Category Archives: Blog

Whittington A+E campaign update – this is about peoples' lives – not pawns on a management piece of paper

Posted on by

Decisions are being made right now behind closed doors about the future of health services at the Whittington, including the Accident & Emergency service.

Although there will be a public consultation later this year (after the elections are safely out of the way!), what is being decided now is what options will be on offer in that consultation. So unless we fight now to get the options we want included, it will all be too late by the autumn.

That is why I am going to meet with Rachel Tyndall, (Chair of the London North Central Review Panel) – and want to make sure she knows just how important the Whittington A&E services are to so very many people.

Very importantly, the petition will show numbers and weight of public opinion – but there is nothing like personal stories to make the case.

So – to do this I need some more help from you. What I need is one paragraph with your own personal story of when you or someone you know had to go to the Whittington A&E and what that meant to you and so on. This is about peoples’ lives – not about pawns on a piece of management paper.

If you’re lucky, you and the people you know won’t have had to use the A&E yourselves – but please do also pass this request on to others that you know.

I will then collate the stories and present them not only to Ms Tyndall but to all the Board Members of the various bodies who will have a hand in deciding what options come forward next autumn for public consultation. (So please leave out any very personal details which you don’t want other people to read.)

Thank you so much for your support in this battle.

(Also on YouTube here.)

Conservative reaction to Tory leaflet

Posted on by

Canvassing in Hornsey & Wood Green this last weekend, there was a solitary, sodden Tory leaflet on the pavement. I picked it up and put it in a bin – as political litter gives all of us a bad name. Then yesterday I received this email from a local constituent. This is what she sent to the Conservative candidate for Hornsey & Wood Green in response to that  same leaflet – and she has given me permission to publish it.

Dear Mr Merrin
I have lived in Shepherds Hill for four years and other than receiving one very apathetic communication from your goodselves prior to the last Local Elections, this is the first Conservative newsletter I have had posted through my door! I rather think that you ought to change the title of your newsletter because ‘in touch’ you are not! Ah well, as the General Election is looming, I suppose you had to produce something!

Your comments about Lynne Featherstone in your newsletter are rather unfair – but that’s politics I guess – let’s have a dig! Take it from me, she is much respected by her constituents who find her very proactive and approachable, and issues brought to her and her Lib Dem councillors are resolved quickly. Any issues I have wanted Ms Featherstone to take up for me have been dealt with promptly and resolved. She informs frequently with newsletters and she e-mails her supporters on matters which are of importance to us. I, and others I know in Shepherds Hill, think she is probably the best MP in Parliament.

I have voted Conservative all my life, but this time I will be voting for the Liberal Democrats – I like their thinking and I want Ms Featherstone to retain her seat in Parliament.

Yours sincerely

Carole                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Highgate

 

Whittington A&E new news!

Posted on by

Word reaches me from the Council of Governors’ of the Whittington who met on 13 January (not from a Governor – just before anyone begins a witch hunt).

According to the record of the meeting  – North Central London NHS (the sector we belong to) and the Whittington have now ruled out the Whittington A&E being reduced in hours to 16 per day. In black and white it says: “This leaves options where either the full A&E is retained or there will be no A&E at all. The Whittington might then have an Urgent Care Centre.”

Reading the words in italic above from the record of the Governors’ meeting – why is it I feel that the North London Central NHS will be pushing for the Urgent Care Centre.

If that is such a brilliant solution – let them have the courage of their convictions and put both options to us – the people!

Well – the public consultation is in the Autumn or later – and I am sure we local people all want the option that retains a 24/7 A&E at the Whittington to be in that consultation – and we want that consultation to be for those who use the Whittington. They are the ones who need to be heard in this debate – local people, the patients and the relatives – not the rest of the sector, not the managers, not the CEOs or Medical Directors – but us!

Our challenge is to make sure that option comes forward and that consultation actually means that we have a choice and that the outcome of the consultation reflects our views.

Labour U-turn on mandatory retirement age

Posted on by

I thought the Today Program had good researchers – but listening this morning and hearing that the Government says there was no support for abolishing the mandatory retirement age during the Equality Bill is rubbish.

I, myself, raised it in Second Reading:

My last point about age discrimination and matters mandatory is that I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government have retained a mandatory retirement age. It seems completely wrong. I am surprised, as it is clearly discriminatory to decide on an arbitrary age as a cut-off. I heard what the Leader of the House said about the default retirement age being on a separate track, but the issue should be included in the Bill.

Moreover, at Committee Stage, I tabled an amendment to end this arbitrary discrimination against older people. Obviously individuals should have the right to choose when to stop working.

And, my LibDem colleague, Lord Anthony Lester, who is leading in the Lords on the Equality Bill (and whose life work has been equalities) has been pushing the Government very hard on this too.

I’m very glad that the Government have now seen sense but am fed up that when the LibDems lead the way –  the BBC fails to report accurately.

Anyway – hurrah – in the end the right thing has come about.

Whittington A&E update

Posted on by

Here’s my latest column for the Ham & High:

In the twelve years I have been a local politician, other than in the cases of Victoria Climbie and Baby P, I have not seen such a tidal wave of outrage as erupted when the news of the threat to the Whittington Hospital’s A&E was revealed.

The rate of sign up to the petition I launched to object to closure or reduction to the Whittington A&E service, outstripped by some distance, all of the petitions I have launched over that 12 years. (I will be presenting the petition in the next week or two so if you have not yet signed it online or on paper, please do so at http://bit.ly/whittington – and encourage others too).

Originally the person in charge of the NHS’s North London Sector sent out a letter to the Chief Executive Officers and the Medical Directors of all the hospitals involved about the options for future arrangements for A&E – all of which stated quite clearly that there would be no emergency take at the Whittington.

In the face of the public anger, the NHS has backed off, saying that ‘no decisions’ had yet been taken and that a range of options are being considered to delivery ‘better health services’ for local people. These new ‘options’ would be consulted on with local people next September – general and local elections safely out of the way!

That timing makes me suspicious – and all the more so after seeing a new document put out by North Central London NHS dated January 2010 and titled ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. Reading between the lines of the repeated emphasis given to how emergency cases can be handled via NHS Direct, local pharmacies and GPs, plus the reference to the most appropriate care not necessarily being the nearest, the document reads like a carefully worded preparation to cutting back on A&E after all – dressed up in warm words about other services.

Also lacking from the document is an appreciation of the human dimension of A&E and health care more generally. The judgements about what the “best” ways are of providing care should not just be technocratic accounting exercises in measuring ambulance journey times and counting the pennies.

They must also be about the ease – or not – for patients, their relatives and their friends in accessing the service and visiting someone taken in to hospital. High quality professional treatment is vital – and so too is the support of friends and family which helps recovery immensely. Distant services curtail that support and make for worse health care as a result.

So – at the moment we have something of a stand-off. The NHS has damaged its reputation by failing to be clear and open from day one but – for the moment – we have forestalled any damaged to our health services.

We need to keep up the pressure on both our local Haringey Primary Care Trust (PCT) and North Central London NHS – so their minds are focused on what local people want and not just what the powers that be say we should have.

Jack Petchey Speak Out speaking competition

Posted on by

This year, the Jack Petchey Speak Out speaking competition was hosted by Alexandra Park School. Year 10 (14 – 15 years of age) students from all over Haringey came together to compete in the Regional Final Stage. I was meant to have been a judge – but due to a debate on Violence Against Women being put in for yesterday afternoon – it meant I would not make it for the briefing of judges and the first half of the speakers – but would be there to listen to the last half, give out certificates to all and the prizes to the winners.

My LibDem colleague, Leader of the LibDem Group on Haringey, stepped ably into the breach.

This year, 20,000 year 10 teenagers from every state school in London and Essex will receive a day’s training in the skills of public speaking. As part of the project each young speaker has the opportunity to Speak Out on any topic they feel strongly about.

And wow – when I walked into the hall – the blast of energy and enthusiasm was electric. I only heard the last six speakers but they were fantastic. They spoke without notes – and what was electrifying – was that they used something inside themselves and their experience – to make their point. Mighty powerful.

There was a sharp intake of breath when one young speaker who was making the point that young people need to think for themselves and be an individual and not just accept being what other people tell you to be said that for two seconds her brother didn’t use his brain, joined in a group committing a crime, and spent the next 18 months in prison. That brought it home.

And the young man who won was talking about how a smile begets a smile. But a frown, begets a grimace, begets a snarl, begets a fist, begets a knife. And then said that his brother was shot and died. But if the beginning of the chain that led to his brother’s death had been a smile – his brother would not have died.

Powerful stuff indeed.

Well done to all the Year 10s who took part and to all those who put in so much time and effort to organise it and making the roaring success it was.

Muswell Hill Holocaust Memorial Day

Posted on by

Young students from Fortismere School came to Muswell Hill Synagogue for Holocaust Memorial Day. Rabbi Mason welcomed them. I spoke to them about the current relevance of the Holocaust – about how hatred and discrimination goes on day in day out – even in our playgrounds. And how, when you hear anyone say something derogatory and disgusting about others – be that about being gay, disabled, black, whatever – if you didn’t speak up then you are complicit. And how important this is – and how – under pressure, a whole nation can change and become frightened into silence virtually.

Then came Joan Salter, whose own children had gone to Fortismere, and whose name was changed long ago by the American family she was placed with after the war. Whenever you hear a Holocaust Survivor’s story – you are moved to tears and you cannot believe man’s inhumanity to man.

Joan’s story was a bit different. For a start – she, her half-sister and both her mother and father survived the Holocaust – just. The tale is one of fear, hiding, danger, hardship, separation and endurance. But shining out in that story of survival really against all odds and a journey from Poland, to Paris, to Belgium, to Spain, to Portugal and to the USA, are those in those countries who risked their lives to shelter, hide, feed or help the individuals in this family.

They did risk their own lives to speak out and say that what Hitler was doing was hideous, evil and despite danger to their own lives, they would not be cowed and frightened and complicit – but stood full square to help those Jews that they could.

A wonderful story – and I have no doubt that the Fortismere students who heard it – will remember the lesson that is taught by the example of this one brave survivor.

A huge thank you to Tamara Broido and the Muswell Hill Holocaust Memorial Day Committee, Rabbi Mason and all who made this really valuable event possible.

Senior Haringey Labour Councillor defects to us

Posted on by

Councillor Brian Haley has resigned from the Labour party and joined the Liberal Democrats over Haringey being rated as London’s worst council.

In fact, I hear there have been several other Labour councillors who have made noises about joining us – but no others have been accepted. It’s not that easy. Brian made it through the panels, interviews and procedures – as we are pretty rigorous in terms of the motives of any would be defector. Brian answered all the very difficult questions.

Brian, who is one of the country’s most senior black Labour councillors, has been a Labour Council representative for 16 years. The move increases the number of Liberal Democrats seats held in Tottenham which is a key battleground in May’s elections for control of Haringey Council.

Brian said of his reasons: “Over the last few months it has become clearer and clearer that Labour has absolutely no vision of how to lift Haringey out of its current mess. It is for this reason I have taken the difficult decision to leave Labour and join the only party that has the ideas and ability to turn things around.”

“Haringey Liberal Democrats are the only party with the drive and determination to provide local residents with the quality of service they deserve. I would urge anyone wavering in their support for Labour to join me in backing the Liberal Democrats which offers a positive change locally.”

So – I welcome Brian to the Liberal Democrats – and our fight to win Haringey Council from this dreadful Labour administration that has held sway for 40 years. Labour are so used to being in power here that it has made them arrogant and they long ago forgot that they are meant to serve us – not drive us mad with their incompetence and to anger over their appalling standard of performance.

Update on publication of Baby Peter Serious Case Review

Posted on by

I received an update from the Information Commissioner on progress (or not) on my request for the Serious Case Review (the document compiled immediately after Baby Peter’s death) to be published.

Subject: Information Commissioner’s Office[Ref. FS50234513]

Dear Ms Featherstone,

 Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Complaint about the London Borough of Haringey – FS50234513

As you know, we have been considering whether we are in a position to make a final decision. In December, we decided that it would be necessary to arrange a meeting to discuss some of the issues raised by this case involving some senior staff members. Unfortunately, due to work commitments just before and after the Christmas break, it has not been possible to arrange this meeting until now. We expect the meeting to take place next week and before the end of January. I hope you will accept our apologies for this delay. I will update you again as soon as possible.

 At least I feel they are looking properly at my request – as Ed Balls disagrees with me vehemently. I think if your read the following original post – tell me if you think I am right – or whether Ed Balls is right to want to keep this under wraps. His chief argument is that staff will not speak if they know the Serious Case Review will be published. My view is that it is a duty to speak out and that if there were a public inquiry or tribunal – they would have to under oath.

This was my original post on the issue – in full as link didn’t seem to be working.

Serious Case Review – Baby Peter and Beyond

I have been trying, ever since Baby Peter’s tragic case, to get the Serious Case Review published. A Serious Case Review (SCR) is produced after any such case by the agencies involved in that child’s care. It tells the chronological story of who did what and when. It is an invaluable document – but it is kept secret. An Executive Summary is published – but that really doesn’t tell anything like the whole story.

I have been battling to change this – so that SCR’s can be published. In Baby Peter’s case I have asked the Information Commissioner to publish the SCR for Baby Peter. I don’t believe that the ambition of that over-used phrase ‘lessons must be learned’ can ever be fully realised if the causes and actions are hidden.

The Information Commissioner came back to me to ask for more information as to why I thought it would be in the public interest for the SCR to be published. I sent him my reasons – which I paste below – and now the Information Commissioner is going back to Haringey Council for further information. This was my email to the Commissioner:

Having been Leader of the Opposition on Haringey Council when Victoria Climbie died and now MP in half of Haringey during the Baby P tragedy – I have come to the conclusion that a contributing factor to cases like these (and others) is the secrecy, the closing ranks culture and the lack of transparency.

The Serious Case Review (version 1) which I was allowed to read virtually under lock and key in the Department of Education (where I could not make notes or record any part of the document) was an eye opener to me. The executive summary of the same document which is published did not reflect the key problems, in my view, that were at least part-causal in the eventual tragedy.

The thing that struck me most was the litany of casualness with which people did their jobs (appointments missed, not followed up; files lost, handovers not done, meetings not attended). There was a litany of failures like these at every level, virtually by every person and every agency. I think that most people would expect that once a child is on the protection register and their case being brought to the Safeguarding Board – that there would be a rigour about all aspects connected with them.

This casualness and lack of care is only really demonstrated if you get to read the whole document. It does not come through in the summary and itself is cumulatively causal in my view.

Literally hundreds of professionals across the country emailed me about their knowledge and experience – as did the general public. I believe that the phrase which is dragged out ‘lessons will be learned’ won’t be fully possible if the facts of the case and the failures in the case are kept hidden. As I say, the Executive Summary, does not reveal the extent of the small, but cumulative failures – which I believe many professionals would recognise in their own fields and therefore be able to do something about. Therefore it must be in the public interest to be able to see the whole document.

Simply issuing another 150 Laming-like recommendations every time a tragedy happens simply adds procedures that take professionals away from their work without ever being able to see the why and wherefore of such recommendations – nor to judge or be able to critique the new ways from an informed position. The issues are kept between local authority, the other agencies and the Government – so keeping out those who would, could and should benefit from reading the whole story.

I am not an expert nor a professional – but unless and until we really open out all the issues around cases such as these – there will continue to be an air of defensiveness and self-protection which work against the safety and well-being of children at risk.

Social workers need to work in an atmosphere of support and good management – which can only come from opening up the real events, letting them stand there for all to see – and those in the professions taking those lessons away.

The argument Ed Balls makes to me against publishing the Serious Case Review (s) is that staff would not speak freely if they knew that what they said might be published. My view is that anyone working in any field where there is such an event has a duty to speak and say what happened. They would have to if the case goes to public inquiry or hearing. Names and personal information should be anonymized. It was anyway in the SCR I read and social workers were referred to as social worker 1 or social worker 2. It is also the case that quite a lot of time elapses between the event and the publication as the SCR is written immediately (usually) and the case and the trial and exposure comes much later.

OFSTED did an audit of Serious Case Reviews and found that nearly two thirds, I believe, were inadequate. So – additionally – this would not have come to light without OFSTED’s exposure. If they were published – these inadequate SCRs would have been exposed much earlier. So – whilst the Serious Case Review I am most concerned about is obviously the Haringey one – it is clear there is a wider issue too.

So – I believe it is totally in the public interest for the Serious Case Review to be published. Secrecy, lack of transparency and openess and closing ranks are at the heart of the problem in Haringey.

I hope you find in favour of publication.

Kind regards
Lynne Feathestone

Press the Press Complaints Commission

Posted on by

Over on Liberal Democrat Voice, Mark Pack has posted about a bloggers’ campaign to propose five changes to the Press Complaints Commission’s Editors’ Code of Practice. The Commission is currently reviewing its code – so let’s all strike while the iron is hot. You can read the post here with all the details of the five proposed changes to the code and links to sign up to the petition.