Skip to main content

Some Sanity at last

The decision of the Government to accept Birmingham's proposal to merge only Eastern and North Birmingham PCTs is a glimmer of sensible decisionmaking amidst a fog of incompetence.

It will be an interesting test case to see if consequentially we cope better with the financial problems currently facing the Health Service. The government today were still only talking about Period 6 figures. That is not that surprising as they can adjust the end of year figures in all sorts of interesting ways that will be difficult to bottom out. They then can announce end of year figures that are better than period 9 as a result of "brokerage" where the SHA chucks a bung at a trust in deficit on a one-off basis.

Yesterday and Today involves further discussion of the Report Stage of the Parliamentary Scrutiny (Abolition) Bill. It is clear, listening to the debate, that the government do not follow the complex legal arguments today.

Today I also managed to meet up with people from CSCI and the College of Paediatricians. I have argued that:
a) The family court process should be open to scrutiny on a reasonable basis
b) Other aspects of Social Care procedures should be open to more scrutiny with a right for participants to raise concerns in confidence with politicians. The parties should be allowed further discretion.
c) There should be a parents advocate during Child Protection proceedings as a matter of course.
d) The "Independent Chair" of Child Protection proceedings should be truly independent.

We also had a short meeting about the West Midlands City Region which is moving forwards. This is a workable system for bringing better coordination across the metropolitan area (inc Coventry and Telford).

It was also interesting in the Finance Bill Standing Committee (A) that the government really don't understand the issue about first year capital allowances for Small Businesses. If a Small Business makes an extra profit of say £25,000 and invests that in capital equipment for the business they still have to pay tax on the profit even though they have spent the money.

This is same for larger businesses, but the cash flow issues tend to not be as problematical.


Bob Piper said…
"The decision of the Government to accept Birmingham's proposal..."

What exactly do you mean by "Birmingham's proposal". It was an option put forward for consultation by the Strategic Health Authority. In fact, it was THEIR recommended option. It was supported as an option by virtually everyone in the consultation. How does that become, somehow, "Birmingham's proposal"?
john said…
It started with the PCTs in Birmingham. Hence it is a proposal from Birmingham. Admittedly supported by an SHA that also covers the Black Country. It was, however, Birmingham's proposal. It was not specifically a proposal from the City Council although supported by the Council.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…