite:

• Charles Kennedy calling it right on the Iraq War,
• David Steel’s private members bill to give rights to abortion was a huge step forward for women.

Then we have such notables as John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge who made a huge contribution to shaping post war Britain as a mixed economy and the Welfare State.

Whilst I disagree with the VAT rise because of its effect on the poorest, I can understand that as minor partners in the Coalition they do have to make compromises. And whilst I view the coalition’s broader approach to the economy and public services as reckless, I do not judge it to be a betrayal of the Liberal heritage.

Whilst it could be considered that worries over the Liberal heritage are none of my business, I’m astounded that the Liberal Democrats are swallowing Andrew Lansley’s reforms of the NHS.

Forcing the new GP Commissioning Consortiums (Replacements for the PCTs) to tender for services is so serious that I consider it to be the most serious threat to the NHS since its inception. As Lib Dem supporting Polly Toynbee in her Guardian article describes;

“For the first time the entire NHS has been put under competition law. The financial and clinical safety of NHS foundation trusts used to be the responsibility of the regulator, Monitor. Now its website proclaims: “The first of Monitor’s three core functions is to promote competition.” That means “enforcing competition law” and “removing anti-competitive behaviour”. Few yet understand the nuclear nature of this. It compels every NHS activity to be privately tendered. If the NHS is the preferred provider, that can be challenged in the courts or referred to the Competition Commission.”

It doesn’t need Polly Toynbee to warn us that global healthcare companies will happily run loss-leader services forcing the closure of NHS services giving themselves a clear field to raise prices when the NHS is gone. This is a recipe for destroying the NHS and it goes against everything that Liberals and Labour have stood for over the last 60 years. I could never imagine that Liberal Democrats would allow this through on their watch. It’s nothing to do with defecit reduction. It’s an idealogical driven assault on the NHS and the Liberals are allowing it to take place in silence.

How are Lib Dems allowing this to happen? I genuinely don’t believe this is something Lib Dems can support. It goes against everything I’ve understood them to stand for over the years. I’d welcome Lib Democrats to explain their position. I’d welcome more their expressions of opposition to this. I am sure that had this been a majority Conservative Government, they’d have been marching with us against these reforms.

How can Lib Dems keep quiet?

“TUC Save our NHS rally Manchester 29.09.2013” by Sheila, CC BY-NC 2.0